Police out of control or were they justified?

Started Jul 2, 2013 | Discussions thread
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Is that true?
In reply to Great Bustard, Jul 3, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:

Brian D. Schneider wrote:

Slider44 wrote:

angrywhtman wrote:

My two cents on this....

The dog didn't deserve being shot. I didn't see it bite anyone?

You didn't see it bite anyone, or you fail to acknowledge it bite the officer and attacked.

The pedestrian should have not been aprehended for photographing the police assuming this is benign an not something else going on that we viewers don't know.

The pedestrian is an azzhole for taunting the police

Yes, the pedestrian created this whole situation, and his dog attacked. The police did not attack the dog, the dog attacked them.

All around this was mishandled by the police and the pedestrian and the dog paid the price.

Seriously? What did you expect the police to do? Let this man taunt them by video taping them, and then having his dog attack? Do you know the laws on dogs? This dog was clearly not confined or secured? If a dog escapes and attacks, then you are free to defend under any circumstances, including deadly force if necessary.

"Let this man taunt them by video taping them"

1. Video taping police is legal, he never went close to them.

He confronted them verbally.  Listen to the audio Brian.  He was looking for a confrontation.

2. That man is suing the police for previously violating his rights.

Imagine that.  I wonder what the motive is?  EASY MONEY.

3. The cop that arrested him is one of the cops being sued.

DUH!

4 The cop recognized him and decided to get a little revenge

I doubt that.  Again, listen to the audio Brian.

5. You can bet there will be another suit coming, this man will win big time.

And if he does, that will be a HUGE mistake.  I may even decided to do the same things so I can sue and get easy money then.

This whole situation of this video, (I could care less about anything previous) was created by HIM.  He stalked them, intentionally confronted them with a racially motivated remark and then did not control his dog.

If this type of action gets rewarded with huge dollars via some lawsuit, then help us all, because people will be LOOKING for ways to do the same things.  (As if they are not already, clearly).

This reminds me of the woman who intentionally spilled a liquid in WalMart a few years ago, and then claimed she fell on it in order to sue WalMart.  Fortunately, WalMart's video's caught the woman spilling the liquid herself.

People are always looking for confrontations or easy money.

We had a gentleman last year who was open carrying his weapon in our local zoo last year.  Two customers saw him and reported him.  Law enforcement removed him, and he sued.  The City paid a settlement out of court.  He admitted he did this to challenge his rights, and he created the confrontation and was rewarded for it.  That was legal!!!!

In this video, this man CONFRONTED the police officers.  They did not confront him, he confronted them, LOOKING for the confrontation.  So, please do not tell me that is legal, it is NOT.

What is legal, is to stand on the corner and videotape the officers.  Not to confront, interrupt, or make racially motivated comments.

If all that is true, the police and the city have a problem. A big problem.

-- hide signature --

Slider44

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow