Officers ordered to stand down and allow vandalism and desecration of memorial

The reason to have laws on the books is so that everybody knows where the line is drawn and it is not subjective or open to individual interpretation. If a law is unclear is must be interpreted by a judge or jury not an individual unless that person has been chosen by the people to do so. If the law needs to be changed to read "throwing paint" on other peoples property is allowed then so be it. We at least have the ability to elect our law makers if we don't like what they do. The police chief should not be able to decide what laws to uphold or not.

What if the president wants to decide what laws to uphold and which ones to ignore, without approval from congress? Oh, wait never mind, too late, the rule of law is dead or dying, just do whatever you want.

I think my contributions to this thread are running dry as well.

Mace, bean bags, rubber bullets and handcuffs should have been used.

The news services are definitely biased. Earlier today, the story read, in part, "In Denver, some protesters held signs in support of Jessica Hernandez, a teenager who was shot and killed by Denver officers last month after she drove a stolen car toward an officer." The updated version of the story now reads, "Some marched in support of Jessie Hernandez, a 17-year-old who was killed when she was shot by police during a criminal incident in January. "

If I recall correctly, the officer involved in that incident was actually struck by Hernandez (aiming right at him. I seem to recall that he was hospitalized. Hernandez had stolen a vehicle before this incident, so she wasn't some innocent dove. Friggin media.

I wonder if they would have been ordered to "stand down" if protesters were throwing paint on a mosque. Would pig's blood be ok?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jslo

I wonder if they would have been ordered to "stand down" if protesters were throwing paint on a mosque. Would pig's blood be ok?

---

Or marching up the side walk to the home of one of the officers specifically threatened by name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sniper7

Mace, bean bags, rubber bullets and handcuffs should have been used.

---

It was a protest, not a dating service.

I wonder if this is the future of law enforcement. See a bank robbery.........................let him go and arrest him later to prevent a disruptive event in the community.

Catch a rapist....................

Catch someone sexually assaulting a child...................

What are the new rules for an arrest? Is this only for Denver or will it spread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big E3

So the police allow 100-200 to break the law, do they step in when it reaches 500 or 1000?

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzWClNWNIaY

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebolt

I wonder if this is the future of law enforcement. See a bank robbery.........................let him go and arrest him later to prevent a disruptive event in the community.

Catch a rapist....................

Catch someone sexually assaulting a child...................

What are the new rules for an arrest? Is this only for Denver or will it spread?

---

Read the comments section of an incident. They range from "couldn't the cops just follow them till they gave up" to "WELL if they were better trained, they could have shot at his legs to stop him. He only had a knife, how dangerous was he?"
Seriously, that's the mentality of America today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo

Read the comments section of an incident. They range from "couldn't the cops just follow them till they gave up" to "WELL if they were better trained, they could have shot at his legs to stop him. He only had a knife, how dangerous was he?"
Seriously, that's the mentality of America today.

---

Do you ever watch those old '90's movies of the future? I remember wondering, "How'd we ever get so dumb for being in the future?"...we are well on our way. Demolition man comes to mind.