Tyreek Hill admits he contributed to the problem during his arrest.

[Orangecat]

over reacted is an understatement,, they violated his rights and their sworn oath

Overreacted is also one word. Regardless, you’re splitting hairs here.

so why do you keep blaming tyreek when he followed every lawful order within seconds of them being given????

The same reason I keep calling you out for using multiple question marks: I enjoy pointing out stupidity.
He may have obeyed every order, but immediately and repeatedly reprimanding the officer for tapping on his closed window was a stupid move, as evidenced by the escalated outcome.
Was it illegal? No.
Was it smart? No.
Should the cops face consequences? Yes.
Are you intelligent enough to realize that Tyreek could’ve been smarter and the cops can be wrong? TBD.
End of story.

 

[progressive hunter]

The thread is Hill took partial tespinsibility
Lib loons have turned it into his constitutional rights were violated and he had rights to do as he wished
Count to 8 the next time a guy is behind dark glass and you have no idea what is up. It’s a length of time

8 seconds is how long he took to obey the lawful order and when almost out with a foot on the ground he was attacked,,


the amount of time they couldnt see his was closer to 30 seconds

 

[progressive hunter]

Overreacted is also one word. Regardless, you’re splitting hairs here.

The same reason I keep calling you out for using multiple question marks: I enjoy pointing out stupidity.
He may have obeyed every order, but immediately and repeatedly reprimanding the officer for tapping on his closed window was a stupid move, as evidenced by the escalated outcome.
Was it illegal? No.
Was it smart? No.
Should the cops face consequences? Yes.
End of story.

stupid isnt illegal,,
and what he said is a 1st A protected right,,

so why do you stand against the 1st A??

it protects all speech whether you agree with it or not right??

 

[airplanemechanic]

stupid isnt illegal,,
and what he said is a 1st A protected right,,

so why do you stand against the 1st A??

it protects all speech whether you agree with it or not right??

Apparently the right fights for freedom of speech unless it is, GOD FOR BID, against a pig. Then it's "yes sir" and "no sir" only. How DARE us mere citizens QUESTION the authenticity of an ORDER given to us by one of our Earthen GODS, known as COPS?

 

[Orangecat]

stupid isnt illegal,,

Do you even read my responses?
Here ya go:

Was it illegal? No.
Was it smart? No.

and what he said is a 1st A protected right,,

So is using double commas, but 1A doesn’t guarantee you won’t do something that makes you look stupid.

so why do you stand against the 1st A??

That’s not happening here. Pay attention.

it protects all speech whether you agree with it or not right??

Yes.

 

[progressive hunter]

Apparently the right fights for freedom of speech unless it is, GOD FOR BID, against a pig. Then it's "yes sir" and "no sir" only. How DARE us mere citizens QUESTION the authenticity of an ORDER given to us by one of our Earthen GODS, known as COPS?

that makes them leftwing not right

they are just really good at lying to themselves

 

[progressive hunter]

Do you even read my responses?
Here ya go:


So is using double commas, but 1A doesn’t guarantee you won’t do something that makes you look stupid.


That’s not happening here. Pay attention.


Yes.

stupid is as stupid does,,

whats stupid is blaming the victim for the crime committed against them,,

and you calling his words stupid to justify what happened to him proves you dont support the 1st A,

he was attacked for what he said not just looked stupid,,

theres a difference,,

 

[Orangecat]

stupid is as stupid does,,

Indeed.

whats stupid is blaming the victim for the crime committed against them,,

Do you really think I’m blaming Tyreek for the officer’s actions? I’m not. The officers are to blame for their actions.
I do believe Tyreek could’ve avoided the whole unpleasant part of the interaction if he had been smarter. You don’t have to agree.

and you calling his words stupid to justify what happened to him proves you dont support the 1st A,

That’s where your assumptions make you look dumb. I never said his stupid response justified anything. I only contend that a smarter response would’ve most likely led to a more desirable outcome.

he was attacked for what he said not just looked stupid,,

He was manhandled because he aggravated the cops with his attitude. The cops were wrong to respond as they did.

theres a difference,,

Between what?

 

[WEATHER53]

Several false conservatives posting

 

[WEATHER53]

stupid isnt illegal,,
and what he said is a 1st A protected right,,

so why do you stand against the 1st A??

it protects all speech whether you agree with it or not right??

Stupid is usually illegal when the cops got involved because you were stupid to begin with . Now double down and try to adjudicate your interpretation of the constitution to them.

 

[progressive hunter]

Indeed.

Do you really think I’m blaming Tyreek for the officer’s actions? I’m not. The officers are to blame for their actions.
I do believe Tyreek could’ve avoided the whole unpleasant part of the interaction if he had been smarter. You don’t have to agree.

That’s where your assumptions make you look dumb. I never said his stupid response justified anything. I only contend that a smarter response would’ve most likely led to a more desirable outcome.

He was manhandled because he aggravated the cops with his attitude. The cops were wrong to respond as they did.


Between what?

again defending the abusive cops and blaming the victim,,

aggravating a cop for 20 seconds doesnt mean all your rights are thrown out and they get to man handle you,,

also again youre condemning him for his words when you should be defending his roight to say them and not lose rights and get manhandled

 

[progressive hunter]

Stupid is usually illegal when the cops got involved because you were stupid to begin with . Now double down and try to adjudicate your interpretation of the constitution to them.

well the 1st A is for both speech you agree with and disagree with,, RIGHT??

just because they/you disagree with his speech doesnt mean he loses his rights and cops can attack him,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Stupid is usually illegal when the cops got involved because you were stupid to begin with . Now double down and try to adjudicate your interpretation of the constitution to them.

Redress of grievances is the right to request the government to address a wrong or injustice through action or litigation. It is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which also protects the right of assembly.

https://www.google.com/search?q=redress+of+grievances+definition&oq=redress+of+g&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBwgBEAAYgAQyBwgAEAAYgAQyBwgBEAAYgAQyBggCEEUYOTIHCAMQABiABDIHCAQQABiABDIHCAUQABiABDIHCAYQABiABDIHCAcQABiABDIHCAgQABiABDIHCAkQABiABNIBCDY5MzNqMGo5qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[Orangecat]

again defending the abusive cops and blaming the victim,,

I’ve defended no one. Your reading comprehension blows.

aggravating a cop for 20 seconds doesnt mean all your rights are thrown out and they get to man handle you,,

Agreed.

also again youre condemning him for his words

Incorrect. I’m saying he could’ve had a better outcome if he’d chosen them better.

when you should be defending his roight to say them and not lose rights and get manhandled

Sorry, lib, telling me what you think I “should” be doing means nothing to me. You do you, I’ll do me.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Several false conservatives posting

Yep, and you're one of them.

Supporting these nazi police tactics of "obey or else" is definitely not something the real right does.

 

[progressive hunter]

Incorrect. I’m saying he could’ve had a better outcome if he’d chosen them better.

saying he could have acted better and he wouldnt have received violence is the very definition of blaming the victim and defending the cops,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Several false conservatives posting

you prove that everytime you comment on this subject

 

[Orangecat]

saying he could have acted better and he wouldnt have received violence is the very definition of blaming the victim and defending the cops,,

Incorrect.
I said he might have had a better outcome if he’d curbed his attitude. That doesn’t excuse the police, it’s just a fact. You’re too emotional here.

 

[progressive hunter]

Incorrect.

absolutely correct,,

 

[Orangecat]

absolutely correct,,

Run along now, the adults are talking.