Posted on 08/10/2006 9:24:31 PM PDT by freepatriot32
JBTs for the lose!
You did good, brother.
All I needed to see to know that you have NO idea what you're talking about...
"Pain compliance" is a court tested and approved means of clearing leftist rabble (is there any other kind?) off the street.
Sad that you seem to support the DU cause...
I don't either.
"Don't get around, let them see it" while grinning ear to ear. This woman was looking for a photo op.
APf
I disagree that the cops were wrong for laughing about it, from what I can see. I do agree that it was stupid that they allowed their debriefing to be taped. They are humans, and had to let off steam too.
And worse, they don't have the balls to get badged up and show the world how law enforcement is "really" supposed to be done.
It has been a while, but I saw one of these DU-sympathy posters who said that rather than shooting the guy holding the weapon, the cop should have "shot the weapon out of his hand."
I'd love to see one of these knuckleheads in a police academy...
Did he apologize for laughing? Yes. It was in bad taste...
Did he apologize for shooting? No. Maybe there was a reason for it...
Don't hold your breath waiting for that chucklehead to be a part of the solution, he's still whining about a DU felon ((battery on a LEO) if the urine and feces stories are true) getting her reward...
Buh bye.
Knock it off and tone it down
methinks you are about to see some higher voltage coming down your way here very soon.....
I apologize but I am really sick of these nasty hate filled people who have never done a days work in their life putting people down who risk their lives daily to protect us.
They dance when police officer's die. They danced on 9/11.
And my comparison was as valid as them calling all cops names.
What part of knock it off and tone it down, did you not understand?
There wasn't anyone here dancing when 9/11 struck.
Not ONE PERSON on this forum was cheering for those policemen and firemen who died that day.
I thought this was a conservative themed site not for liberal haters of cops.
If you ban me it proves this site is a fraud. You ban people for supporting the police but don't ban people for wanting all police officers dead.
That video is completely edited to maximum effect. The voiceover starts in the middle of a sentence and hence obviously in the middle of another, complete story. There is no link (I know it can be quickly found) so a viewer, unless mtoivated, will never read a story that says what the riot was about: how long it lasted?, were there scuffles with cops earlier?, were those three that the tape cuts to (using one of the two men's video recording) told to back off?, were they given repeated warnings?, did anyone say that the shot was at anything but the sign?, were they laughing because a warning shot on the sign hit her but obviously did not seriously hurt her?, did the protest gather more people along the way? there are multiple shots at the same time - were there more than this lady shot or were all the shots at these three people, one lady-in-red hit- etc. etc.
There is nothing clear about whether the police had a right, after warnings to disperse, to fire rubber bullets. If they did have that right then wouldn't the best target be someone witha shield? The apology by the police spokeperson later on referenced the inappropriateness of the joking but didn't admit there was illegal action.
If this was an illegal action then those responsible should be prosecuted. The tape on this is very edited to a maximum effect to the detriment of the police. So your jackboot references are certainly not justified by this particular video.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.