-12
LA rioters tried to set fire to horses (v.redd.it)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/Conservatives@hilariouschaos.com
27 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -7 points 1 year ago (14 children)

They hit him because he’s behind the line. By law they can use force to compel him to move. I wish people understood the laws. If the police declare an unlawful assembly, they can use force to compel you to move.

In layman’s terms, they can hit you until you leave the area.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (13 children)

    They hit him because he’s behind the line.

    I don't understand what line you're referring to.

    By law they can use force to compel him to move.

    But he got up and started to move and then yet another police officer forcefully pulled him back on to the ground. What you're saying doesn't make sense.

    In layman’s terms, they can hit you until you leave the area.

    Having the right to hit someone isn't a reason to hit someone. The police officer who hit the citizen with a long stick had no apparent reason to hit him.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    They had given a dispersal order. The police line means he should be moving forward and away from the police. Umm.. have the right is a reason to hit someone.
    THey hit him because he wouldn't leave. People don't understand, once you are told to leave, leave or you will be hit. Now they should have given him a chance to walk away again but that isn't a requirement. They can keep hitting him till he leaves. The police are not your parents. If they have the to use force, they can and will.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (11 children)

    have the right is a reason to hit someone

    Why is having a right to hit someone a reason to hit them? I have the right to smash my own hand to pulp with a hammer but the fact that I have that right isn't a reason for me to do it.

    Now they should have given him a chance to walk away again but that isn't a requirement. They can keep hitting him till he leaves.

    So you're saying the police have the right to hit whoever they like for as long as they like, all they have to do is prevent them from leaving the area? That's crazy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    That isn’t what I said at all. They didn’t prevent him from leaving. He didn’t leave.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    They didn’t prevent him from leaving.

    As I already pointed out, they did prevent him from leaving. He got up and started to move and then a police officer forcefully pulled him back on to the ground.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    And what was his fate? Arrested ?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

    LOL WTF are you talking about?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I think it is clear. Which word confused you?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    No word confused me, I was confused by you changing the subject away from you being wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I wasn't wrong. I explained to you what the law allows.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I wasn’t wrong

    You said they didn't prevent him from leaving when they did prevent him from leaving. You were wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    No I am not. What was the outcome? Did he leave or was he arrested? You seem to think he’s still sitting there and the police are still beating him

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    You seem to think he’s still sitting there and the police are still beating him

    What makes you think that?

    After I pointed out that he was pulled to the ground when he tried to get up and walk away, you said:

    Now they should have given him a chance to walk away again but that isn't a requirement.

    So clearly you're agreeing that they wouldn't let him leave. Then you changed your tune and said:

    They didn’t prevent him from leaving.

    But a police officer clearly pulls him back down on to the ground after he gets up to leave. That officer prevented him from leaving. Your statement "they didn't prevent him from leaving" was false. A police officer preventing the man from leaving is an event that occurred. It's shown in the video. I don't understand why you can't accept that what you said was wrong. You're acting like a child.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent