Posted on 12/05/2014 5:58:11 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
There is some good debate and conversation happening in the wake of the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases. But there is also plenty of nonsense. Consider this gem from the New York Times editorial of this morning about police arrests: "there can never be a justification for any lethal assault on an unarmed man." How absurd.
In Ferguson, there is evidence that Michael Brown was attempting to wrest the officer's gun away. Should Darren Wilson have waited until Brown was successful before defending himself? Whatever the facts from Staten Island, if a single officer finds himself in a struggle with a suspect the size of Eric Garner, is he not entitled to fight for his own life?
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Liberal claptrap from the New York Times. Ping to Today show list.
Bottom line, the officer did not use a ‘choke hold’. The method he used was taught in the academy.
“During his testimony before the grand jury, Pantaleo denied using a chokehold on Garner, saying he applied “a takedown move as he was taught in the [Police] Academy,” London said.”
“He testified in the grand jury that he utilized the techniques that he was trained with in the police academy,” Pantaleo’s attorney, Stuart London, told CBS2’s Kramer. “He was attempting to do a take-down move, which he was taught in the academy. He never intended to apply any force to the individual’s neck, and any contact with the neck was incidental.”
Exactly. If the unarmed person is Chuck Norris then I want a howitzer.
These Ivory Tower liberals are laughable..
I don’t know how accurate this is, but we watch those cop shows, and we see the law enforcement officers draw their weapons, and the perp takes off running, chased by the officers, who have to catch him and wrestle him down because he knows they can’t shoot him.
What’s the point of arming officers if they can’t use their weapons when someone is resisting arrest? “Stop, or I’ll yell stop again.”
Eggs-zactly!
Michael Brown WAS NOT UNARMED!
Legally, whenver two individuals are fighting for possession of a weapon, both are deemed to be in possession until that fight is concluded.
So an 5’5” armed woman has no right to shoot the 6’5” brute attempting to rape her?
I can only hope that all the morons who think this way are the ones who are first to be attacked by some of these “unarmed” thugs they defend.
It’s too bad that the Bosnian man who was beat to death by “teens” with hammers wasn’t armed.
So women should just submit to being raped?
You're going to need it.
Some folks just need to spend a few minutes in a locked room with a mean fellow with nothing to lose that outweighs them by, say, 100 pounds.
She can shoot off her mouth, or put on her anti-rape face...
An arrest was made of a very large man that chose to resist. His body, unfortunately was not actually capable of fulfilling his mind's desire. The effort of resisting was more than his heart and lungs could stand
He was pitifully ignorant. All over the country his "people of color" have been delivering the message of salvation by the tens of thousands
The LIBs at the times are such ignorant asshats. May they and their fanmily experience an “unarmed” thug attacking them.
So when do you find out if they are unarmed? Before or after you are dead.......
Or she can do the RINO thing and say, “please sir, may I have some more?”
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.