Congrats! I knew someone would pull the "CONSPIWACY card". You win the prize.
Posted on 07/04/2011 9:32:06 PM PDT by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears
A police officer has been fired after allegedly losing his temper at a cook-off and throwing a tear gas grenade at a rival team - many of whom were military amputees.
Mike Hamby, 52, could face criminal charges for the drunken attack, which happened at this year's Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo BBQ Cook-Off in Texas.
Several members of the team were left vomiting and with burning eyes after Hamby, an officer with 30 years service, allegedly flung a military-style 'clear-out' grenade into their tent.
Hamby, who was off-duty, had been drinking before the incident in February, according to police documents.
He was competing on behalf of the Pitt and Spitts Barbecue team, who had fallen out with Hamby's Fayette County Cookers the night before. The next day Hamby became so enraged with his rivals, who included a number of wheelchair-bound military veterans, that he allegedly threw a canister of tear gas at them.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
If you threw an OC grenade at a chili cook-off, would anyone notice?
not a ping
Congrats! I knew someone would pull the "CONSPIWACY card". You win the prize.
The guy was drunk - therefore his perceptions and judgement were both impared. And even IF he heard the military being badmouthed - he is still clearly wrong for tossing a tear gas grenade into their midst.
You mean as how you won the award for being as a big a moron as fired officer Hanby?! Yeah, you! There is always at least one loon who will trip all over themselves trying to defend the dweebs like Hanby! LOL! Go to it!
Hey, I agree with you on that.
“So... how does this new information change your perception of the incident? “
Why do you suppose that the officer’s version of events should automatically render him justified in unlawfully tear-gassing citizens who have committed no crime?
Point to one location where I said that he was “justified”? Oh wait... you can’t.
Second, It’s not “the officer’s versions of events”. It’s the version of events listed in the Internal Affairs Complaint, AKA the official version of events.
Are you going to pull the “ITS A CONSPIWACY!” card?
You did not use the word, “justified”, true, however, you clearly believe that the natural revulsion people hear upon hearing that a police officer abused his position of power by tear gassing non-criminal citizens ought to be tempered by the knowledge that Internal Affairs gives a slightly different version of events.
The Internal Affairs Complaint is the officer’s version of events. No government body should internally investigate ittself for wrongdoing as it is, de facto, biased.
I should like to hear more of the testimonies of the innocent, non cop private citizens who were victimized that day.
Why do you suppose the IA version of events should prompt any FReeper to feel anything but outrage at the criminal act perpetrated by this officer? Clearly you indicated that you expected that the responses of Freepers would change upon reading it.
>>So... how does this new information change your perception of the incident?<<
It shows that the guy was an a-hole and an idiot, and showed what a dangerous nutcase he is. In other words, the same opinion as before.
And I have the same opinion as before, that there would be jackboot-licking idiots coming on this thread to defend this buffoon.
In your mind, is this imbecile some kind of hero?
>>The other story says he was in the tent with the vets, heard people in the next tent over dissing the military, and tear gassed that tent.<<
What an idiot that cop was. He is a menace and a danger, and has no business making life-and-death decisions.
>>It seems that at least one poster is willing to defend even this.<<
Amazing, right? Never underestimate human stupidity.
Yep... you did it... the “ITZ A CONSPIWACY!!!” card.
BTW: Here is a pointer, when you use the word “clearly” when characterizing what someone else believes or thinks, you are only undermining your own position. Indeed, this is the reason that lawyers are taught to avoid words like “clearly” and “obviously” like the plague in legal writing. For if those modifiers were actually true, there would be no need to use them.
OH NOEZ!!!!!!! THE LIZARD PEOPLE AND ALIENS!!!! BLACK HELICOPTERS!!!! FEMA CAMPZ!!!!! OH NOEZ!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wrong.
“how does this new information change your perception of the incident? “
Not, “Does this new information change your perception of the incident?” but “How does this new information change your perception of the incident?”
What is your underlying assumption? That the new information would change the perception of other Freepers.
What has been the perception of nearly all Freepers in this thread? That the cop’s actions are reprehensible.
Therefore, why would you suppose that the IA’s version of events would make the cop’s actions any less reprehensible?
It’s rather akin to liberals refusing to criticize other liberals, down to the “You are clearly unenlightened” argument.
The good cops need to remove their bad brothers who are tarnishing their good name, just as the good Muslims need to police the bad Muslims.
You can say “wrong” all that you want, but it won’t make you correct.
Are you seriously suggesting that “it doesn’t” wasn’t a possible response to the question that I posed? In fact, considering my response to another poster in this thread, I would think that you would be more discerning.
I know that you like to hold yourself out as some sort of intellectual giant, but you are failing miserably.
“How does” and “Does” have different nuances, which is why people use the phrase and the word to highlight those nuances. Words have meanings.
In the former, you were indicating that you believed that the IA’s version of events *would* change the average Freeper’s perception of the unlawful tear-gassing of citizens convicted of no crime.
In the latter, you ask a more open-ended question, wherein the answer could logically and reasonable be “It doesn’t.”
“It doesn’t” is not a cogent reply to any question beginning with “How does”, but it is a cogent reply to any question beginning with “Does”.
Wonder how many of his arrests over his career will now be challenged due to the “sudden” exposure of his character...
anything hinky about any past arrest is now open to further discussion...
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.