-12
LA rioters tried to set fire to horses
(v.redd.it)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2025
-12 points (26.9% liked)
Conservatives
114 readers
85 users here now
Pro-conservative discussions
Rules
- Pro-conservative or crazy liberal post.
- We are a discussion forum. No low effort, trolling comments.
- Everyone is welcome to opine, but be civil.
- Attack the topic, not the person
- Report violations of the rules
- Downvotes are disabled
founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
I don't understand what line you're referring to.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That isn’t what I said at all. They didn’t prevent him from leaving. He didn’t leave.
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.
And what was his fate? Arrested ?
LOL WTF are you talking about?
I think it is clear. Which word confused you?
No word confused me, I was confused by you changing the subject away from you being wrong.
I wasn't wrong. I explained to you what the law allows.
You said they didn't prevent him from leaving when they did prevent him from leaving. You were wrong.
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
What makes you think that?
After I pointed that he was pulled to the ground when he tried to get up and walk away, you said:
So clearly you're agreeing that they wouldn't let him leave. Then you changed your tune and said:
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.
The law allows rioting and burning, but only if you do it for trump.