If Wee Wee were to ever take a dose of pepper spray in the face he wouldn't be so laudatory of the Obamaville Mobs for sitting there and "taking it".
|
|
If Wee Wee were to ever take a dose of pepper spray in the face he wouldn't be so laudatory of the Obamaville Mobs for sitting there and "taking it".
A few weeks ago, I accidently got a bit of habanero sauce in my eye and spent the next few minutes in serious pain, but I've also been tear-gassed as part of basic training and that wasn't nearly as bad. The question is what the ROE that the police were operating under permitted as far as the use of force. If pepper spray was authorized in order to enforce compliance with police orders, then the officer did nothing wrong. And if the protesters were warned that they would be sprayed if they didn't comply, then it's their own fault for not following instructions.
The police knew a few things; The poopy ones were breaking the law. They knew that the poopers failed to follow the orders of the police.
What the police did not know was the reaction of the poopers once they started to arrest them. The pepper spray had the potential of making the poopy ones leave of their own accord. If that failed, the pepper spray would keep the poopers busy and distracted by discomfort while the police made physical contact while arresting the pooy ones.![]()
This is something people like wee wee and the DUmp don't understand. It's not like the police hop out of the van and start spraying. First they show up in full riot gear. Then a direct order is given and usually given more than once. Then the order is given a final time with the threat of compliance agents(tear gas, pepper spray). Then the spraying begins. In other words, they are given ample opportunity to comply. The choice is theirs.
You are using a defense that lost all of it's credibility decades ago. "Just following orders" isn't good enough anymore.
Sometimes the rules themselves are wrong, or the people giving orders, and going along with that when you have a conscience makes you just as guilty.
Also, "they were breaking the law" doesn't justify any use of force that the police deem okay, I already gave an example of Bull Conner. He used excessive tactics against people who were breaking the law, and the excuse given was just that - "they are breaking the law".
Sitting peacefully against the orders of a police officer may be against the law, but it doesn't warrant the use of force. They can simply be arrested and dragged away. That's what ended up happening anyway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaruH5wZwDI
Here is a 3-tour Iraq war veteran being beaten by the police. He doesn't attack them, assault them, or pose any danger to the police, himself, or anyone else. He even continues backing up, following police orders.
There seems to be a brief moment, where he ignores a police order, which results in a severe beating that got him hospitalized.
They ended up, again, using multiple police to hold him down and a circle of police to keep people away, so why didn't they just use 2 police to arrest him? This is more than excessive.
| « Previous Thread | Next Thread » |