Now we got white women cops killing unarmed negros.....ww?????

[PredFan]

Shitforbrains thinks the cops had microphones.

They do, and they clearly picked up the sound of the shot, but no sound of anyone yelling at him to stop. He is clearly walking to the car and assuming the frisking position as the female cop silently follows him.

In that video you cannot hear anything but the the car radio and the cops radio. You cannot hear if the officers nearest to the guy said anything. Naturally, the car cam's mic wouldn't pick up what the cops were telling him. Even the shot itself was muted to the point where it isn't easy to tell it was the shot. That video is NOT proof that the cops were not yelling at him. It is also inconclusive that the guy was assuming the frisking position as you claim. Our view of him was mostly obstructed. What little we did see could as likely been him trying to get into his car.

Bullshit! Not only is the gunshot clearly audible, you can even hear the female cop say "shot fired." \Since she can be heard saying "shot fired" you would certainly hear her say "stop" or anything else, but she and the other cops were obviously silent.

Wrong. You cannot "clearly" hear the gunshot but that wasn't my point. The sound of the shot was muted and a gunshot is several orders of magnitude louder that the human voice. The "shots fired" cry from the cop was reported over the Walkie talkie and transmitted over the airwaves that the car radio picked up.

You cannot state that those cops did not say anything to the guy. Well, YOU can, but you are wrong.

You need to get your hearing tested. How did the "walkie-talkie" pick up the gunshot when she wasn't holding the button down. The same mic that picked up the gunshot picked up her saying "shot fired."

And you need to try actual thinking.

The walkie talkie didn't pick up the gunshot, the mic in the car did. The "shots fired" came from the cops walkie talkie because she held the button down on the mic to say it over the airwaves. Inside the cop car that has the dash cam there is a radio that calls from cops come accross when they use their walkie talkies, plus there is a dash cam with its own mic. The dash cam picked up the gunshot and the voice because the voice came over the walkie talkie in the car. Did you notice that her voice was louder than the gunshot?

I don't know how to make it any simpler for you.

 

[Faun]

Unless the cops told him to put his hands on the car so they could frisk him. No one is yelling to him to stop as he walks to the car and assumes the position to be frisked, and is shot in the frisking position.

Shitforbrains thinks the cops had microphones.

They do, and they clearly picked up the sound of the shot, but no sound of anyone yelling at him to stop. He is clearly walking to the car and assuming the frisking position as the female cop silently follows him.

In that video you cannot hear anything but the the car radio and the cops radio. You cannot hear if the officers nearest to the guy said anything. Naturally, the car cam's mic wouldn't pick up what the cops were telling him. Even the shot itself was muted to the point where it isn't easy to tell it was the shot. That video is NOT proof that the cops were not yelling at him. It is also inconclusive that the guy was assuming the frisking position as you claim. Our view of him was mostly obstructed. What little we did see could as likely been him trying to get into his car.

Nonsense .... the officer fired exactly one round and one shot is clearly discernible.

Not the point.

The point is that the shot is muted because the mic for the dash cam is inside the police car. If the shot is that muted, then you would not hear the voices of the cops even if they were yelling at him.

I'm talking about the gunshot. I said nothing about the ability to hear verbal commands other than to point out the folks in the helicopter would like not have hear a word on the ground.

 

[PredFan]

Obviously OUTSIDE unless the door is transparent, or he rolled up the window from outside the car completely to the top with the door closed after he was shot.

Oh the lengths the Right goes to rationalize anything. How can anyone reason with the Right?????

couldn't have been inside and bled over and window rolled up....too easy with morons that try to second guess.

And how exactly and where in the video did the victim roll up the window?

No, it's definitely open, he even sticks his arms through it. If it were closed, you'd be able to see thine on it from this angle, like you can the front of the car. What you're pointing at in the other picture is the clearly tran-ish grey seats INSIDE the vehicle. What you're calling blood on the window is the crease in the seat.

LIAR!

How can a "crease in the seat" drip down the outside of the door and form a puddle on the ground???

Like I have said before, when the Right sink their teeth into a lie they never stop lying!

Look at the picture. Good lord, you can see the window is down.

So drops of blood disappear entirely when the angle is changed? Good grief.

You can't say that, I could be glare or just the angle. Blood can be nearly transparent if given enough time to dribble down the window. Having said that, you cannot rule out that the window is in fact open and that what looks like blood is a trick of the light. I'm not making any conclusions here I'm just saying no one can at this point.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Video Shows Terence Crutcher Lower His Hands Before Being Shot By Tulsa Police
Uh no, shots were fired after he reaches into his vehicle, if you look at the videos from another angle. On the other hand, you probably missed it because you're busy looking the other way.

Looks to me like he lowered his right arms after I hear the gunshot.

At 27 seconds in the copter video, he's reaching into the vehicle and shots haven't been fired yet.

You poor, demented loon ... he was shot at the 21 second mark in that video.

Except he wasn't, because there's no blood on his shirt, which you can clearly see at that mark. There also isn't any on the vehicle, either.

Loon ... we know when the shot was fired. It was audible.

It isn't. The closest sound I heard was the sound of the door closing, and it isn't even close. He also lowers his hands before the other cops arrive, and he was clearly shot AFTER they were all there.

 

[PredFan]

Obviously OUTSIDE unless the door is transparent, or he rolled up the window from outside the car completely to the top with the door closed after he was shot.

Oh the lengths the Right goes to rationalize anything. How can anyone reason with the Right?????

couldn't have been inside and bled over and window rolled up....too easy with morons that try to second guess.

And how exactly and where in the video did the victim roll up the window?

You can't see shit the police were in the way of the camara!

Absolutely true. The only video where you can see is the chopper video but you cannot hear the shot.

Not true. On the video where you can hear the gunshot, you can see his arms are up AFTER the shot because the bodies that are blocking the view when the shot is fired move out of the way.

Incorrect. You just want to see that. In the chopper video, which has an unobstructed view, it appears that his hands go down before he is shot. Although I cannot state that for sure since you cannot hear the gunshot in the chopper video.

 

[Faun]

Looks to me like he lowered his right arms after I hear the gunshot.

At 27 seconds in the copter video, he's reaching into the vehicle and shots haven't been fired yet.

You poor, demented loon ... he was shot at the 21 second mark in that video.

Except he wasn't, because there's no blood on his shirt, which you can clearly see at that mark. There also isn't any on the vehicle, either.

Loon ... we know when the shot was fired. It was audible.

It isn't. The closest sound I heard was the sound of the door closing, and it isn't even close. He also lowers his hands before the other cops arrive, and he was clearly shot AFTER they were all there.

That means you don't hear the gunshot which means you have no fucking clue when he was shot which means you have no fucking clue if he lowered his arm before or after being shot.

Thanks for folding your cards and pulling yourself out of the game.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

couldn't have been inside and bled over and window rolled up....too easy with morons that try to second guess.

And how exactly and where in the video did the victim roll up the window?

No, it's definitely open, he even sticks his arms through it. If it were closed, you'd be able to see thine on it from this angle, like you can the front of the car. What you're pointing at in the other picture is the clearly tran-ish grey seats INSIDE the vehicle. What you're calling blood on the window is the crease in the seat.

LIAR!

How can a "crease in the seat" drip down the outside of the door and form a puddle on the ground???

Like I have said before, when the Right sink their teeth into a lie they never stop lying!

Look at the picture. Good lord, you can see the window is down.

So drops of blood disappear entirely when the angle is changed? Good grief.

You can't say that, I could be glare or just the angle. Blood can be nearly transparent if given enough time to dribble down the window. Having said that, you cannot rule out that the window is in fact open and that what looks like blood is a trick of the light. I'm not making any conclusions here I'm just saying no one can at this point.

If you look at the picture, the line he's referring to is black, and there's no tint. For that window to be closed, this guy would have to have the cleanest windows in the known universe, and for blood to reach that high on the window, he'd have to have jumped up against it when he was shot, and not smeared said blood. The window is clearly open.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

At 27 seconds in the copter video, he's reaching into the vehicle and shots haven't been fired yet.

You poor, demented loon ... he was shot at the 21 second mark in that video.

Except he wasn't, because there's no blood on his shirt, which you can clearly see at that mark. There also isn't any on the vehicle, either.

Loon ... we know when the shot was fired. It was audible.

It isn't. The closest sound I heard was the sound of the door closing, and it isn't even close. He also lowers his hands before the other cops arrive, and he was clearly shot AFTER they were all there.

That means you don't hear the gunshot which means you have no fucking clue when he was shot which means you have no fucking clue if he lowered his arm before or after being shot.

Thanks for folding your cards and pulling yourself out of the game.

Bogus. You don't hear the shot either, because it can't be heard. In the chopper video, at the 27 second mark, his hands are down, and he hasn't been shot yet, because you can't see any blood anywhere. His body also isn't pressed up against the car and he hasn't fallen. You feel like explaining how the blood is transparent until he falls against the vehicle, hotshot?

 

[Faun]

And how exactly and where in the video did the victim roll up the window?

No, it's definitely open, he even sticks his arms through it. If it were closed, you'd be able to see thine on it from this angle, like you can the front of the car. What you're pointing at in the other picture is the clearly tran-ish grey seats INSIDE the vehicle. What you're calling blood on the window is the crease in the seat.

LIAR!

How can a "crease in the seat" drip down the outside of the door and form a puddle on the ground???

Like I have said before, when the Right sink their teeth into a lie they never stop lying!

Look at the picture. Good lord, you can see the window is down.

So drops of blood disappear entirely when the angle is changed? Good grief.

You can't say that, I could be glare or just the angle. Blood can be nearly transparent if given enough time to dribble down the window. Having said that, you cannot rule out that the window is in fact open and that what looks like blood is a trick of the light. I'm not making any conclusions here I'm just saying no one can at this point.

If you look at the picture, the line he's referring to is black, and there's no tint. For that window to be closed, this guy would have to have the cleanest windows in the known universe, and for blood to reach that high on the window, he'd have to have jumped up against it when he was shot, and not smeared said blood. The window is clearly open.

Loon ... he had blood up to his upper arm, which was tall enough to reach up high on his window.

 

[Faun]

You poor, demented loon ... he was shot at the 21 second mark in that video.

Except he wasn't, because there's no blood on his shirt, which you can clearly see at that mark. There also isn't any on the vehicle, either.

Loon ... we know when the shot was fired. It was audible.

It isn't. The closest sound I heard was the sound of the door closing, and it isn't even close. He also lowers his hands before the other cops arrive, and he was clearly shot AFTER they were all there.

That means you don't hear the gunshot which means you have no fucking clue when he was shot which means you have no fucking clue if he lowered his arm before or after being shot.

Thanks for folding your cards and pulling yourself out of the game.

Bogus. You don't hear the shot either, because it can't be heard. In the chopper video, at the 27 second mark, his hands are down, and he hasn't been shot yet, because you can't see any blood anywhere. His body also isn't pressed up against the car and he hasn't fallen. You feel like explaining how the blood is transparent until he falls against the vehicle, hotshot?

Of course I hear the gunshot. So do others. You think just because you can't hear it means no one else can?

 

[PredFan]

His arm went down AFTERF he was shot. The video clearly shows you can hear the shot FIRST and then you see his arm go down.

These idiots think you can't hear the shot because the cop was using a silencer.

Video Shows Terence Crutcher Lower His Hands Before Being Shot By Tulsa Police
Uh no, shots were fired after he reaches into his vehicle, if you look at the videos from another angle. On the other hand, you probably missed it because you're busy looking the other way.

Looks to me like he lowered his right arms after I hear the gunshot.

You cannot hear the gunshot in the chopper video and that is the only video that is remotely relevant because in the ground level video our view is obstructed.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're interested in looking at this honestly....

Both videos need to be viewed to determine where his arms were when he was shot. In the first video from the dashboard cam at 0:17, two things to pay attention to ... 1) the gunshot. Even muffled, it's clearly audible. 2) Then Officer Shelby, with one other officer to her left, take a couple of steps backwards.

Now turn to the second video from the helicopter. At about the 22 second mark, you can see when the two officers take those steps backwards. That means the shot was fired in the copter video between the 21 and 22 second mark. Looks to me like he dropped his right arm when he was shot.

I am, it seems, the only one here interested in the truth whatever that truth may be. It is still inconclusive but it actually looks to me like when he dropped his arm, the cop fired. Perhaps she though he was about to draw a weapon. I, in all honesty, cannot say which came first.

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm a big proponent of unarmed cops, who don't patrol. Let them sit in their fucking hidey holes until somebody calls them.

Seriously?

Yep, she's bat shit crazy.

Incidentally, the constitution doesn't "grant" us rights.

It protects the rights we are born with. It does that by restricting the AUTHORITY of our government, including and ESPECIALLY cops.

"
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

It isn't reasonable to seize a person for LOOKING like a criminal.
It isn't reasonable to seize a person for walking away from a confrontation initiated by a cop.

Cops need to stay in their cop houses. They don't make anybody safer by strutting around, gunning down the people they harass, assault, or just don't like the looks of.

The 4th Amendment doesn't apply to local police and certainly doesn't restrain them from protecting themselves. You're like many of your fellow Leftists thinking the Constitution governs every tiny aspect of society. It was written as a restraint on federal power. Nothing more.

The constitution protects the rights of all American people, lol.

And they were protecting themselves from..what? Exactly? Walking away?

Please let me know how many people have been "saved" via cops pulling over people for no good reason. Seems to me that a lot more people get killed by idiot cops harassing people then people are saved by the same harassment.

Timothy McVeigh got caught because he was pulled over when the tag on his license plate wasn't right. How many people would that have saved if it had happened before he got to the Federal Building in OKC? What you call "harassment" is simply the police doing what they're paid to do...enforce the law.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

No, it's definitely open, he even sticks his arms through it. If it were closed, you'd be able to see thine on it from this angle, like you can the front of the car. What you're pointing at in the other picture is the clearly tran-ish grey seats INSIDE the vehicle. What you're calling blood on the window is the crease in the seat.

LIAR!

How can a "crease in the seat" drip down the outside of the door and form a puddle on the ground???

Like I have said before, when the Right sink their teeth into a lie they never stop lying!

Look at the picture. Good lord, you can see the window is down.

So drops of blood disappear entirely when the angle is changed? Good grief.

You can't say that, I could be glare or just the angle. Blood can be nearly transparent if given enough time to dribble down the window. Having said that, you cannot rule out that the window is in fact open and that what looks like blood is a trick of the light. I'm not making any conclusions here I'm just saying no one can at this point.

If you look at the picture, the line he's referring to is black, and there's no tint. For that window to be closed, this guy would have to have the cleanest windows in the known universe, and for blood to reach that high on the window, he'd have to have jumped up against it when he was shot, and not smeared said blood. The window is clearly open.

Loon ... he had blood up to his upper arm, which was tall enough to reach up high on his window.

Except his hands weren't on the top of his window or on top of the car, and if they were, they wouldn't have blood on them, because he was shot in the chest. FURTHERMORE, in the images I linked, the sun shines brightly enough on his arms, with his palms out, they if there were blood, there would be a different shine pattern on his arms indicating blood on them, but that's absent. There's no blood on his forearms. Even further, there's no blood on the metal above the window opening, and if the blood pooled thickly enough to give us the black line in the first picture, it wouldn't suddenly be thin enough to disappear in the second image, especially given how close those two scenes are in the video.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Except he wasn't, because there's no blood on his shirt, which you can clearly see at that mark. There also isn't any on the vehicle, either.

Loon ... we know when the shot was fired. It was audible.

It isn't. The closest sound I heard was the sound of the door closing, and it isn't even close. He also lowers his hands before the other cops arrive, and he was clearly shot AFTER they were all there.

That means you don't hear the gunshot which means you have no fucking clue when he was shot which means you have no fucking clue if he lowered his arm before or after being shot.

Thanks for folding your cards and pulling yourself out of the game.

Bogus. You don't hear the shot either, because it can't be heard. In the chopper video, at the 27 second mark, his hands are down, and he hasn't been shot yet, because you can't see any blood anywhere. His body also isn't pressed up against the car and he hasn't fallen. You feel like explaining how the blood is transparent until he falls against the vehicle, hotshot?

Of course I hear the gunshot. So do others. You think just because you can't hear it means no one else can?

Didn't answer my question.

 

[Faun]

These idiots think you can't hear the shot because the cop was using a silencer.

