greybeard
Well-known member
If I had a problem with it, I would have said so. I had a problem with the part I emphasized (underlined).inyati13":1tvp06su said:Greybeard: Please allow me to do this, with your permission only. I will restate my primary point in the message that is causing you so much consternation. I wanted Gimpy to consider the following:
When officers engage a belligerent individual regardless of what the initial circumstances are and that engagement escalates, it is a moot point what the original infraction was. An engagement may have originated over someone spitting on the sidewalk but if that individual is belligerent, fails to cooperate with the individuals who are sworn to carry out their legal obligations and perform their duties, then an arrest is the next step in law enforcement protocols. At that point, it does not matter whether the original infraction was selling loose cigarettes or murder. The offender is subject to arrest and that arrest is a sacred obligation and duty the officer. His failure or inability to conduct it is tantamount to a hole in the dike of protection of public heath and safety and providing law enforcement. That the offender resisted arrest is what this is about, not his original infraction.
Do you have a problem with the message in italics above?
My purpose is to do this one step at a time. We can hit the other points this evening. I am going to be leaving the computer shortly to go back to my farm and cattle. Do I have your permission?
Inasmuch as I am a stalwart believer in the 1st amendment, you should already know I would not try to deprive you of your constitutional rights to post whatever you little heart desires, even if it is a fallacy. That does not mean, that I won't point out the fallacy of your underlined sensationalistic statement.
(I don't have to google how a grand jury works, I've sat on one too.)
Again, and I realize you have difficulty with this, but the grand jury did NOT say "NO!!!!" to a charge of 'breach of protocol, or a civil rights violation, nor did it say "NO!!!!" to whether the debate should be about those 2 issues.
As far as the personal phone conversation between you and the current lame duck president, that's none of my business. If I wanted to know, I'd ask the NSA.