For the FTP's amongst us

XF has.

 

I'm not anti-intellectual, I'm anti-elitist intellectual.

 

So if a cop tells a person to get on the ground, and he doesn't listen the first time. The cops tells him 2 times, then the guy listens, gets on the ground, Does he deserve to get shot or kicked in the face?

 

Orvis defends cops no matter what.

 

Sean, it gets frustrating to watch Trump make a statement that is obviously stretching the truth when it appears that he doesn't care if he's called on it or not. He knows better so I guess that may be part of his strategy. He sure seems to be keeping the media running in circles chasing what he says in an interview or public speech.

 

Orvis gives the cops the benefit of the doubt. You on the other hand give the perp the benefit of the doubt...

 

The guy is going to the ground, palms down, surrendering. Because he didn't listen the first time he should be kicked in the face?
I agree with you on listening the first time, but he listened. And still got kicked in the face. That's wrong.

 

Nope, not at all. What im saying and what i have been saying is whats wrong is wrong. If the cop is wrong, on it. If the perp is wrong, on it.

Like i said before. Most of my interaction with police have be positive except one time. I respect the police and what they have to deal with. But when they are wrong, they are wrong.

Like the cop that was murdered in the Bx a few weeks ago. That's really fucked up, and pissed me off. The guy who did is not part of the planet anymore and i'm ok with that.

 

Wasn't that right before she kicked your ass and threw you down the stairs into the basement?

 

He could've been growing hibiscus.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/08/04/cops-make-major-hibiscus-bust.html

 

Actually what you do is to immediately condemn the police when an event occurs without knowing any details of the case. You just assume that the cop is wrong since you're hoping that the probable criminal wins. In other words, just a big, soft hearted, person that's always for the underdog.
An example that just occurred locally is when two officers stopped and arrested a 14 year old black kid that was dressed exactly like the description of a car burglar, the kids 16 year old brother confronts the arresting cop and chest bumps him, and is promptly arrested himself. Meanwhile, the mother is screaming at the top of her lungs and in hysterics (supposedly) but has the forethought to be catching all this on video. I wonder where her thoughts were? Money, 15 minutes of fame, and being the center of attention seems to be more important than what her dumbass kids were doing.
I would bet a buck or two that you're immediately on the side of the mother.

 

Saw this article where Trump himself is making the claim.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/us/politics/trump-laws-bills.html?_r=0

 

LOL, I imagine that many of those members of "the general public" that would strive to be part of the oversight committee would be like the woman a few years ago complaining about an incident where a criminal wielding a firearm in a public setting was shot and killed. She was demanding that the police should first "shoot the gun out of his hand" before shooting him. In other words, someone that has absolutely no knowledge of law enforcement or the reality on the ground while doing such work.

 

Ya, so? Politifact said the statement is mostly true. What is your point?