Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
BS. Try reading post 433 where I did quote you. You have and continue to make assumptions to bolster your position. The very thing you accuse others of. And please quote the post where I said the guy had his gun "laying on the seat".
YES!!!!! They are possibilities....that is all. It counters the argument that he got what he deserved.....I'm arguing maybe he did, maybe he didn't and here is why.
No, unless you have a valid concealed carry permit, you're not allowed to have the weapon anywhere within easy reach. As it's impossible to obtain such a permit if you have a DUI conviction within the last 3 years and he had one last year, he did not have a permit to carry concealed. And it's likely that his 7-year-prison sentence in Texas means that he was a convicted felon and most likely not permitted to possess a firearm at all.
Those are all good points. Things have changed though in the sense that we now live in a video world. People demand to see it and make up their own minds. It will be hard holding back information when something goes viral, as they say. When there a lot of witnesses that contradict police, there is going to be a controversy. Distrust will fuel outrage and outrage will lead to violence. So it has to be a flexible policy. Again, I go back to what Tulsa did versus Charlotte and the different result. Charlotte was not prepared to deal with this, Tulsa was. It shows. I get the sense from the speakers that no one expected this level of racial tension to be under the surface in Charlotte. Tulsa knows better.
People may demand all they want, but sometimes evidence must be retained for legal purposes.
Right? Matter of fact, I'm very surprised of late, how quickly they release the videos.
regarding your last comment, by now they should know better and prepare, b/c whenever a person is shot, there is sure to be protests and rioters coming in from other areas, simply to loot. I'm sure a lot of the local protesters go home....after the first night, Charlotte, should have bought in the National Guard. Especially after the way the media jumps all over this and tries to make it racist.
I do NOT know why things have to be covered 50 times.....I have NEVER argued he didn't have a gun.
<sigh>
If you read the post of yours that I quoted - you were stating that we "don't know if he had a gun or not". I responded to that offering strong evidence to support the fact that he DID have a gun. How is that not relevant to the conversation being had? Further I never said you did argue that he didn't have a gun. You basically said "I don't know" and I offered some evidence that bolsters one version of the story. Nothing more.
Double speak and exclusive of all the facts. It says that the government can not restrict your right to protest. If you have to get a permit that permission can be turned down which violates your right.
They can impose restrictions like you can't block roads. Yiu can protest along the road without permission.
I posted where I did so.
This isn't designed to prohibit anyone's free speech or right to protest, but to provide order to it. And as what I posted clearly stated, according to the supreme court, IT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSABLE to require permits.
More ...
The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the First Amendment protects the right to conduct a peaceful public assembly.[3] The right to assemble is not, however, absolute. Government officials cannot simply prohibit a public assembly in their own discretion,[4] but the government can impose restrictions on the time, place, and manner of peaceful assembly, provided that constitutional safeguards are met.[5] Time, place, and manner restrictions are permissible so long as they “are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, . . . are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and . . . leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.”[6]
The bolded sections tell you exactly what you are denying. Permits ARE permissible (constitutionally and HELD UP BY THE SUPREME COURT) and can be regulated. Permits are there to help regulate a protest or any event so it isn't complete chaos. Permits are issued to control the time, place, and manner of the assembly.
I don't care what you did in NY or wherever you said you protested, its irrelevant in Charlotte. Again, government can require permits, and Charlotte DOES.
YES!!!!! They are possibilities....that is all. It counters the argument that he got what he deserved.....I'm arguing maybe he did, maybe he didn't and here is why.
Why is this so hard to understand?
It's not hard to understand at all. What is hard to understand is why you think you're doing something different than others are and feel compelled to call them out on their doing the same. Only difference is what side of the narrative people support with their possibilities.
It's a bit disingenuous to speculate and then when others do so chastise them while primly saying "We need to wait for the video". That's all I'm pointing out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