Video Shows Terence Crutcher Lower His Hands Before Being Shot By Tulsa Police
Uh no, shots were fired after he reaches into his vehicle, if you look at the videos from another angle. On the other hand, you probably missed it because you're busy looking the other way.

Looks to me like he lowered his right arms after I hear the gunshot.

You cannot hear the gunshot in the chopper video and that is the only video that is remotely relevant because in the ground level video our view is obstructed.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're interested in looking at this honestly....

Both videos need to be viewed to determine where his arms were when he was shot. In the first video from the dashboard cam at 0:17, two things to pay attention to ... 1) the gunshot. Even muffled, it's clearly audible. 2) Then Officer Shelby, with one other officer to her left, take a couple of steps backwards.

Now turn to the second video from the helicopter. At about the 22 second mark, you can see when the two officers take those steps backwards. That means the shot was fired in the copter video between the 21 and 22 second mark. Looks to me like he dropped his right arm when he was shot.

I am, it seems, the only one here interested in the truth whatever that truth may be. It is still inconclusive but it actually looks to me like when he dropped his arm, the cop fired. Perhaps she though he was about to draw a weapon. I, in all honesty, cannot say which came first.

Doesn't look that way to me. In the dashboard cam, when you hear the gunshot and the officers step back, you can see his arm drop.

 

[koshergrl]

Seriously?

Yep, she's bat shit crazy.

Incidentally, the constitution doesn't "grant" us rights.

It protects the rights we are born with. It does that by restricting the AUTHORITY of our government, including and ESPECIALLY cops.

"
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

It isn't reasonable to seize a person for LOOKING like a criminal.
It isn't reasonable to seize a person for walking away from a confrontation initiated by a cop.

Cops need to stay in their cop houses. They don't make anybody safer by strutting around, gunning down the people they harass, assault, or just don't like the looks of.

The 4th Amendment doesn't apply to local police and certainly doesn't restrain them from protecting themselves. You're like many of your fellow Leftists thinking the Constitution governs every tiny aspect of society. It was written as a restraint on federal power. Nothing more.

The constitution protects the rights of all American people, lol.

And they were protecting themselves from..what? Exactly? Walking away?

Please let me know how many people have been "saved" via cops pulling over people for no good reason. Seems to me that a lot more people get killed by idiot cops harassing people then people are saved by the same harassment.

Timothy McVeigh got caught because he was pulled over when the tag on his license plate wasn't right. How many people would that have saved if it had happened before he got to the Federal Building in OKC? What you call "harassment" is simply the police doing what they're paid to do...enforce the law.

Imagine what might have been accomplished if the pigs had stayed in their offices and done some real police work on that case instead of strutting around harassing people on the roads. Maybe the bombing would never have happened in the first place!

No, what I call "harassment" is "harassment".

 

[PredFan]

Shitforbrains thinks the cops had microphones.

They do, and they clearly picked up the sound of the shot, but no sound of anyone yelling at him to stop. He is clearly walking to the car and assuming the frisking position as the female cop silently follows him.

In that video you cannot hear anything but the the car radio and the cops radio. You cannot hear if the officers nearest to the guy said anything. Naturally, the car cam's mic wouldn't pick up what the cops were telling him. Even the shot itself was muted to the point where it isn't easy to tell it was the shot. That video is NOT proof that the cops were not yelling at him. It is also inconclusive that the guy was assuming the frisking position as you claim. Our view of him was mostly obstructed. What little we did see could as likely been him trying to get into his car.

Nonsense .... the officer fired exactly one round and one shot is clearly discernible.

Not the point.

The point is that the shot is muted because the mic for the dash cam is inside the police car. If the shot is that muted, then you would not hear the voices of the cops even if they were yelling at him.

I'm talking about the gunshot. I said nothing about the ability to hear verbal commands other than to point out the folks in the helicopter would like not have hear a word on the ground.

But you responded to my post and I was talking about the ability to hear verbal commands.

 

[Faun]

LIAR!

How can a "crease in the seat" drip down the outside of the door and form a puddle on the ground???

Like I have said before, when the Right sink their teeth into a lie they never stop lying!

Look at the picture. Good lord, you can see the window is down.

So drops of blood disappear entirely when the angle is changed? Good grief.

