More personal insults? Well, that usually indicates a person is soundly beaten on the facts and has nothing to add by way of rational discourse. And of course that's the case here, as you've received a sound thrashing on this thread. That tends to happen when you adopt indefensible positions. LOL.
Anyway, let's get on to the substance of your post. First, I fail to see where Mr. Darrow "mouthed off" to the cop. My review of the tape indicates he remained calm and levelheaded throughout. Second, I'm not the one who said the cop has to "stand there and take it" - you are. Remember your first post to this thread? "I agree that the cop needs to be fired." Evidently you do believe the cop has to stand there and take it, or you wouldn't claim he should be fired.
Spanked yet again. Ouch - that's gotta hurt.
Socialists hate the concept that people are free to question authority; -- seeing they fancy themselves to be that authority.
That is no more personal than you suggesting I'm insulting cops. Either limit yourself to addressing the points I'm making (rather than forming opinions about any effect they might have on others) or get a thicker skin.
"My review of the tape indicates he remained calm and levelheaded throughout."
W.C. Fields was a master at being calm, levelheaded and insulting. You're having me believe one precludes the other.
"First, I fail to see where Mr. Darrow "mouthed off" to the cop."
What can I say? That's not my fault.
"Evidently you do believe the cop has to stand there and take it, or you wouldn't claim he should be fired"
Not at all. Unlike you, I said I would expect a cop to react if I acted like a smart a$$. Sure, this cop overreacted but the kid wasn't hurt or arrested on trumped up charges. His ego got bruised.
But, since the cop's overreaction was caught on tape, he left his superiors no choice but to fire him.