If you love America stay home

[Billo_Really]

Oh, now isn't this grand? “It was the most brutal arrest I’ve ever experienced in my life. I thought I was going to die.”

The most brutal arrest I've ever experienced? Sounds like he's had a lot of those experiences in order to make such a comparison. How many arrests was he comparing that to? four, six, ten????

Well......I read the article and there is only one mention of being pepper sprayed while being subdued, and no, he was not in handcuffs. It was his word alone and no other accounts to support his story........at least not by the article you posted.

Reporters are no angels either. They would sell their soul to the devil for a good story.....even if they had to make it up. I don't know if he was actually pepper sprayed (and neither do you) but if he was, it was likely he was trying to fight with the officer.

Why do you choose to believe things with no evidence leading you to that conclusion? That is the same as thinking things for no apparent reason.

The article didn't say he was "being" subdued, it says he "was" subdued, and then, was pepper sprayed. And you think the fact that he was a reporter made it okay?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh, now isn't this grand? “It was the most brutal arrest I’ve ever experienced in my life. I thought I was going to die.”

The most brutal arrest I've ever experienced? Sounds like he's had a lot of those experiences in order to make such a comparison. How many arrests was he comparing that to? four, six, ten????

Well......I read the article and there is only one mention of being pepper sprayed while being subdued, and no, he was not in handcuffs. It was his word alone and no other accounts to support his story........at least not by the article you posted.

Reporters are no angels either. They would sell their soul to the devil for a good story.....even if they had to make it up. I don't know if he was actually pepper sprayed (and neither do you) but if he was, it was likely he was trying to fight with the officer.

Why do you choose to believe things with no evidence leading you to that conclusion? That is the same as thinking things for no apparent reason.

The article didn't say he was "being" subdued, it says he "was" subdued, and then, was pepper sprayed. And you think the fact that he was a reporter made it okay?

Do you think the fact that he was a reporter makes him honest?

Talk about believing things with no evidence, this guy makes an unsubstantiated claim, and you say it's Gospel. The article said he was subdued because he claimed he was subdued. No evidence of this whatsoever.

So let's see this poor soul take his case to court. Let's seem him try to press charges against the officer that supposedly pepper sprayed him for no reason. Let's see him try to sue the police department over his claim.

 

[Billo_Really]

Do you think the fact that he was a reporter makes him honest?

That's not what I asked you. I asked "YOU" why "YOU" believe something, when there is no evidence taking you to that conclusion?

Talk about believing things with no evidence, this guy makes an unsubstantiated claim, and you say it's Gospel.

You have no evidence indicating it was "unsubstantiated", yet you choose to believe it was. And you also choose to dismiss the testimony of an eye witness who was at the seen.

The article said he was subdued because he claimed he was subdued. No evidence of this whatsoever.

He's an eye witness, asshole. Where's you evidence indicating he was not telling the truth?

So let's see this poor soul take his case to court. Let's seem him try to press charges against the officer that supposedly pepper sprayed him for no reason. Let's see him try to sue the police department over his claim.

This is the problem. Pricks like you will jump through hoops to defend cops no matter what they did. Pricks like you are the reason 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis. Because average Germans kept defending their actions and refusing to believe the horror that was unfolding in front of their eyes. Just like you refusing to believe the horror unfolding in front of yours.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You have no evidence indicating it was "unsubstantiated", yet you choose to believe it was. And you also choose to dismiss the testimony of an eye witness who was at the seen.

Somebody sticking up for one of their own kind is not evidence of anything. Any pictures? Any treatment by a hospital or doctor confirming his story? Any video? My evidence is there is no evidence that this ever took place yet alone the way he stated it took place.

He's an eye witness, asshole. Where's you evidence indicating he was not telling the truth?

Oh please with this failed liberal strategy asking people to prove a negative. Hey! Michelle Obama is really a guy. Prove that wrong.

This is the problem. Pricks like you will jump through hoops to defend cops no matter what they did. Pricks like you are the reason 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis. Because average Germans kept defending their actions and refusing to believe the horror that was unfolding in front of their eyes. Just like you refusing to believe the horror unfolding in front of yours.

There is no horror.....only in your mind. If an officer does something illegal (with evidence to prove so) I will be the first to call him or her out on it.

 

[Billo_Really]

Somebody sticking up for one of their own kind is not evidence of anything. Any pictures? Any treatment by a hospital or doctor confirming his story? Any video? My evidence is there is no evidence that this ever took place yet alone the way he stated it took place.

A judge would not even allow your frivolous comments to be entered into the record, because you have nothing to show that would validate your objections.

Oh please with this failed liberal strategy asking people to prove a negative. Hey! Michelle Obama is really a guy. Prove that wrong.

Once I provided a link as proof of my claim, the burden of proof shifts to the objector to provide contrary evidence to justify their objection. Failing this, your comments would not be allowed in a court of law.

There is no horror.....only in your mind. If an officer does something illegal (with evidence to prove so) I will be the first to call him or her out on it.

And you're a fucking liar!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A judge would not even allow your frivolous comments to be entered into the record, because you have nothing to show that would validate your objections.

Just like a prosecutor would never forward a case to court based on what somebody said with no evidence to support their claim.

