Featured Calling for dead cops is not peaceful protesting!

Pure foolishness. That man weighed 350 pounds. If he was resisting arrest, the damage to the officers would be apparent.

It might be a good idea for police officers to start arresting people when they are ACTUALLY committing a crime instead of waiting .

 

So I guess this means that ------ if one is robbing a bank----if the police DO NOT arrest the robber DURING the act-----the robber is free to leave with the loot!! Once the crime has been committed---and he is not caught DURING the act----he cannot be arrested----I see!!!

What a joke!!!

:laugh::laugh:

 

The joke is police procedure. if someone is breaking the law, then arrest them. Running up on somebody when they aren't doing anything does nothing but lead to escalated emotions.

And in case you didn't realize it, there's a difference between using a weapon to commit a felonious act and misdemeanors.:thumbsup:

 

All of this explains why Sharpton is calling for the murder of cops.

 

You can resist arrest without physically harming a police officer, Zaac. If the police were arresting you, and you kept stepping away from them, or pulling away when they tried to cuff you, or squirming away, that's considered resisting arrest. No harm came to the arresting officer, even though the suspect doing those things was resisting arrest. Do that long enough and the police will eventually resort to some type of force to complete the arrest.

I've said to you that the officer in NY overreacted by putting the man in a choke hold, but I understand the tactic. He was a big man, bigger than the cops that were there. To try and restrain him from the front could be an invitation to injury. Moving in from behind and placing him in a debilitating situation increases the speed at which the arrest is completed. This situation, unfortunately, led to the man's death. Yes, this was avoidable, and yeah, it was probably over-zealous enforcement by the officer. However, if he hadn't resisted to begin with, in the form of moving away and offering noncompliance with the officer's requests, we might not even be talking about this today, because there is a chance no one would've been hurt in any way.

If the cops have information on someone having committed a crime, why should they wait until he is committing the crime again? It's common practice to arrest a criminal after the crime has been committed. Otherwise, you're basically saying the cops should only be allowed to arrest criminals in the act. If they don't actually see the crime being committed, they shouldn't be allowed to arrest anybody.

See my answer above.

 

You've been watching too much FOX News. It should tell you something about what they are trying to do when something this blatant takes place.

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1679111/fo...-with-al-sharpton-speech/#5he8XPX8ikC3TWdT.99

 

Thanks for that clarification Tony.:thumbsup:

Perhaps I missed something in the video that's been played again and again. But did they tell the guy he was under arrest or being arrested? the one police officer just started putting his hands on him but it wasn't clear to me if someone had said we're arresting you.

If not, how do you resist arrest if no one tells you that you're under arrest?

It's common practice if you've got evidence of them haven committed a crime to back up your arrest. He wasn't selling anything on that day and cities simply aren't in the business of arresting people without evidence.

They can't just arrest someone if there is no evidence of a crime being committed. They don't have to see it. But if you're gonna show up and arrest somebody after the fact for crimes you say they've committed, then there has to be evidence. Anybody produce this evidence?

 

Truthfully, you should take anything you see on major news with a grain of salt. Almost every major outlet has tried at sometime to make more out of an issue than actually existed in the first place. During the Trayvon Martin ordeal a couple years back, NBC edited Zimmerman's phone call to the police to make Zimmerman appear racist. NBC reported Zimmerman to say "This guy looks like he's up to no good … he looks black." When in fact Zimmerman said Martin looked like he was up to no good, and was then questioned by the police about the race of the suspect, to which Zimmerman replied "he looks black."

In 2009, MSNBC used deceptive editing to hide the fact that an armed man at a tea party rally was actually black. They then used the 'fact' that an armed man had shown up to a Tea Party rally to paint the Tea Party as a bunch of racists and left viewers wondering if they might try to assassinate the President.

In somewhat lighter terms, wrestler Mick Foley was interviewed by ABC in the 1990s. He later claimed that ABC deceptively edited his comments to make it appear as though he endorsed kids going in their backyards and beating each other with chairs and cheese-graters.

The media will do whatever it takes to bring in viewers, because that means more sponsorship dollars for them.

 

And this right here is why I keep telling people that there is no difference between Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Al Sharpton.

They are all stirring the pot to keep a part of the demographic stirred up which in turn, leads to more viewers,more ad revenue and more dollars in their pockets.

 

That, Zaac, is a point in which I will agree with you 100%. Add in Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Mathews, and Anderson Cooper and we may go over 100%. :thumbs:

 

Demonstrators were advocating the murder of cops. How else do you interpret "What do we want?" "Dead Cops!" "When do we want it?" "Now!"

The murder of cops is exactly what that means.

 

I concur!:thumbsup::laugh:

 

Al Sharpton hasn't called for the murder of any cops.

 

No justice, no peace is his mantra. And he gets to decide what is justice.

 

So what? Who cares? Black people are calling for the murder of cops.


By the way has shaprton said that the calling of cops by black people is wrong?

 

And white cops are murdering unarmed black men. All around the big circle we go.

Have Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Bill Oreilly and Mark Levin and Laura Ingraham and Glenn Beck said that the killing of unarmed black men by cops is wrong?

 

Is it wrong in every case? Is it wrong for black cops to shoot unarmed white people in every case ?

BTW, I already know you can't answer yes or no questions, so I await your accusations of racism, instead.

 

So you think that adding the words "unarmed black men" justifies calling for the murder of cops?

Do you assume that someone being unarmed autoatically means they are not a danger?

Truth is you do not care. You, like sharpton, just want the issue.

 

Is it wrong in every case for black people to call for the killing of cops?

Is it right for white cops to shoot unarmed black people in every case?

There's no room. Your accusations took up all the space.