- Joined
- Feb 6, 2011
- Messages
- 3,691
- Reaction score
- 2,243
- Location
- Everywhere and Nowhere
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
At this point we have immediate concern, however. From measured quantities we saw this man get injured during a period of launching projectiles and gas cans into the crowd (a technique that apparently isn't standard for dispersal). As this is government force against our own people, I do think that this requires investigation and not dismissal. There is enough from measured quantity to assume that there is a decent chance this man was injured through police action. Under such circumstance then, we must determine what happened. We must question the police as to why the responded in that manner, was that manner justified. Since this is action of the State against the exercise of the rights of the individual, we must demonstrate the State was within proper restraint to take the action it did.
He went down like a sack of potatoes right after the big burst just downscreen.
You can see it in the video if you look. My wife saw it first and pointed it out to me, but its there. Looks just like some piece of shrapnel got him, not that he was struck directly.
If police are seriously injuring people without just cause, they need to be brought up on charges. I'm tired of the double-standard.
Which I can accept..........
It disturbs me for folks to act as if the intent was to hit him in the head with a direct shot, like that stupid Marine in this article claims.
That would be ****ty and contrary to training I'm sure. Cops can be dicks and succumb to testosterone and adrenaline. Ive seen it with my own eyes. But I don't believe this to be the norm or even common.
Nonetheless, the onus is on the police to show the correct level of response because they initially have the power to police. Now it could have been an accident where the Marine happen to be standing in the wrong place, in which case it was no one's fault. In the large crowd the shooter may have been aiming at an open spot, but accidently hit the Marine. All I know is this Marine appear innocent, but who knows. Probably mistakes on both sides.Umm, last I checked police officers are still citizens and are still innocent until proven guilty. I don't agree with your seeming implication that people who make claims of government wrong doing somehow should be believed as factually true unless the government proves otherwise.
And here you're making hte assumption that there WAS a response by them that they must prove was appropriate. My issue is I've seen nothing at this point that concludes that is the absolute case.
As I do with every other instance of a potential crime, I'm going to hold off on making grand accusations and demands for action to be taken until the dust settles enough for some semblance of real facts and definitive answer scome out.
Nonetheless, the onus is on the police to show the correct level of response because they initially have the power to police. Now it could have been an accident where the Marine happen to be standing in the wrong place, in which case it was no one's fault. In the large crowd the shooter may have been aiming at an open spot, but accidently hit the Marine. All I know is this Marine appear innocent, but who knows. Probably mistakes on both sides.
So you think he ran into the grenade on purpose?He was ordered to disburse....
He had the opportunity to prevent himself from being harmed accidentally (or intentionally if one still chooses to think so).
I don't recall saying that..So you think he ran into the grenade on purpose?
Are you saying the Marine is wrong.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?