soakedsagger

You could just take some stills from it... Or post it somewhere and give a link

Would love to see you wreck that sag, bro

3 minutes ago, CJS90 said:

hot

Did you end up trying it out?

33 minutes ago, ShirtlessAnubis said:

I’m gonna piss my sag in a bit, should I have my pants above or below my bulge?

I'd say just above the bulge, to get it to spread around more

Whole bunch of us should get together on Kik or something, tank up, and show off dry and wet sags...

The point is we and the people that spread his pictures around make a memorial out of him. It makes his face and his name stick with us, much the same way that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold are names enshrined in the heads of those who would cause such misery. In the right world, those names wouldn't even register on anyone's mind except for their mother's and the mothers of their victims, but we have an entire generation growing up with those names repeated and whispered by teachers, psychologists, and politicians. In the wrong heads, they and he gain a mystique and I, for one, would rather not be associated with a monster like that.

He was a sagger. So what? He doesn't deserve the attention we are giving him. No one like that deserves such attention.

I'm not diving into the political muckfest of this thread. Frankly, if the only thing people are going to offer on either side as an argument is Facebook memes it's gone on long enough already.

With regard to the original post, all I have to say is this: he's a monster and he doesn't deserve any of the attention he is getting from all sides of the media and the political spectrum. Frankly, were it in my power I'd outlaw being able to show his face or using any of his personal or identifiable information on the news. Deleting the thread got mentioned previously and I have to agree with the sentiment, not for the political reasons mentioned previously, but in an effort to scrub his memory from the collective consciousness of humanity. Monsters like him don't deserve the attention they're getting from us. Talk about how to stop them, sure, but not by giving them the time of day and recognizing them for their actions.

3 hours ago, SkylarStormdale said:

Just another helpful correction.  I'll keep bringing race up until either the last shred of racism is gone from humanity or I kick the bucket, whichever comes first.

We know exactly what happened. Full compliance, just like you love so much, and Philando still got shot. Go figure, huh?

Gun control is not the solution. The right of the civilized to bear arms is a right that ain't to be infringed, period. I'm fine with fully automatic rifles and machine guns in the hands of civilized civilians. We don't have a gun problem; we have a racism, classism, and denial of racism and classism problem, with neofeudalism at the root. 

Breaking silence because the blocking function doesn't seem to want to work and your correction is, frankly, wrong.

The dashcam footage shows (or rather, hears, as the view through the rear windshield is hazy at best) Castile being asked for his license, which he hands to the officer. Castile then does something else correctly: informing the police officer that you have a firearm on you currently. The officer then responded properly, telling Castile not to pull it. This is when things go downhill: he then tells him not to pull it multiple times in response to something, likely Castile moving around in the cab of the car. He does this twice before opening fire. My understanding is that, according to the testimony of his girlfriend (I think, I was never sure if she was his wife or girlfriend or just a friend), Castile was reaching for his license to show he is legally authorized to carry a firearm.

Upon performing additional research, as it turns out you are not legally required by Minnesota state law to inform a police officer of a concealed carry unless asked. In Minnesota, some municipalities may hold stricter statutes but if in doubt you should inform. He did the right thing, informing the officer of his carry. He then proceeded to do the wrong thing, move around as though retrieving something.

Throughout all of this, he was never ordered to produce his firearms license. The officer interpreted (likely wrongfully) his movement as reaching for his firearm and responded accordingly. Again, a police officer is not going to put themselves into a situation where they'll be second guessing, because that more often than not will get you and/or others killed. Should he have gotten into that situation? Absolutely not. Should Castile been reaching around his vehicle after telling a police officer he's armed? No. He should have put his hands on the wheel after retrieving his driver's license and registration and kept them there. Unfortunately, I don't think we'll ever know for certain because the only person that could do so is dead.

And before passive-aggressive accusations of racism get thrown around, if Castile were white I'd be saying the same thing. I don't care if you're black, white, green, blue, or purple: if you give the police a reason to shoot you, they will shoot you. Whether or not it is under faulty pretenses.

 

4 minutes ago, Vikkin said:

US has problems with guns as they lack any kind of proper gun control law. Either you need harsh gun control law (restrict the access of them) or properly teach them how to use which doesn't mean that take your 18-year-old kid to a shooting range. I'm not gonna speak about first situation, looks at the entire EU. On the other hand in Switzerland many people own gun however, they take a 2 year military training and even tho you can have a gun, not a single person is allowed to store ammo at home only at military facilities and shooting range.

The black life matters thing is also stupid. Many case black people don't follow the commands which they given with reasons and cops aren't wanna die either so they will shoot and then the US goes nuts because a cop killed an innocent black dude. I never understood this hate against black people as Hungarian but I can imagine it like hate against Jewish people which I can see way too many times.

