Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: smack Down
Is that kind of like asking if they are lawfully killing jews or just trying to eliminate them and some one is stopping you from doing that what do you do?
Anyways to answer your question I would suggest a tank.
I'll ignore the retardation and try and continue with a somewhat civil discussion...So do you think that there should be absolutely no limits on protests?
You seem to be confusing lawfull and justice. There is a difference.
Your question was answered by my first post in this thread.
How about leave her alone. You know like the 1st amendement requires.
Ok, so you'd be perfectly fine with me and 4 of my friends holding a protesting Al Gore polluting with his private jet every single day during rush hour in the middle of one of the busiests highways in the country, taking up every single lane so no car can pass?
I'm not here to write a supreme court decision. I'm talking about this case. If you wish to make an argmunent on how one person with a sign is less of a disturbance to traffic then 50 storm trooper shooting at unarmed civilians be my guest.
So you're going to ignore my question instead of conceding the fact that I might have a point....thanks for clearing that up.
Your point has nothing to do with this case.
You don't know that because you don't know WTF even happened before that clip, neither of us do, you even admitted that yourself. Do you even know what my point is?
"Either way, nothing that she did according to that video warranted getting shot by non-lethal rounds. Like I said earlier, the only thing that I can think of was that they were trying to disperse or move the protest and she wouldn't move, which in that case they should have taken her into custody"
Obviously it appears that they took the wrong course of action by shooting her with non-lethal rounds,
IF she was trying to stop them from dispersing or moving the protest (IE. standing in front of them while they are trying to move the crowd, etc...) they should have taken her into custody. But its not evident from that tape if thats what was going on or not. I'm just trying to figure out why they took any action against her at all....and that was the only logical thing that I could think of.