Posted on 06/03/2004 6:18:45 PM PDT by freepatriot32
We're basically on the same side on this one.
The female in the original article should have gone along her way when told to by a LEO.
I think you are referring to 137 which your 160 was a reply to. Basically, if you look at the post, you will not miss the sarcasm, especially the last line referring to calling Jesse Jackson. I was responding to the jack-booted thugs and presenting the other side.
If we are on the 'same side' why did you pick out my 'possible suspect' to critique when the jack-booted thuggers are trying to hang the cop?
And I believe that an accurate interpretation of the statement is that he is possibly a suspect. After all, the cops went to find him as the owner of a car involved in a hit-and-run accident and they exchanged words and got into a scuffle. If he were the victim of the accident, I find it very unlikely that that would have happened.
The reason I picked out your 'possible suspect' post to mention was that it was the first I saw about the Ivory case, not the one in the original article.
Let me posit a scenario.
Let's assume, just for the sake of this scenario, that his car WAS the car that got hit in the hit-and-run.
Ivory, being a police officer himself, knows how investigations on this subject are to be run.
When the other officers arrive Ivory is already agitated, seeing as how his car has been damaged. He doesn't think the officers are doing their job correctly and starts telling them about it.
The officers tell him to sit down and be quiet, he doesn't know what he's talking about, thinking him but another civilian who DOESN'T know what he's talking about and is just being a blowhard.
Heated words are exchanged and they take him down thinking he may be a hothead that's going to blow.
He also could have been a suspect if his car had committed the hit-and-run and he may not have known anything about it. Someone else may have been driving.
The police come saying you're the person who committed a hit-and-run, you're coming with us.
Ivory says, "Like heck I am. When was it committed. I wasn't even driving my car then."
The officers, instead of trying to ascertain the truth, which to be truthful isn't their job, take him down.
Either of these scenarios, IMO, is believable.
I was in a give and take with another and you stepped in on me. I kicked back. You chose your side and attacked without explaining your position.
Give me a break. You chose your side and it is the side of the jack-booted thuggers. Bye.
Surely you know my posting style well enough to realize that wasn't an attack.
I can accept that you kicked at what you perceived as an attack and we went from there.
Realize, though, that, for myself at least, opponents on one thread can be linking arms on another.
I am not an idealized conservative. I realize that rarely, if ever, will I have things 100% my way.
In the trenches I may argue about the 15% I can't have but if I can have someone who is 85% with me they normally have my support.
OK, see ya.
LOL, I like the way you put that. You may be right. Sometimes the cops are at fault, and sometimes they are not. Do you suppose we have some of those "one traffic stop away" folks here?
There's more than a few here on FR, IMNHO.
Aren't you on the same side as the JBTs?
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.