tvc184

That is true and maybe unfortunately, there is no requirement to back up our opinions.

Not the least. I have spent a lifetime trying to prove things. I have probably been to well over 30,000 crime scenes. When I asked questions like, how do you know that, I usually got, “well because”. Great but did you see it or know somebody that saw it or have some kind of evidence who caused it? “No but I know…….”. So I don’t take it is anti-police, which is okay too if that’s what you feel. Maybe I look at it from a different perspective but when somebody makes a claim and then shows a video as proof but the video does not show the proof….. Some might disagree but I don’t think police departments have political agendas. Individuals do. I have worked with probably over 600 police officers that have opinions all over the spectrum (although most are in a police paradigm). In 37 years I have never seen a chief, deputy chief/division commander or even politician (like mayor) even suggest that we go to a certain direction other than concentrating on some types of crimes or local issues. There is obviously different opinions in “how” that should be accomplished.

Most of our comments are opinions. Most news articles are fact as best the reporter can tell. As examples, it is a fact that Alec Baldwin shot and killed a woman, Kyle Rittenhouse shot and killed a couple of people and used an AR-5, a crowd at a concert in Houston caused several deaths and injuries, etc. At this point whether criminal charges are valid, is an opinion. Saying that the police were arresting someone without legal justification on a political website is speculation or wishful thinking. As I said in at least a couple of places, the accusation still might be true. I don’t know but the websites you posted don’t back up the accusations I was mainly commenting on your statement that the police where arresting people “for doing absolutely nothing” which seems like a Who Wants To Be a Millionaire final answer based on a political opinion from a political website. You’re entitled to it and I have no problem with it. I was just pointing out that there is nothing on the pages that backs up author’s beliefs. While that seems like my opinion, I will stick with it as a fact. Nothing in those videos shows that the arrests were unlawful.

No but if you want to go back almost a decade, we could be discussing all kinds of stuff. Heck, let’s go back and discuss Obama’s first year…. It just does not seem relevant today.

Nate the lawyer and former police officer sums up the first week….

Typical Republican governor….. White privilege….. I was trying to preempt the liberal side. 😂

You said it was taken down for no reason but you found it? Maybe I’m missing that point. You also drew the conclusion that they were arrested for no reason. There is nothing in the videos that shows that. The video starts after the arrests so it’s easy to write a news article which is obviously slanted (but I am not negating validity), that puts out an opinion piece and then asks for donations. Maybe it was wrongful arrests and maybe their rights were violated but that will shake out in court. Opinion articles are interesting but that is what they are, one person’s opinion.

[Hidden Content]

I found the follow up on your first post. The man sued the officer individually for violating his rights. The United States District Court gave a summary judgment that cleared the officer because the man’s rights we’re not violating. That was an easy call before reading the article. While this is hardly interesting, it is a seven year old case. Was it relevant or something happening now or did you just happen to see it?

Obviously you didn’t think arson was covered under 1A. Disrupting a meeting as far as the crime.

The burn and loot stores under the First Amendment it’s a really ridiculous. Nobody has ever been allowed to commit a crime under the protection of the First Amendment. This guy violated the law, he was given opportunity to shut up and failed to do so. Maybe the DA for political purposes as well not accept charges. This is not rocket science.

Kneeled, game, Crosby 31-17

Crosby ball at 20

Intercepted in endzone.

1-10 Crosby 25 3-10 at 1:16

FG attempt is no good

3-4 from 20 pass incomplete 4-4 with timeout at 2:50

Personal foul to Nederland 27 3:50 in game

Crosby back at 50.

Now they takes it back with no flag on field.

Kickoff is covered by Nederland on onside kick.

Crosby 31-17

Sack at 15 Scrambling shovel pass to 1 Sneak for touchdown

Nederland with 2 fd to Crosby 35. Interference in endzone. 1-10 at Crosby 20. 1-8 after pass.

Crosby kickoff from Nederland 45 because of unsportsmanlike on touchdown. Kickoff is chip shot but offsides Crosby. Nederland ball at own 36.