Posted on 08/10/2006 9:24:31 PM PDT by freepatriot32
What part of apologizing don't you understand?
1. Do you not know what the word apology means?
2. Do you not know when you say the word apology you are saying you were wrong. [The cop did apologize only for what he and others said, but he already has admitted that much was wrong.]
3. Or are you claiming that the tape just editted some random words by the guy when he was in civilian cloths and he really did not apologize?
Or perhaps they started off with good intentions but got tired of Joe Public and his ungrateful attitude and outrageous expectations. I have met some of those as well.
Did anyone read the damn article, she was po'd because they closed down her workplace because of police over-reaction to DU protesters. Geez. Kneejerk reres on this board. (Which reres by the way, would instantly switch sides and join the secret police if the US ever became a dictatorship).
If a cop "gets tired of Joe Public" might I suggest a career change...hehe.
why would anyone defend that?
I think the statements made after the fact were typical PR. The full tape will show what REALLY happened.
And if the "victim" won't reveal the full tape, then she is hiding something...like the truth.
Cops laugh after stressful events all the time, that is nothing new. And all they laughed at was "that lady in red," perhaps recalling a kook that stood out amongst the myriad other kooks that day, who they probably laughed about too, but that footage wasn't shown.
That's Free Republic's stock-in-trade. Do we deserve rubber bullets?
I say that as someone who supports FTAA; I am diametrically opposed to this woman's views. But then I've carried many a sign that would have made a plump target, and there are probably many left-leaning Philly cops who would've been glad to pull the trigger.
It's terrible what they did, but I have to admire their marksmanship.
No. That's because we don't join in protests where the participants are in the process of destroying public property, we don't throw bottles of urine, we don't throw human feces, and we don't use slingshots to fire ball bearings at the cops.
Read the "rest of the story" posts on this thread.
My mom told me the police were my friends and were there to help me. My children are being told no such thing.
If a Klansmen went into an NAACP meeting and shot six women, would the police be out at the Klan's meeting houses protecting them from the certain riots to follow? If not, why were the police out protecting mosques after a muslim invaded a Synogogue and practiced what he had been taught? Rioting and sabotaging Jews are a real social problem here in the USA, but I digress....(sarcasm will continue in sporadic bursts. Use your g@&&amned head to tell the difference!) I don't know why not! For all the rednecked, inbred, small minded, pin headed, illogical and immoral acts of racists across America, none can compare with 1,400 years of institutionalized sactioning of violence and discrimination against other folks by even the most benign practice of Islam.
As long as the "state" spends more resources worrying about what I have done under the hood of my car and how I drive, what is growing in my garden, ensuring the erroneously assumed right of a woman to kill her baby at will, and when I buy whatever quantity of firearms than it does enforcing the borders of our country and the monitoring the activities of inbred idiots in their mosques, the "law" deserves no respect at all.
It's really a shame, because most of the police on the street are good folk. Their bosses and the politicians tend to be weak kneed, pandering idiots.
That's interesting...any evidence to suggest that this individual threw anything at the police?
I have no problem with the cops taking the necessary steps to deal with people throwing (in this case literally) crap at them. I have a definite problem with the police plinking away at citizens exercising their constitutional rights.
So we have two competing theories then:
KJC1: The officer was out their apologizing despite doing nothing wrong becaue the jurisdiction risk managers decided that admitting wrong doing despite doing none would be good to reduce the liability of the jurisdiction.
JLS: The officer was out apologizing and admitting wrong doing in hopes that contrition would reduce the jurisdiction's liability in the upcoming civil trial and maybe save his job.
Now apologies are PC to the extent that the officer may well have been insincere and only apologizing because he got caught. But still you apologize when you have done wrong and are clearly caught in an attempt to minimize the damage to you. If you have not been caught doing doing wrong, then you do not apologize.
The police do not get to shoot my daughter dead because a bank robber happens to be fleeing when she is coming into the bank. Firing after suspects in crowds is the stuff of Hollywood not reality.
Further the police do not get to punish people. The get to detain people they suspect of wrong doing. Courts punish the guilty after the state have shown they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is completely unAmerican to have or applaud the police dishing out punishment, particularly chicken bullies picking on women.
Dramatic much? The apology was for laughing about it. Nobody died, and we don't have the full video.
Tell you what, sign up to do a ride-along in your city and after that shift your attitude might change a bit.
There are plenty of "fat middle aged women" destroying this nation through the courts and the ACLU.
I think there are a heck of a lot more people to blame for destroying America than a bunch of "fat middle aged women"...with time I could name you several hundred thousand that don't, in any form or fashion, come close to fitting that profile.
Besides that, first, I am a "woman," second, not sure what my weight has to be before you call me "fat," third, exactly what age do I turn to become "middle aged"? Lastly, rest assured if the time ever comes when that description does describe me...I sure am not going to be "running to the courts & the ACLU and jump on a path toward the destruction of this great nation!"
Plus, it's just a rude, offensive thing to say and certainly not accurate...so, why, would you want to say something as tacky as that?
You are wrong. I've seen countless posts where Freepers do just that.
Not interested, being brave is in the job description. If you are a chicken then don't take a job with brave in the job description.
When the speaker at a briefing says something to the effect of
"I don't know who it was, who got the woman in the red dress, yuck yuck yuck."
It's time to start to question all of the cops in Coral Gables. In addition, they are idiots providing propaganda material to the idiot peackniks.
Yeah, why do a ride-along when you can judge from a safe distance?
I think all cop-haters/judgers/knee-jerkers should do ride-alongs before they cast judgment, because even then you only get a microscopic view into reality, but it's better than nothing. You choose nothing but judgment.
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.