Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Map Kernow
No one appointed you judge and jury of that cop's fate, sir, and it is not an endorsement of "police brutality," as you so primly and dishonestly put it, to insist that every piece of evidence, not simply the videotape you find so conclusive, be evaluated to determine whether the cop's actions were justified. And yeah, my "choice" of opinion is, you're anti-cop.

Does the kid get the same "innocent until proven guilty" right? If so, then we must assume that all of the posters who have accused him of being a dirtball, resisting arrest, assaulting a cop, etc., must be, in your choice of opinion, anti-black.

Or, your logic is faulty.

290 posted on 07/12/2002 7:06:35 AM PDT by Bandolier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies ]


To: Bandolier; Map Kernow; John Jorsett
Don't you two (er, make that three) just "love" it when a person jumps to conclusions or a person accuses others of things they didn't say or imply. Excuse me, I couldn't resist the drama of it all.

Oh yeah, I hope nobody minds that I included the sentences between the brackets that were in JJ's original post.

Carry on... :-)

To: John Jorsett

[There's nothing kneejerk or conclusion jumping about my criticism. In a finger-pointing contest, I'll generally give the benefit of the doubt to the cops, since most of the people they deal with aren't the most truthful individuals.] However, when presented with videotaped evidence, I'm not going to deny my own eyes, nor my sense of what constitutes unnecessary force. If you want to go on thinking that expecting a peace officer to live up to a code of behavior that doesn't include roughing people up is anti-cop, that's your choice.

No one appointed you judge and jury of that cop's fate, sir, and it is not an endorsement of "police brutality," as you so primly and dishonestly put it, to insist that every piece of evidence, not simply the videotape you find so conclusive, be evaluated to determine whether the cop's actions were justified. And yeah, my "choice" of opinion is, you're anti-cop.

86 posted on 7/11/02 9:26 PM Eastern by Map Kernow

304 posted on 07/12/2002 9:35:00 AM PDT by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies ]

To: Bandolier
Does the kid get the same "innocent until proven guilty" right? If so, then we must assume that all of the posters who have accused him of being a dirtball, resisting arrest, assaulting a cop, etc., must be, in your choice of opinion, anti-black.

Oh, did I say all that, buddy? Wanna make me back everything someone else says that you don't like?

Besides, genius, your "logic" is a total non sequitur. First, no one to my knowledge has said the kid should not be charged (if he's charged with anything) and tried with constitutional guarantees, whereas the cop has been "convicted" in the rhetoric of many herein on the basis of six seconds of video.

Second, the issue here is whether the cop used justifiable force, and whether the force he used was racially motivated. Separate issue from whether the kid can be charged with a crime and what crime that would be.

Suspects of all colors are detained every day by the police, and when they resist, they have problems, not because of their color, as so many in their politically correct fantasyland like to think, but because of their attitude, and more importantly, the risk they pose to the police and the public. That appears to be a very tough concept for many people to get their frontal lobes 'round.

Or, your logic is faulty.

Or maybe yours is, Einstein.

318 posted on 07/12/2002 11:33:18 AM PDT by Map Kernow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson