You are the one making the assertion that someone is a threat.
I've been really clear that I have no idea if the heckler was a threat or not. I've been clear that tackling a heckler isn't illegal unless we know the heckler wasn't a threat. Until we know the guy wasn't a threat then we don't know anything.
You have to believe he wasn't a threat for your claims to be correct.
I have to believe we don't know if he was or wasn't, or that he was, for my claims to be correct. You don't know and you shouldn't make claims until you do know.
We have a quote that the protester elbowed people. That means there's a very real reason to tackle someone. It's called self defense.
I've been really clear that I have no idea if the heckler was a threat or not. I've been clear that tackling a heckler isn't illegal unless we know the heckler wasn't a threat. Until we know the guy wasn't a threat then we don't know anything.
You have to believe he wasn't a threat for your claims to be correct.
I have to believe we don't know if he was or wasn't, or that he was, for my claims to be correct. You don't know and you shouldn't make claims until you do know.
We have a quote that the protester elbowed people. That means there's a very real reason to tackle someone. It's called self defense.
Nice reasoning. I assume you'll be voting for Bush in the fall.
Elbowed someone. Again spin, did he strike someone with his elbow or did his elbow bump someone on his way down the walkway?
As for believing someone is a threat. In this country I thought it was innocent until guilty, even at threat of possible harm.
You are amazing in that you have not only argued in these forums that it is wrong for a cop to shoot an unsecured dog coming straight at him, yet it is right for Franken to tackle a heckler who is in no way a threat to him, but could be since he doesn't know.
I seem to remember cops being "potentially" racist for shooting a man who refused to stop, led them on a chase, was pointing a silver cell phone at them like it was a pistol and they were wrong to shoot him by your reasoning.
This guy had no weapons, and made no threats by ANY reading of all these articles. Yet with a person you support, suddenly it is okay to read evil intent into actions. It is okay to assume a threat, not even from previous actions, but just because they have a different viewpoint.
In every other circumstance, you have argued that the parties involved have to wait until the threat is absolutely revealed as real, even at potential harm to themselves. Here you argue it is okay to harm someone who could be perceived as threatening, even when the only evidence to back it up is some shouting.
Nice reasoning. I assume you'll be voting for Bush in the fall.
Elbowed someone. Again spin, did he strike someone with his elbow or did his elbow bump someone on his way down the walkway?
As for believing someone is a threat. In this country I thought it was innocent until guilty, even at threat of possible harm.
You are amazing in that you have not only argued in these forums that it is wrong for a cop to shoot an unsecured dog coming straight at him, yet it is right for Franken to tackle a heckler who is in no way a threat to him, but could be since he doesn't know.
I seem to remember cops being "potentially" racist for shooting a man who refused to stop, led them on a chase, was pointing a silver cell phone at them like it was a pistol and they were wrong to shoot him by your reasoning.
This guy had no weapons, and made no threats by ANY reading of all these articles. Yet with a person you support, suddenly it is okay to read evil intent into actions. It is okay to assume a threat, not even from previous actions, but just because they have a different viewpoint.
In every other circumstance, you have argued that the parties involved have to wait until the threat is absolutely revealed as real, even at potential harm to themselves. Here you argue it is okay to harm someone who could be perceived as threatening, even when the only evidence to back it up is some shouting.
Absolutely frightening.
Nick
YOU don't know that this heckler wasn't a threat. No one here knows that this heckler wasn't a threat. My argument is against those of you saying Al should be thrown in jail or is hypocritical. You don't have enough facts to make this claim.
Because the heckler potentially was a threat, Al might have been correct to act as such. Anyone arguing that his actions were excessive is passing judgment without facts. That's unhealthy.
I was very clear in my second post of this thread:
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Any civilian can act if necessary, the only real question is was this necessary or was this excessive.
You don't know if Al's actions were necessary or excessive, but you can't admit it. Your hubris is getting the better of your judgment.
The problem is you think I'm defending Al, when in fact I don't care about him. You on the other hand are attacking him rather than looking at facts.
You still don't know if Al's actions were excessive or not.
I assure you, I looked at the facts. By no measure could were they construed as a threat. One report did a full on boogieman scenario. All the rest including the very reputable Talking Points Memo treated it as pretty much nothing. It was the equivelent of someone getting incorrect change (as in silver) from the cashier and someone tackling them for stealing.
YOU don't know that this heckler wasn't a threat. No one here knows that this heckler wasn't a threat. My argument is against those of you saying Al should be thrown in jail or is hypocritical. You don't have enough facts to make this claim.
So.....because this person "might" haev been a threat it is better to have speared him just incase?? Doesn't this border on everything you hate and you think is wrong with Bush and life in general??? Trumpetman said it innocent until proven guilty.
So.....because this person "might" haev been a threat it is better to have speared him just incase?? Doesn't this border on everything you hate and you think is wrong with Bush and life in general??? Trumpetman said it innocent until proven guilty.
It is precisely against everything he has previously argued about. In fact it is reverse to the extreme.
There was a discussion about how this family had their dog killed during a police stop. The dog was unsecured in the car, jumped out, ran around and ran straight at a cop. When the dog was literally right upon the cop, the cop shot the dog as a threat. Bunge argued that the cops were wrong in doing this.
There was another discussion about a man who wouldn't pull over for the police. He finally was stopped, but wouldn't respond to any police requests to stop, get down, get objects out of his hand, etc. He was holding a silver cell phone like it was a gun. He pointed it twice at the cops and was shot. Bunge argued that it was potentially racist and wrong.
Meanwhile Franken tackles a heckler with no weapons, who has not even infiltrated the close proximity of the stage, who has made no threats, and who has no weapons nor anything that could be mistaken for a weapon.
Franken is okay to do this because his politics are in the right... or should I say proper place.
So.....because this person "might" haev been a threat it is better to have speared him just incase?? Doesn't this border on everything you hate and you think is wrong with Bush and life in general??? Trumpetman said it innocent until proven guilty.
I'm not arguing that Al's actions were OK. I'm arguing that the people here calling for his are are doing so without any evidence. I'm saying YOU guys (not necessarily you personally, but the proverbial you who want Al's head on a plate for this) need to understand that Al is innocent until it's demonstrated that his use of force was excessive. YOU guys are reaching without thinking because you don't like Al, not because of the facts of the situation.
The cops in the Rodney King case is a great example. At first glance it sure looked excessive if all you ever saw was that 30 seconds of video that was repeated ad nauseam.
Now this is the part that kills me. Trumptman will spew this out without any basis.
Think about how conspiratorial you sound bunge.
Don't you think that that a threat should be proven instead of alleged with no basis?
Prove the allegation of them being a threat or recant it. You can't say he acted appropriately on the basis of nothing. You leave the question open with no evidence. No one else does. The point is that in the absence of proof, they are not a threat.
Perhaps, I should request the mods ban you for threatening me.
I mean I have no proof, but in the absence of proof you never know right? You could be a threat....
The reality is that you are not a threat and remain so until proven otherwise.
I'm not arguing that Al's actions were OK. I'm arguing that the people here calling for his are are doing so without any evidence. I'm saying YOU guys (not necessarily you personally, but the proverbial you who want Al's head on a plate for this) need to understand that Al is innocent until it's demonstrated that his use of force was excessive. YOU guys are reaching without thinking because you don't like Al, not because of the facts of the situation.
But it's a fact that Al tackled this guy so wouldn't he already be guilty of that? Franken bypassed the rights of the guy he tackled end of story. You don't have to fry him up for it but he should be punished just as anybody else would which is probably nothing at all because I don't think the dude went to the police.
You can't say he acted appropriately on the basis of nothing.
I've never claimed that Al acted appropriately, I've claimed that you don't know if he did or didn't. There's a huge difference. I haven't defended Al in this thread, I've corrected you.
Argento, it's clear Al tackled/body slammed/assault and battered someone. What's not clear is if he had a legitimate reason to do so or not. If any of us were in that situation and we were elbowed and had our glasses broken, we could subdue the person.
And lastly, trumptman your two exaggerated examples are of people being shot not tackled. Had Al shot this heckler then your analogy might be accurate. Instead it's misdirected and off base.
I've never claimed that Al acted appropriately, I've claimed that you don't know if he did or didn't. There's a huge difference. I haven't defended Al in this thread, I've corrected you.
Argento, it's clear Al tackled/body slammed/assault and battered someone. What's not clear is if he had a legitimate reason to do so or not. If any of us were in that situation and we were elbowed and had our glasses broken, we could subdue the person.
And lastly, trumptman your two exaggerated examples are of people being shot not tackled. Had Al shot this heckler then your analogy might be accurate. Instead it's misdirected and off base.
There not exaggerated examples. They are real incidents that you argued against. They were real threats and you claimed the people defending themselves were not justified.
As for whether Al acted correctly, in claiming I have no authority to judge his actions, you are claiming authority to judge me. Why is it you get the authority? Why do you have the right to correct me when you have no basis and no evidence?
I have plenty of evidence to assert my own view and have presented it. You've presented nothing but conspiratorial claims of possible threats by the hecklers and claims of ignorance or correction regarding those who would judge Al's actions.
There not exaggerated examples. They are real incidents that you argued against. They were real threats and you claimed the people defending themselves were not justified.
As for whether Al acted correctly, in claiming I have no authority to judge his actions, you are claiming authority to judge me. Why is it you get the authority? Why do you have the right to correct me when you have no basis and no evidence?
I have plenty of evidence to assert my own view and have presented it. You've presented nothing but conspiratorial claims of possible threats by the hecklers and claims of ignorance or correction regarding those who would judge Al's actions.
When you're backed into a corner you do go around in circles and pull out the ad hominem attacks.
You're trying to claim that I argue that people can't defend themselves. That's a lie. I argued that the cops that beat Rodney King were in the right as far as I could tell. I argued that the cop that shot the kid with the cell phone was in the wrong as far as I could tell. Both cases had video evidence we could all see. One case someone dies from a gun shot.
What authority do I have? I'm baseing my argument in law. The right to self defense. You're not acknowledging Al's right to self defense. You're not even acknowledging that as a potential in this situation. That's why you're wrong.
When you're backed into a corner you do go around in circles and pull out the ad hominem attacks.
You're trying to claim that I argue that people can't defend themselves. That's a lie. I argued that the cops that beat Rodney King were in the right as far as I could tell. I argued that the cop that shot the kid with the cell phone was in the wrong as far as I could tell. Both cases had video evidence we could all see. One case someone dies from a gun shot.
What authority do I have? I'm baseing my argument in law. The right to self defense. You're not acknowledging Al's right to self defense. You're not even acknowledging that as a potential in this situation. That's why you're wrong.
It's much easier to understand what I argue if you read it correctly.
Secondly I've not pulled an adhominem attack on you. I've not discredited any aspect of your argument based off of some aspect of your background, actions, or any other such nonsense. All I've done is show how you are inconsistant.
You claim Al has the right to self-defense and that is true when attacked. In all these instances mentioned, the question is always on whether the harmed party was justified in their actions based on the what the person harming did.
Rodney King, you say his actions justified the officers acting in self-defense. His actions were speeding, resisting arrest and being on PCP to act in a very scary manner. (super strength without pain, nonrational, etc.)
Now that is all good and fine so we ask with Franken, what were the threats on the part of the heckler he tackled to justify his actions.
I have not read of any threats, threatening actions, or even actions that could be misinterpreted and argued about. It appears Franken simply tackled the guy for being a heckler. I have read one report that characterized the SECOND protester as possibly being threating and it was citing one source of information (theater manager) that contradicted every other source and characterization. I read one very reliable, well thought of source, Joshua Marshall, who mentioned absolutely no threatening nor even menacing actions regarding that second protester.
However the closest we have come to a threat on the initial protester is a charge of his elbow hitting someone while he was walking down the aisle.
Now you mention in the second case of the police shooting, that you thought the police, after review didn't have just cause. I cannot see ANY cause for what Franken did let alone a just cause versus unjust or excessive. The protester wasn't dealing with Franken, wasn't speaking to Franken, didn't even interact with Franken.
Yet we are supposed to believe that Franken was somehow "threatened" enough to respond to the man in the manner he did.
