Iraq War veteran critically injured after being hit with a grenade by Oakland Police

Vast LWC

<-Mohammed
Aug 4, 2009
10,390
871
83
New York
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #4
But not everyone will agree, I imagine...

I understand, bitter irony is not everyone's ball of wax.
 
Last edited:
We should get rid of all police they are brutal and of no use to us, all they do is purposefully harm our returning vets.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #6
We should get rid of all police they are brutal and of no use to us, all they do is purposefully harm our returning vets.

Or, maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't try to sick the police on innocent people who are exercising their constitutionally guaranteed rights.

But no, that would be too simple. I guess we'll have to stick with hyperbole.
 
We should get rid of all police they are brutal and of no use to us, all they do is purposefully harm our returning vets.

Or, maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't try to sick the police on innocent people who are exercising their constitutionally guaranteed rights.

But no, that would be too simple. I guess we'll have to stick with hyperbole.

We have absolutely no need for police, save us a bunch of money and will end brutality forever. get rid of em.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #9
I am somewhat sure PMS-NBC will be all over this story soon. Just like with F&F and Solyndra Scandal.

As you can also be sure that FoxNews will either not cover it at all, or spend the next 24 hours defending the cop who shot the guy.

Extremist media is fucking ridiculous on both sides.
 
As a veteran, it does to me.

I feel it's particularly upsetting that someone should survive two tours in Iraq, only to be critically injured by police for exercising their constitutional rights after returning home.

I'm sorry but it was not his constitutional rights if the police were taking action against them.At least I believe they had to have done something to warrant the police actions. To be plain so that you understand me perfectly clear; what is it that you nor your video are telling us? What is it that started the actions taken by the police? If these people were told to vacate the area or had been throwing things at the police, or painting buildings, then they had crossed the line.......

As far as the Veteran, he should have known better.
 
And let me just say that if this were just some story, with only eye-witness accounts, I would take it with a large grain of salt, due to the various biases and tendencies to sensationalize of the media...

But seeing the actual video is pretty convincing.
 
I'm sorry but it was not his constitutional rights if the police were taking action against them.At least I believe they had to have done something to warrant the police actions. To be plain so that you understand me perfectly clear; what is it that you nor your video are telling us? What is it that started the actions taken by the police? If these people were told to vacate the area or had been throwing things at the police, or painting buildings, then they had crossed the line.......

As far as the Veteran, he should have known better.

Are you saying government, in this case represented by the police, can't violate the constitutional rights of the individual?

And your logic is that they obviously were doing something illegal, because the government had become involved?

Circular logic aside, that is a VERY odd argument coming from you.
 
In Oakland, riot police cleared protesters from in front of City Hall on Tuesday morning, leaving a sea of overturned tents, protest signs and trash strewn across the plaza. Hundreds of officers and sheriff's deputies went into the 2-week-old encampment with tear gas and beanbag rounds around 5 a.m.

Eighty-five people were arrested, mostly on suspicion of misdemeanor unlawful assembly and illegal camping. About 170 protesters were at the site.


Looks like they were told to leave....... Looks like they refused.........
 
Looks like they were told to leave....... Looks like they refused.........

And?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Look Familiar?
 
Damn, is it that difficult to understand?

misdemeanor unlawful assembly and illegal camping.


You think the first amendment gives you the right to do any damned thing you please? It gives us the basis for our laws, laws which these people broke.......
 
Did I miss when rioting became a Constitutional right?

There was no mention, at all, of "rioting", either by police or protesters.

Not moving is not generally considered "rioting" last I checked.

Perhaps the fact that the police were dressed in "riot gear" is what confused you...
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top