View 28 previous comments
- Nov 21, 2011
- If I was sitting in the living room of another persons house and that person was telling me to leave, but I refused to do so, then the term "assault" would be debatable. These students were on private property and were told to disperse. They didn't.
Just because you think it was wrong doesn't make it illegal. I was asking a legitimate question in attempt to gain all the facts of the situation before I passed any sort of judgment. In California, is there a law stating this is not an acceptable method to break up non-violent protesters? It is entirely possible that this police officer did was not illegal and in fact, an "authorized" method of handling the situation. I'm not defending him. I'm just asking for the facts. If this is the case, no need to go around accusing him of criminal behavior. If anything, he is a pathetic excuse for a human being who likes to bully people.Nov 21, 2011
- It's not acceptable to attack someone just because you disagree with them
If you think it's just fine to assault protesters just because the people they protest against say it's ok to then maybe you should look at the situation happening in Syria, Egypt.
It's "authorised" to murder people there. Want that to be the next step?Nov 21, 2011
- I never said or even insinuated it was acceptable to attack someone because another person disagrees with them. Nor have I been defending the actions of that police officer. I've just been pointing out that it is possible there was nothing "illegal" about it. Argue the moral grounds all you want, but I think calling a man a criminal when he may not be only weakens your argument.
I also called to question your definition of "assault", only to express my opinion that it isn't as "black and white" as everyone is making it.
Now, what the protesters were doing was IN FACT illegal.Nov 21, 2011
- Cool story bro.Nov 21, 2011
- ;-)Nov 21, 2011