Videotaped or not I just can't connect the dots and see how Franken was justified or even why he should have been involved.
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
It's always the making up from the fight this one likes.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
You are the one making the assertion that someone is a threat.
I've been really clear that I have no idea if the heckler was a threat or not. I've been clear that tackling a heckler isn't illegal unless we know the heckler wasn't a threat. Until we know the guy wasn't a threat then we don't know anything.
You have to believe he wasn't a threat for your claims to be correct.
I have to believe we don't know if he was or wasn't, or that he was, for my claims to be correct. You don't know and you shouldn't make claims until you do know.
We have a quote that the protester elbowed people. That means there's a very real reason to tackle someone. It's called self defense.
Originally posted by bunge
I've been really clear that I have no idea if the heckler was a threat or not. I've been clear that tackling a heckler isn't illegal unless we know the heckler wasn't a threat. Until we know the guy wasn't a threat then we don't know anything.
You have to believe he wasn't a threat for your claims to be correct.
I have to believe we don't know if he was or wasn't, or that he was, for my claims to be correct. You don't know and you shouldn't make claims until you do know.
We have a quote that the protester elbowed people. That means there's a very real reason to tackle someone. It's called self defense.
Nice reasoning. I assume you'll be voting for Bush in the fall.
Elbowed someone. Again spin, did he strike someone with his elbow or did his elbow bump someone on his way down the walkway?
As for believing someone is a threat. In this country I thought it was innocent until guilty, even at threat of possible harm.
You are amazing in that you have not only argued in these forums that it is wrong for a cop to shoot an unsecured dog coming straight at him, yet it is right for Franken to tackle a heckler who is in no way a threat to him, but could be since he doesn't know.
I seem to remember cops being "potentially" racist for shooting a man who refused to stop, led them on a chase, was pointing a silver cell phone at them like it was a pistol and they were wrong to shoot him by your reasoning.
This guy had no weapons, and made no threats by ANY reading of all these articles. Yet with a person you support, suddenly it is okay to read evil intent into actions. It is okay to assume a threat, not even from previous actions, but just because they have a different viewpoint.
In every other circumstance, you have argued that the parties involved have to wait until the threat is absolutely revealed as real, even at potential harm to themselves. Here you argue it is okay to harm someone who could be perceived as threatening, even when the only evidence to back it up is some shouting.
Absolutely frightening.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Nice reasoning. I assume you'll be voting for Bush in the fall.
Elbowed someone. Again spin, did he strike someone with his elbow or did his elbow bump someone on his way down the walkway?
As for believing someone is a threat. In this country I thought it was innocent until guilty, even at threat of possible harm.
You are amazing in that you have not only argued in these forums that it is wrong for a cop to shoot an unsecured dog coming straight at him, yet it is right for Franken to tackle a heckler who is in no way a threat to him, but could be since he doesn't know.
I seem to remember cops being "potentially" racist for shooting a man who refused to stop, led them on a chase, was pointing a silver cell phone at them like it was a pistol and they were wrong to shoot him by your reasoning.
This guy had no weapons, and made no threats by ANY reading of all these articles. Yet with a person you support, suddenly it is okay to read evil intent into actions. It is okay to assume a threat, not even from previous actions, but just because they have a different viewpoint.
In every other circumstance, you have argued that the parties involved have to wait until the threat is absolutely revealed as real, even at potential harm to themselves. Here you argue it is okay to harm someone who could be perceived as threatening, even when the only evidence to back it up is some shouting.
Absolutely frightening.
Nick
YOU don't know that this heckler wasn't a threat. No one here knows that this heckler wasn't a threat. My argument is against those of you saying Al should be thrown in jail or is hypocritical. You don't have enough facts to make this claim.
Because the heckler potentially was a threat, Al might have been correct to act as such. Anyone arguing that his actions were excessive is passing judgment without facts. That's unhealthy.
I was very clear in my second post of this thread:
Originally posted by bunge
Any civilian can act if necessary, the only real question is was this necessary or was this excessive.
You don't know if Al's actions were necessary or excessive, but you can't admit it. Your hubris is getting the better of your judgment.