I wouldn't say that it's because we lack gun control, but rather our efforts have their teeth stripped away by NRA lobbyists and, as a result, we pass new laws whose only purpose is to make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding people. Because frankly, I agree: you should be required to have ownership documentation and proven training in a firearm before you're allowed to own one. Frankly, if I had my way, you'd have to keep it in a safe at all times, log whenever it is removed from its safe, and would have to consent to police searches for your firearms at any time or else lose your firearms license.

The problem ultimately comes from the siege mentality of the post-Civil War to Civil Rights Movement. Parents telling their kids about all the horrors the police submitted them to and the kids growing up with an instinctual fear/distrust of the police. It's a common threat to children in the United States: "stop misbehaving or I'm gonna call the cops on you!" The problem is that the police don't do much to scrub that horror from their past: we're supposed to hold them up as exemplars of our society and yet they're unwilling to take even the most token of action against the abusers in their ranks because that's somehow anti-police. So in the end, you have a neighborhood full of people terrified of the police and a police force terrified of the neighborhood they have to protect. Makes for a very tense situation, one that erupts into violence more often than not.

3 hours ago, Dillon said:

you have the right to refuse orders tho... especially in your own house. Forget about the park for a moment as that was in a public place. abusing me in my own house tho? That is down right nasty.  I was under the covers, in my boxers and sleeping. Sleeping. Think about that for a second. I am sleeping. I cant respond. I'm passed out n ****!  How can they say I am resisting ???

My honest opinion? Whoever told you that you have a right to refuse police orders wants to get you killed. Go ahead, see how far it gets you. Speed past a cop and, when they're trying to pull you over, see how far you can get. I mean, you have the right to refuse the order. They can't stop you.

In your house, they had a search warrant. They had a legal right to be there and to search your house for whatever it was that was listed on the warrant and to secure any inhabitants. You were asleep, yes. You were asleep and suddenly shouted at and probably reacted defensively. Logical and sane responses to being shouted at at four in the morning that, unfortunately and due to critical oversight by the police officers serving the warrant, ended in your being tased. Again, it does not make it right and, frankly, I'd've brought it to your department's Internal Affairs bureau or, barring that, a civil rights organization because that is a serious breach of your civil rights. They absolutely had a right to serve the warrant, however.

This next bit depends on your municipality, state/province, and country, but in many states in the United States the police can execute a search warrant at any time, day or night. Generally, they will try to execute it during regular business hours unless they feel that the resident(s) may, upon being notified of police arrival by a knock at the door and an announcement of police presence, be liable to destroy evidence. If they truly executed the warrant at 4am, they must have felt whatever you had you were liable to destroy. The Fourth Amendment is a very tricky thing, subject to judicial interpretation all the time. As with most things, legal opinions can and will differ.
 

3 hours ago, Admiralolsen said:

Are we forgeting Trevor Martin.  While the situation and circumstances around his death are different from what we are discussing, Trevor Martin was not doing anything that warranted his death.  Or the case several months ago when that officer, I forget rye name and the city, that shot that older African-American man who had done nothing to harm the last officer other than walking away.  I know I am missing some of the important information and a lot of the detail but sometimes, the "bad apple" police officers have been known to do things like this.  Like just now, an police officer just blasted past my house and he is here because we are tired of the people speeding in our neighborhood. 

While I do agree that some law enforcement officials have performed actions that have resulted in deaths, unintended harm, intended harm, or psychology damage, the officers that conform themselves to what they have been trained for are the ones that will be there to help us.  I have met some great officers that are truly looking for proper justice and recognize that even someone who is sagging, smoking, and walking through a park is simply an innocent and normal person.  If the officer in @Dillon's case had followed proper handbook procedures, he should have confronted young Dillon and discussed that what he was doing was illegal and, sorry about this Dillon as I don't have the absolutely full story, if Dillon agreed and accepted his fault, the officer may have let him off with a warning.  No cop should have to football tackle the average citizen unless that citizen has in some way provoked such a response.  In my opinion, officers should only pull there weapon once the situation gets to a point where bodily harm can come to them and citizens around do them. Otherwise, a tazer usually is enough to bring down a dangerous person.  

What you're forgetting in the case of Trayvon Martin is that George Zimmerman was not a police officer. He was a member of the neighborhood watch. A member of the neighborhood watch that, upon calling the police to report Martin as a suspicious individual and proceeding to chase after him as Martin ran, was told by the dispatcher to not proceed with the chase and to wait for police. Zimmerman is an idiot who ignored police directives and that should not have been acquitted.

8 minutes ago, Dillon said:

WRONG!

(AP Video)

Except this guy wasn't even doing anything.  No rights. No due process. No nothing. Just left in a coma. 

It's a little surprising tbh that this place is mostly pro cop... I am a little surprised by that. 

You can be pro-cop and anti-police abuse. The positions are not mutually exclusive.

