…and to murder people and get away with it.
Smapti would have. You don’t disobey cops, even to protect your own child. If you do this is proof that you are a criminal as you disobeyed a lawful order by a police officer and you deserve to be shot. Right Smapti?
I forgot to ask, who is ‘they’ in this sentence? Have you gotten to the bottom of the conspiracy yet, Smapti? Don’t be shy, tell us!
We’ve been over this already - the anarchists who want the police defenseless and incapable of stopping them from doing whatever the hell they want. Stop playing dumb.
Considering that any act of “protecting your own child” in this case would require assaulting a police officer, it’s certainly not a good idea.
So these anarchists are the ones who forced the police in Ferguson to abuse black people and murder Brown, to spark the BLM movement, to force the police to stop randomly murdering people, so that they could commit their petty street crimes unmolested?
A clever plot.
So, remind me, who are these anarchists? Let’s have names so that we can root them out!
As I understand it, the dog is regarded as an officer. Assaulting a police dog counts as equivalent to assaulting a homo sapiens officer. You are not allowed to harm or kill a police dog in self-defense.
So . . . if you were in that situation you’d let your toddler be used as a dog’s chew toy?
Those 17 month old anarachists sure are a menace to police.
Considering that the inevitable result of trying to intervene is “I am shot dead for assaulting an officer and my child grows up without a father”, then yes.
No, the anarchists took advantage of a justified shooting of no consequence to start the BLM movement, to drive up mob support for disarming the police.
Some folks believe that protecting a child is a good thing.
Smapti, however, would rather feed a child to a dog.
In your opinion, if the man in this case had thrown himself at the police dog, would things have turned out better for him, for his child, or for the police department?
Only if the dog has a badge…which you know, justifies it.
The dog, in this case, does have a badge. Which makes it a police officer. Which makes any use of force on it “assaulting an officer”, with all the risk to one’s person that that entails.
You’re basically proposing that a man could fight off the police department with his bare hands and that the end result of his attempt would be better than if he’d stood back and allowed the professionals to rein in the animal.
But the movement only got support because the police were abusing people to begin with, right? So clearly the police were involved in creating an environment that allowed these anarchists to get support…so clearly the police are the anarchists! It’s the only explanation that makes sense!
We’ve solved it Smapti!
The police are only tools of the government that employs them. If your argument is that governments like the one in Ferguson ought to be disbanded and reorganized into units that will better serve the interests of their constituents, you’ll get no disagreement from me.
It is only the crime of “assaulting an officer” if the officer is acting lawfully.
But I have given up ever hoping that you ever will concede that a police officer is capable of committing a crime or violating rights.
Do you propose to prosecute a dog for civil rights violations, then?
Good point. The police were ‘only following orders’, so they’re not guilty at all, right?
Also, just to be clear, are you now saying that the anarchists are the local governments?
Nope, Most dogs do not even live to the age of majority let alone meet the legal requirements for being charged but it’s handler is very much open to prosecution.