Once I provided a link as proof of my claim, the burden of proof shifts to the objector to provide contrary evidence to justify their objection. Failing this, your comments would not be allowed in a court of law.

A link doesn't mean anything. A link about what somebody "said" Hey! I have a link that somebody said the world was supposed to end last week. Because I provided a link to what somebody said, did that make it true?

 

[Billo_Really]

Just like a prosecutor would never forward a case to court based on what somebody said with no evidence to support their claim.

Then why did you go forward prosecuting your claim without any evidence?

A link doesn't mean anything. A link about what somebody "said" Hey! I have a link that somebody said the world was supposed to end last week. Because I provided a link to what somebody said, did that make it true?

That depends. Was it in a thread about the US and Russia unloading their ICBM's on each other just a week before?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Then why did you go forward prosecuting your claim without any evidence?

I didn't make a claim--you did. I simply said you didn't have a legitimate claim.

That depends. Was it in a thread about the US and Russia unloading their ICBM's on each other just a week before?

No, it was about a Bible expert claiming the earth was going to get shattered by a meteorite. In any case, just because somebody makes a claim doesn't make it true; especially when they have no evidence to support their claim.

When the police use pepper spray, it's to subdue a suspect. After the cuffs are on, the police or paramedics clean the spray out of the suspects eyes. It's not something that's easily overlooked in a public setting. Afterwards, the effect of the pepper spray are evident for some time. It makes you look like you spent half of the day crying.

I seen no photos of anything like that by this reporter. Given the fact that most people have cell phones with video and picture capability, I have some serious doubts that this happened with nobody taking pictures or videos either during or after the supposed event.

 

[Billo_Really]

I didn't make a claim--you did. I simply said you didn't have a legitimate claim.

Your objection to my claim, was your claim. You said I didn't have a legitimate claim without any evidence leading you to that conclusion.

No, it was about a Bible expert claiming the earth was going to get shattered by a meteorite. In any case, just because somebody makes a claim doesn't make it true; especially when they have no evidence to support their claim.

Right. And you had no evidence to support your objection.

When the police use pepper spray, it's to subdue a suspect. After the cuffs are on, the police or paramedics clean the spray out of the suspects eyes. It's not something that's easily overlooked in a public setting. Afterwards, the effect of the pepper spray are evident for some time. It makes you look like you spent half of the day crying.

This issue is about someone being pepper sprayed AFTER he was subdued.

I seen no photos of anything like that by this reporter. Given the fact that most people have cell phones with video and picture capability, I have some serious doubts that this happened with nobody taking pictures or videos either during or after the supposed event.

Again, once I provided the link to corroborate my claim, the burden of proof shifts to the objector to show evidence their objection is not frivolous. Which you have failed to do.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Your objection to my claim, was your claim. You said I didn't have a legitimate claim without any evidence leading you to that conclusion.

Exactly, you don't. You can't make claims with no other support than "somebody said so" and call it evidence.

Right. And you had no evidence to support your objection.

Sure I do. You cont' have any empirical evidence to support your claim, therefore I can make the case that your claim is extremely questionable.

This issue is about someone being pepper sprayed AFTER he was subdued.

Yes it is, and you provided no evidence that this happened.

Again, once I provided the link to corroborate my claim, the burden of proof shifts to the objector to show evidence their objection is not frivolous. Which you have failed to do.

Providing a link is not evidence, especially when your link is nothing but hearsay.

 

[rightwinger]

Isn't it easier to just boycott Trump?

 

[Billo_Really]

Exactly, you don't. You can't make claims with no other support than "somebody said so" and call it evidence.

He was more than a somebody, he was an eye-witness who was there. You, on the otherhand, were not there. And you've offered no evidence of your own to prove otherwise, just your own frivolous objection that a judge would not even allow you to make in a court of law. You have to prove your objection has merit, which you haven't done.

Sure I do. You cont' have any empirical evidence to support your claim, therefore I can make the case that your claim is extremely questionable.

I provided the testimony of an eye-witness. You haven't provided jack shit to back up your claim.

Yes it is, and you provided no evidence that this happened.

Again, I provided the eye-witness who was pepper sprayed. You've provided nothing and are trying to act like you just said something.

Providing a link is not evidence, especially when your link is nothing but hearsay.

Eye-witness testimony in the 1st person, is not hearsay. Hearsay is someone else saying what the eye-witness said.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

He was more than a somebody, he was an eye-witness who was there. You, on the otherhand, were not there. And you've offered no evidence of your own to prove otherwise, just your own frivolous objection that a judge would not even allow you to make in a court of law. You have to prove your objection has merit, which you haven't done.

Did you know I have the ability to grow wings and fly? I've done it several times. I'm an eye witness to it. Now prove me wrong.

 

[Billo_Really]

Did you know I have the ability to grow wings and fly? I've done it several times. I'm an eye witness to it. Now prove me wrong.

First you need to show how that relates to the story we are discussing.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Did you know I have the ability to grow wings and fly? I've done it several times. I'm an eye witness to it. Now prove me wrong.

First you need to show how that relates to the story we are discussing.

Think about it for a while. You'll eventually figure it out.