Without sound, I can't make a judgment call but my guess would be they told him to stop multiple times. The guy refused, thus he got slammed. For the same reason that someone ignoring a cop flashing their light bar at you while driving, they have the authority to stop someone forcibly if they feel they are in the process of or have been accused of a crime. Should the cop have full-on tackled him? Not unless he was actively trying to evade or confirming that it was the person they were looking for, which it didn't look like he was. Should the guy have stopped after, presumably, being told multiple times to stop by police? Yes. Ultimately, without there being sound to the video, I can't really make a judgment call.

I am truly sorry for what happened to you and frankly the cop that supposedly tasered you in your sleep (a piece of science fiction wisdom... there are three sides to every story: your side, their side, and, somewhere in the middle, the truth) should probably have lost his or her badge, at minimum. My guess is that the cop thought you might have been reaching for a weapon in your half-stupor and thus reacted as such. It doesn't make him or her right in what they did. Same for the cop that tackled you to the ground, except they probably (and wrongfully) thought you were trying to evade. It doesn't make either of them right.

Anyone holding a firearm ultimately has the choice whether or not to kill the person next to them. Police are no different. Yes, there are bad apples in the police, as there are in any authoritative organization, and when they break the law they should be punished to its fullest extent. At the end of the day they're the ones we charge with keeping order in society, they are not above it. The cops fucked up in the video by not recognizing tell-tale signs that the man is handicapped. At the same time, the man in the video fucked up by not following the orders of the police officer and reached for something out of the officer's line of sight.

As far as I'm concerned, the officer acted accordingly given what he knew. He acted on faulty evidence, sure, but at the end of the day a police officer isn't trained to hum and haw as someone is reaching. They're trained to remove the threat because that humming and hawing gets you and others killed. That's what caused the situation in the video. There's no right answer here because everyone in the situation was in the wrong. Should police be held accountable for abuses of power? Absolutely. It's disgusting to me that the police can get away with such abuses because they're charged with defending us from anarchy and they're just as much a part of the society that they protect as anyone else.

I think ultimately the media takes sides. CNN et al. try to portray the police as bloodthirsty marauders while FOX et al. portray them as knights maintaining the thin blue line. They're neither. They're people put into a very stressful job that can very easily get them killed, it's not exactly a shock that the pressure causes this sort of reaction. It should be punished whenever it ends in abuse, but not a surprise. They're working a job in a community that very often doesn't appreciate what they do and can even be overtly hostile to what they do, generally because those communities have faced abuse in the past. God knows what it must be like to be a member of the NYPD in Harlem or a memeber of the LAPD in Compton. In the end, though, the cycle of abuse doesn't end until we make it end. Not by one side waving the white flag but by not letting our fears rule us.

1 hour ago, ackackack said:

I've done piss play with my ex before, but I'd love to have some straight sagger piss all over me.

Sounds so hot... two guys tanking up until one bursts in his sag while the other pisses his pants on top...

6 hours ago, SBJB said:

 

It would be more point-full if everyone answered with additional background info. eg If you like blonde hair; do you have it yourself, are there any blondes where you live or none? eg. If you like intelligence, are you intelligent yourself, are your family/friends intelligent?

What difference does it make? You don't need to know what my family and friends are like or whether or not I self-identify as intelligent to know that I like intelligence in potential partners. If I had a reasonable explanation for why I like what I like, I'd have answers for a lot more than just my preferences.

Taking clothing out of it, I tend to get intrigued by guys with dyed hair. I've also been told that I have a bit of yellow fever. Beyond and despite that, though, I'm pretty eclectic: so long as a guy isn't morbidly obese or is old enough to be my dad one's looks aren't really a concern.

As cliched as it is, what really gets me is intelligence. A guy could be a solid 10 in the looks but if he can't carry out a conversation with a reasonable amount of tact or if prior events prove to me his lack of intelligence I don't bother. Same with personality: I like a guy who's passionate about something.

On 1/12/2018 at 9:52 AM, SaggerMatt said:

I was walking one time with my shorts sagging.  Got worked up and decided to piss a little.  Felt really cool.

You should totally try tanking up a bit and just letting loose and soaking your sag. Feels so good...

To answer the question though, not as much a fan of doing it in public, but I could be convinced if there were people doing it with me.

Been really getting into Diablo Swing Orchestra. They got a new CD coming out in December that I'm ******* hyped for!
 

Been rewatching Babylon 5 as of late, been in the mood for some cheesy 90s sci-fi.

Name: Mike

Age: 27

Style: I have a style? Casual, I guess...

Height: 5'9"/1.75m.

Weight: 270lb./120kg.

Sexuality: Mostly gay

Hobbies: Gaming, anime/manga, most anything sci-fi, your typical nerd ****.

Location: New York, USA