If you actually believed that, you'd be willing to give this officer the benefit of the doubt.
Sure I will. I doubt he will get any benefits after his a$$ is fired. I have no problem with letting him just get on with his life....no jail, no fines, no criminal record even...just no longer as a police officer because he has demonstrated his inability to control himself in stressful situations and committed assault on a citizen.
No they had detained someone for public drunkenness I believe, and the "protesters" began attacking them
You have proof or evidence of that specifically proof or evidence that she attacked police?
So long as the video has a manageable chain of evidence.
So that would be never then....even the cops have tampered with evidence in the past and should not be trusted to cross that 'thin blue line' and rat on their fellow officers. I would say the chain of evidence does not matter when in this digital age we can tell if video has been edited.
The court of public opinion does not operate based on the notion of innocent until proven guilty, mind you, it does seem to reward the mass demonstrations and illegal antics of protesters. Case in point, the G-8 summits have been nothing short of a week of anarchy in any of the cities where they have been held, yet there is more sympathy for the wrong-doers than there is for the poor cops & security that get to deal with the rampant crime, vandalism and theft
Do you really have your head that far up the govt's a$$? The G-8 protest violence in Quebec was proven to be instigated by under-cover police with the mission to start a conflict. Police use 'kettling' regularly to promote a reason for them to get violent. There may be a small few involved in some protests who are out to break the law but I can say the same for cops and govt agents. Protesting is not wrong-doing, having and voicing an opinion contrary to what the govt want is not a crime. You may want it to be criminal and the govt will certainly try to find a way to make it criminal (even to passing unconstitutional laws surrounding assembly & free speech) but it is not criminal no matter how you try to make it that way.
This cop was provoked, and for the record, he didn't get away with anything. Many people think that he's getting fired for doing his job in (attempting) to detain a person that broke a variety of laws.
And your evidence of her breaking any law is????
Ironically, by not recognizing that this woman violated any laws; you are justifying her illegal actions.
What laws did she break? Laws against free assembly and free speech are unconstitutional and therefore invalid.
Assault isn't limited to punching. She could have spit at him and assaulted him equally as much as punching
I know. I also know the premise of mitigated response. That means you respond with only the level of aggression directed at you. So if she sprayed an officer with silly string then he could reasonably have sprayed her back. A punch in the teeth is not a mitigated response to a little water or silly string.
You might think differently if you or a neighbour were the victim of a mugging or home invasion
If I was the victim of a home invasion we most likely would need the coroner, not the cops.
