So it appears the usually lefties are opposed to a ruling on any misconduct being issued after all the information is gathered and taken into consideration, and evaluated according to the requirements of the law. Why am I not surprised to see the left quickly banding together into something that looks a lot like a racially-motivated lynch-mob that is passionately ready to pronounce sentence on this officer outside the process of the law?
Why is there so much talk about this? The cop was obviously wrong and should be punished if not fired over the incident, the kids should have followed instructions, but they are kids....can't really expect them to do the smart thing. It just doesn't seem like there is much to debate here.
Remember all the "witnesses" in the Mike Brown case? Lots of liars. A "perjury fest". http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/darren-wilson/ferguson-perjuryfest-786930
Wow... You honestly see a left vs right issue here? Last time I checked bobbythegreat and Bandwagoner are no 'lefties'. So what more information do you need of the 14 year old girl who was commanded to walk away which she did while talking back. If you believe language is enough for an officer to assault a 14 year old girl, then you are a lost cause.
Okay, so how does that have anything to do with assaulting a 14 year old girl because she was bad mouthing a cop while she was walking away which the officer commanded explicitly? Is a cop having his feelings hurt warrant a physical assault on a 14 year old girl in a bikini? Again answer me this question. What did the officer prevent when he charged at the 14 year old girl in a bikini and took her down by her hair? You haven't even acknowledged the question. I have asked you now three times.
So your position is he is "guilty" and must be sentenced according to the expectations of the racially-motivated, media-led mob, independent of the requirements of the law. I get that. What you do not seem to get is that law and order conservatives such as myself are not saying he is "innocent," effectively taking the polar opposite position from you. Instead, what we are saying is that the officer should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law, after gathering and considering all the relevant information (not just the parts that you want to focus on) and allowing for a transparent, fair and balanced hearing, with all the appropriate oversight that is necessary. What we are looking for here is the best justice we can get under our current legal system. Up until this moment you have presented yourself as not understanding this important point. If after being informed about this as you have been here, if you feign ignorance again, it will be a blatant act of dishonesty by you and I will call you out on it. So if the officer is guilty of wrongdoing, as he very well may be, then he should be held accountable to the standards and requirements that apply to him in this situation, even if you and the rest of the leftist lynch-mob do not consider that to be sufficient.
Wait.. what? What a ****ing straw man. What exactly have we 'lefties' stated that should be done to the officer that warrants a ****ing diatribe on some tangent about the 'liberal agenda'? Did I say anything about racially motived? This cop doesn't deserve a LE position. He should be prosecuted for assault on a minor also. Yes, we all agree, let the courts decide. What the **** are you b****ing about?
Can't believe I missed that little gem. Seriously, Mojoman, do you actually believe any 'leftist' here actually even at once implicitly or explicitly suggested that we should skip the justice system and throw him in prison and throw away the key?
That's amusing, given your guilty verdicts on all things related to Hillary Clinton without any investigations needed.
Here's the thing. In a debate, it is completely reasonable to make a claim on what OUGHT to happen and make a claim on a prediction of what will happen once all is settled. That is what we do in situations like this. We watch a video, and from that video we make educated guesses on what the likely outcome is and what the individual parties in the conflict deserve. Everyone does this. Mojoman does this. Of course he will accuse Hillary of wrongdoings because he is making a 'educated' guess in HIS perspective. I mean what is the point of these threads if the only response that is acceptable is "No sufficient evidence, no point in any further comments"? Posters like Mojoman and Bigtexxx are using this rhetoric as a cop out. That is all. Yes, hopefully the justice system will hash things out accordingly. No one is denying the cop's right to a fair trial. However, we has bystanders can make educated guesses on what ought to happen.
So again I'll ask Bigtexxx. What did the officer prevent by taking down a 14 year old girl who was in the process of walking away from the scene, a command that the officer gave her himself in the first place?
If you try to pretend going forward that people who are presenting a law and order position are insisting that the officer is innocent or should not be held accountable, that will be a lie, as you will be well aware, and I will call you out in that. Consider yourself warned. Your assertion that the officer should lose his job for this is very possibly excessive, and depending on what the standards of police conduct in Dallas are, it is very possibly not going to happen. The fact that you would jump to the conclusion that this officer should he fired and be subject to criminal charges based on this one video, and apparently without any consideration of: What the officer's responsibilities were here, What the actual situation was that led up to this incident was, What the standards of police behavior are in Dallas for a situation like this, What the established penalties are for the specific inappropriate conduct the officer engaged in (if any), and With regards to the criminal assault charges you recommend, which are very possibly not applicable here, what applicability the law has on an officer in this situation, is a demonstration of your flat out desire to condemn and punish this man according to expectations that are outside the law. Expectations which just happen to be shared by a loud media-led, racially-motivated mob, which we have seen prematurely formed and riled up in several other incidents over the last few years. It is very possible that this is all handled in a police officer disciplinary hearing, and never goes to trial, by the way. And that is not a wrong way to handle this just because you and the rest of the mob that shares your knee-jerk, half-baked views on this disagree.
Investigations are needed on Hillary, which unless I am mistaken, you actually disagree with. They are necessary and in many cases ongoing. I support these investigations. Are there any of these investigations of Hillary that you support? It is my position that her conduct in these matters, combined with her utter lack of any substantial accomplishments recommending her for the position of President of the United States undermine her claim to be worthy of the trust and confidence that the American people would expect to want to have of someone serving in this role. Perhaps you have forgotten, but the office of the presidency is not an entitlement. She does not get to be president by default. There can be only one, and if she is not the best choice for the job, which in my opinion she very certainly is not, then she should not be the next president.
Lot of conjecture in your assertions. Let me explain it to you as if you were 5. What would happen to me if I decided to take down a 14 year old girl in her bikini by her hair and physically restrain her? I would be prosecuted for assault on a minor and since it's a female that is barely dressed I could be also charged with sexual assault. Now the onus is on the LE officer to prove that his take down of the 14 year old girl was warranted. If it wasn't then the officer should be held to the same standard as a civilian who takes down a 14 year old girl. Here is what is certain from watching the video 1. The 14 year old girl was communicating with the officer possibly using foul language but we cannot hear exactly what she is saying. She is amongst a group of other girls who are doing the same. 2. The officer tells all of them to disperse multiple times 3. The girls disperse INCLUDING the girl who was eventually assaulted. She was having some words with the officer in the process but she was performing the command the officer gave her. 4. The officer went OUT OF HIS WAY and charged at the girl who was clearly about to leave and slammed her to the ground by tugging her hair and was pinning her down and violating her. Please tell me what further information that you require as a third party commentator to warrant a opinion that the cop needs to be prosecuted? DO you believe that verbal language warrants assault? My judgement of him not deserving of being a LE officer is of my own. You can disagree with me, but please... warning me to stop? How the **** are you going to enforce your warning mojoman? By ignoring me? Please I insist that you do. You are the one turning this into a Left vs Right poo flinging mess. No one before you was making this into a conservative vs liberal debate. Just stop it to prevent further embarrassment of yourself. If that is the paradigm you see everything as(left vs right, Conservative vs liberal, Democrat vs Republican), I pity you. There is more to life than political affiliation.
I fully support investigations, as long as they are not witchhunts. I generally prefer FBI ones over Congressional ones for that reason, though both have a place. ... without waiting for results of any investigation. Or, in the case of all the investigations that have occurred (say, 8 different ones on Benghazi), despite the results of investigations disagreeing with what you want to believe. Very law & order of you. Nor is having a job as a cop.
