Posted on 07/10/2002 2:38:59 PM PDT by kattracks
BINGO. Most of the breast-beating and "outrage" expressed on this thread at the cop's conduct in this way overblown incident, as far as I can tell, has come from snot-nosed brats with an "authority figure" problem, who would never let their compassionate little behinds find their way into some of the neighborhoods cops have to keep order in every damn day, that resemble WAR zones more than communities. It'd be all I could do to serve these ignorant whiners as a cop these days without wanting to quit, and unfortunately plenty of good officers have done so, and continue to do so practically every day.
You completely misconstrued my statement, although given your apparent intelligence level, I can't definitely say you did it deliberately. In normal American English, I said that the right to keep and bear arms did not in my opinion mean that either the need or authority for armed police could be dispensed with. That's a pretty simple concept for someone not developmentally challenged to get his brain around---stop trying to contort it into an advocacy of "gun control," Zop.
Ah. Perchance, then, you might explain why the suspect was not charged with doing what the cops alleged him to have done.
Oh, the "overwhelming majority" of policemen and women "hush up embarassing incidents"?
Yes, they do, given that nobody ever gets punished until someone gets videotaped doing something outrageous--such as smacking a nonresisting and handcuffed suspect. Unless, of course, you're telling me that the only times where police behave inappropriately are the times that are videotaped, thus implying that the presence of a video camera is what causes the misbehavior.
Sorry, pal, I think you've got an ax to grind with cops in general.
Let's parse that sentence a piece at a time.
Sorry,
You seem to be a very sorry excuse for a human being. I will let that statement stand unchallenged.
pal,
False assertion: I'm not your pal.
I think
A highly debatable assertion.
you've got an ax to grind with cops in general.
False assertion.
Get pulled over for a lot of moving violations?
Nope. Are you one of the cops who likes to smack handcuffed and unresisting suspects around? Or are you just a founding member of the Lon Horiuchi Fan Club?
Map Kernow: Gun control advocate"? Uh, no---I'm a Second Amendment and "concealed carry" advocate. But I don't think we can all just carry heat 98
It's a serious question which I ask yet again: Who is the "we" that you refer to that can't carry guns, or who can't, as you say "carry heat"?
Ah. Perchance, then, you might explain why the suspect was not charged with doing what the cops alleged him to have done.
I just heard on CBS news that Morse claims the reason he punched Jackson in the face was because he (Jackson) grabbed another cop in the crotch. My goodness, isn't that convenient that the camera angle doesn't catch that.
Lead balloons don't float. If they, whoever they are, think anybody is going to buy that excuse and not instead fuel their anger toward Morse and make him appear even more guilty, they are more retarded than 16-year-old Donovan Jackson.
It's not even a balloon, they're serious.
I heard reported on the evening news (ABC, CBS or NBC) last night that when Jackson was laying face down on the ground that he was unconscious. If true, that would explain why when the cops picked him up off the ground he looked like dead weight.
Ah. Perchance, then, you might explain why the suspect was not charged with doing what the cops alleged him to have done.
Gee, that's a toughie...I didn't know California law required a suspect to be charged so quickly...and me, a California lawyer, too....
But seriously, you think that that could prove conclusively that the cops had no justification?
Oh, the "overwhelming majority" of policemen and women "hush up embarassing incidents"?
Yes, they do, given that nobody ever gets punished until someone gets videotaped doing something outrageous--such as smacking a nonresisting and handcuffed suspect. Unless, of course, you're telling me that the only times where police behave inappropriately are the times that are videotaped, thus implying that the presence of a video camera is what causes the misbehavior.
Wow, you have statistics that show that? Do you know anything about Internal Affairs Divisions in police departments or what they do? Of course you don't.
Sorry, pal, I think you've got an ax to grind with cops in general.
Let's parse that sentence a piece at a time.
Sorry,
You seem to be a very sorry excuse for a human being. I will let that statement stand unchallenged.
I won't take offense---I'm honored that you exercise the same superficial, shallow judgment of me as you did of the cop.
pal,
False assertion: I'm not your pal.
Fine with me, pal.
I think
A highly debatable assertion.
Go wipe your nose, kid.
you've got an ax to grind with cops in general.
False assertion.
Not from what I see, pal.