You can't say that, I could be glare or just the angle. Blood can be nearly transparent if given enough time to dribble down the window. Having said that, you cannot rule out that the window is in fact open and that what looks like blood is a trick of the light. I'm not making any conclusions here I'm just saying no one can at this point.

If you look at the picture, the line he's referring to is black, and there's no tint. For that window to be closed, this guy would have to have the cleanest windows in the known universe, and for blood to reach that high on the window, he'd have to have jumped up against it when he was shot, and not smeared said blood. The window is clearly open.

Loon ... he had blood up to his upper arm, which was tall enough to reach up high on his window.

Except his hands weren't on the top of his window or on top of the car, and if they were, they wouldn't have blood on them, because he was shot in the chest. FURTHERMORE, in the images I linked, the sun shines brightly enough on his arms, with his palms out, they if there were blood, there would be a different shine pattern on his arms indicating blood on them, but that's absent. There's no blood on his forearms. Even further, there's no blood on the metal above the window opening, and if the blood pooled thickly enough to give us the black line in the first picture, it wouldn't suddenly be thin enough to disappear in the second image, especially given how close those two scenes are in the video.

Loon ... I said nothing about his hands or his palms. I talked about his upper arm. Around the shoulder or just below it. That's where he was covered in blood and tall enough to get on the window of the car.

 

[Faun]

They do, and they clearly picked up the sound of the shot, but no sound of anyone yelling at him to stop. He is clearly walking to the car and assuming the frisking position as the female cop silently follows him.

In that video you cannot hear anything but the the car radio and the cops radio. You cannot hear if the officers nearest to the guy said anything. Naturally, the car cam's mic wouldn't pick up what the cops were telling him. Even the shot itself was muted to the point where it isn't easy to tell it was the shot. That video is NOT proof that the cops were not yelling at him. It is also inconclusive that the guy was assuming the frisking position as you claim. Our view of him was mostly obstructed. What little we did see could as likely been him trying to get into his car.

Nonsense .... the officer fired exactly one round and one shot is clearly discernible.

Not the point.

The point is that the shot is muted because the mic for the dash cam is inside the police car. If the shot is that muted, then you would not hear the voices of the cops even if they were yelling at him.

I'm talking about the gunshot. I said nothing about the ability to hear verbal commands other than to point out the folks in the helicopter would like not have hear a word on the ground.

But you responded to my post and I was talking about the ability to hear verbal commands.

I understand the confusion, but I was responding to where you said, "Even the shot itself was muted to the point where it isn't easy to tell it was the shot."

That's not true. The gunshot is clearly discernible.

 

[Oldstyle]

Yep, she's bat shit crazy.

Incidentally, the constitution doesn't "grant" us rights.

It protects the rights we are born with. It does that by restricting the AUTHORITY of our government, including and ESPECIALLY cops.

"
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

It isn't reasonable to seize a person for LOOKING like a criminal.
It isn't reasonable to seize a person for walking away from a confrontation initiated by a cop.

Cops need to stay in their cop houses. They don't make anybody safer by strutting around, gunning down the people they harass, assault, or just don't like the looks of.

The 4th Amendment doesn't apply to local police and certainly doesn't restrain them from protecting themselves. You're like many of your fellow Leftists thinking the Constitution governs every tiny aspect of society. It was written as a restraint on federal power. Nothing more.

The constitution protects the rights of all American people, lol.

And they were protecting themselves from..what? Exactly? Walking away?

Please let me know how many people have been "saved" via cops pulling over people for no good reason. Seems to me that a lot more people get killed by idiot cops harassing people then people are saved by the same harassment.

Timothy McVeigh got caught because he was pulled over when the tag on his license plate wasn't right. How many people would that have saved if it had happened before he got to the Federal Building in OKC? What you call "harassment" is simply the police doing what they're paid to do...enforce the law.

Imagine what might have been accomplished if the pigs had stayed in their offices and done some real police work on that case instead of strutting around harassing people on the roads. Maybe the bombing would never have happened in the first place!

No, what I call "harassment" is "harassment".

I find you to be incredibly naive, Kosher...
Pull police off the streets and see what happens. Pigs? Really? I come from a long line of firefighters. I have respect for first responders because they run towards danger when everyone else is running away. The police are not your enemy.