Nothing I stated was emotional. The cop was wrong on the law and violated the victims rights. While that should be punishable by years in prison, the best he can do is cost the agency some money. The supreme court has been very clear on the issue of open carry.
There was an investigation and it wasn’t favorable. Otherwise they wouldn’t be paying a settlement.
“You described it as a shake down. That is patently incorrect. The fact that the town settled out of court with so little effort shows that they knew they were guilty and didn’t have a leg to stand on. It also means that the victim should have asked for a lot more.”
Incorrect on all counts.
1. I said it sounded like a shakedown. You say: “That is patently incorrect.” You have no facts to support that, just opinion. I qualified my statement, you did not.
2. “The fact that the town settled out of court with so little effort shows...” My posts indicate that under a certain amount insurance carriers, not governmnetal bodies make the decision. You choose to ignore that. Therefore your opinion, once again, is unsupported. You have no facts to indicate anything.
3. “The cop was wrong on the law and violated the victim’s rights...” Says the supposed “victim.” Only one side was presented, therefore you have no facts here either. What actually happened might have been completely different than was reported. I find it odd for people who want to put the cops in prison for years (for what?), miss the point that the man wasn’t pulled from the car immediately by the cops but asked to drive himself out of line. If the cops were all that thugish, do you think they would have let the man drive to where they were going to violate his rights?
4. “There was an investigation and it wasn’t favorable. Otherwise they wouldn’t be paying a settlement.” Says who? So many assumptions. Who was investigated? What was the result? What was the settlement? How much? Was there an apology? Was there a reprimand? Did the guy pay the ticket? Did the insurance carrier pay the amount? Did the city admit fault? Did this even happen?
You are pretty much working in a fact free zone. You don’t even need a helmet. No danger of hurting your head on one. I qualified my statements and asked for more facts. I said what it sounded like, not what it was. You had no problem seeing only one side and not the objective truth. Don’t you see how other people can do the same but on topics such as the border, global warming,being green, “social justice”, etc.?
Play devil’s advocate once in a while. Look for facts. If they aren’t there, call for them. If they won’t be found, qualify your statements.