Get pulled over for a lot of moving violations?
Nope.
My mistake---must be something else makes you hate cops then...
Are you one of the cops who likes to smack handcuffed and unresisting suspects around?
No, just one of the guys who owes his peace and safety to cops who put theirs on the line every day for me and you, pal.
Or are you just a founding member of the Lon Horiuchi Fan Club?
Did I say something about Lon Horiuchi? Or are you bringing up a "red herring" because you can't think of a decent argument?
I won't wait to find out. I'm satisfied that you're unwilling to give this cop a chance to clear himself, and that's reason enough for me not to want to hear anything more from you. Agreed, pal?
You edited my remark, jerk. It read, "I don't think we can all just carry heat and give the cops the air." Maybe the colloquialisms threw you off. The meaning is this: "Although I support the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, as well as concealed carry laws, I don't believe that all of us private citizens can simply rely on our own arms to keep public order and discharge our police forces." That is not to any rational or honest person an endorsement of "gun control"---it is simply a recognition that an armed citizenry still needs a lawfully constituted police force to keep the peace. No one but an idiot would contend the contrary, and certainly the drafters of the Constitution did not contemplate that a right to bear arms would render governmental functions such as policing and defense unnecessary or obsolete.
I've answered your question---over and over. Don't ask it again---go bug someone else.
Limp legs: resisting arrest: slamming justified.
It's pretty ridiculous, isn't it?
He or his attorney can say that but it's a crock! Most people have seen on television civil protesters at a sit-in where they go limp and the cops hand cuff them and then pick them up and carry them away. Their limp state may be deemed as resisting arrest but it clearly is not violent resistance. Being peaceful resistance, the cop is not in danger and for the cop to use violence is against the law in that situation.
What are they going to do, show an old news real from the 60s where peaceful sit-in protestors went limb and when they were hand cuffed the cops dragged them across the parking lot. Gee whiz, that would sure favorably impress the jury--NOT!
Of course if you were ever forced to bring forth proof that this boy's retardation is faked as you allege, and would have been cured by the "nun treatment," instead of what you are used to (having the court get weak at the knees like it usually does before cops who say "well, I know!") you might fare differently.
I note your comment got nuked almost immediately. None of mine have.
You deliberately took my remarks on the continuing societal need for armed police notwithstanding citizen gun rights out of context, and then edited and misquoted them. You ignored my repeated explanations, parsed so simply a child could understand them. You chewed up bandwidth and stupidly repeated a question I answered at least 3-4 times for you. You bore the crap out of me trying to twist my remarks into a "gun control" position. I don't know what crawled up your ass and died, but maybe you could go off somewhere and scrape it out. Get lost.
"I don't think we can all just carry heat and give the cops the air."
Who the heck do you think you are deceiving by claiming that the above sentence so clearly means what you claim it means in the the below italicized text
Maybe the colloquialisms threw you off. The meaning is this: "Although I support the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, as well as concealed carry laws, I don't believe that all of us private citizens can simply rely on our own arms to keep public order and discharge our police forces."
Bullsh*t
Where in that tiny little mind of yours did you every find two brain cells to rub together and come to the notion to even create the issue of whether or not armed police are need -- of course they are. As I said earlier, that is nothing but your red herring.
Zon: in post 147: Your bit about the armed police constitutionality is nothing but a red hearing -- while they are constitutionally permitted to carry it is irrelevant to the issue because nobody claimed they weren't allowed. Your obfuscation is not becoming of you. Don't go accusing me of BS and then turn around and shovel BS at me 147
I'm through with the discussion, You may have the last...
Certainly isn't "mental retardation."
I believe the old "nun-way" as you say, worked a heck of alot better than what we have today, though I think you meant it more as a little stroke. (you'd make a good cop)
I don't think we're doing kids a favor today by doping them up when they need their backsides warmed up. "Time outs" only go so far. Then when these kids get in school and they don't listen we have to classify them as having a "disorder" or "mental retardation." And wonder why kids are killing kids and adults.
And lastly, my comments got 'nuked?' By who? I've only gotten two responses.
I may be thought of as irrellevant but nuked?
(gotta put my quote at the bottom, I think it's relevant:
"No country that permits abortion will ever have peace."-Mother Teresa
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.