[willamedwardwallace]

You make more logical fallacies in your response. Quite ignorant of you.

The “eyewitness” is the only one caught in a lie. He told the media one story at the beginning, and then changed his story later on.

Other than that, you don’t have a clue about what happened, so you make assumptions filtered through your hatred for police.

By the way, the military are also government employees, so we should automatically discount what they say when they are charged by liberals with war crimes, right?

See the irony there?

[microgood]

You make more logical fallacies in your response. Quite ignorant of you.

You do not even know what a logical fallacy is.

The “eyewitness” is the only one caught in a lie. He told the media one story at the beginning, and then changed his story later on.

He never claimed the policeman was drug anywhere.

Other than that, you don’t have a clue about what happened, so you make assumptions filtered through your hatred for police.

The cop's claim that she rolled up the window and drug him down the street is undoubtably a lie. Absolutely no doubt about that unless they can prove she is a crazed meth addict, which I am sure they are working on now.

By the way, the military are also government employees, so we should automatically discount what they say when they are charged by liberals with war crimes, right?

We do not automatically discount everthing a government person says unless it is an obvious lie as in this case.

[Altariel]

I made no logical fallacies. Personal attacks, on the other hand, are a sign that one has failed to think through his position logically.

Why should we believe the story of a government employee who is personally responsible for the murder of a law-abiding, *not detained* private citizen? Why should we not view it with as much skepticism as any other criminal’s version of events?