In before the lock.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Well repeating yourself won't help clarify your double standard reasoning. Anyone can see this.
In before the lock.
Nick
The problem is you think I'm defending Al, when in fact I don't care about him. You on the other hand are attacking him rather than looking at facts.
You still don't know if Al's actions were excessive or not.
Originally posted by bunge
The problem is you think I'm defending Al, when in fact I don't care about him. You on the other hand are attacking him rather than looking at facts.
You still don't know if Al's actions were excessive or not.
I assure you, I looked at the facts. By no measure could were they construed as a threat. One report did a full on boogieman scenario. All the rest including the very reputable Talking Points Memo treated it as pretty much nothing. It was the equivelent of someone getting incorrect change (as in silver) from the cashier and someone tackling them for stealing.
Nick
Onward to Iran!
Aries 1B
What if Franken was acting on faulty intelligence? Do we call him a liar or an assaulter or what?
Originally posted by trumptman
I assure you, I looked at the facts. By no measure could were they construed as a threat.
Fair enough. Since we weren't there and the reports we have conflict, I don't think any of us are in a position to make that call.
Originally posted by bunge
YOU don't know that this heckler wasn't a threat. No one here knows that this heckler wasn't a threat. My argument is against those of you saying Al should be thrown in jail or is hypocritical. You don't have enough facts to make this claim.
So.....because this person "might" haev been a threat it is better to have speared him just incase?? Doesn't this border on everything you hate and you think is wrong with Bush and life in general??? Trumpetman said it innocent until proven guilty.
Originally posted by Argento
So.....because this person "might" haev been a threat it is better to have speared him just incase?? Doesn't this border on everything you hate and you think is wrong with Bush and life in general??? Trumpetman said it innocent until proven guilty.
It is precisely against everything he has previously argued about. In fact it is reverse to the extreme.
There was a discussion about how this family had their dog killed during a police stop. The dog was unsecured in the car, jumped out, ran around and ran straight at a cop. When the dog was literally right upon the cop, the cop shot the dog as a threat. Bunge argued that the cops were wrong in doing this.
There was another discussion about a man who wouldn't pull over for the police. He finally was stopped, but wouldn't respond to any police requests to stop, get down, get objects out of his hand, etc. He was holding a silver cell phone like it was a gun. He pointed it twice at the cops and was shot. Bunge argued that it was potentially racist and wrong.
Meanwhile Franken tackles a heckler with no weapons, who has not even infiltrated the close proximity of the stage, who has made no threats, and who has no weapons nor anything that could be mistaken for a weapon.
Franken is okay to do this because his politics are in the right... or should I say proper place.
Nick
Originally posted by Argento
So.....because this person "might" haev been a threat it is better to have speared him just incase?? Doesn't this border on everything you hate and you think is wrong with Bush and life in general??? Trumpetman said it innocent until proven guilty.
I'm not arguing that Al's actions were OK. I'm arguing that the people here calling for his are are doing so without any evidence. I'm saying YOU guys (not necessarily you personally, but the proverbial you who want Al's head on a plate for this) need to understand that Al is innocent until it's demonstrated that his use of force was excessive. YOU guys are reaching without thinking because you don't like Al, not because of the facts of the situation.
The cops in the Rodney King case is a great example. At first glance it sure looked excessive if all you ever saw was that 30 seconds of video that was repeated ad nauseam.
Originally posted by trumptman
...who has made no threats....
Now this is the part that kills me. Trumptman will spew this out without any basis.
Originally posted by bunge
Now this is the part that kills me. Trumptman will spew this out without any basis.
Think about how conspiratorial you sound bunge.
Don't you think that that a threat should be proven instead of alleged with no basis?
Prove the allegation of them being a threat or recant it. You can't say he acted appropriately on the basis of nothing. You leave the question open with no evidence. No one else does. The point is that in the absence of proof, they are not a threat.
Perhaps, I should request the mods ban you for threatening me.
I mean I have no proof, but in the absence of proof you never know right? You could be a threat....
The reality is that you are not a threat and remain so until proven otherwise.
The same is true of these hecklers.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
I'm not arguing that Al's actions were OK. I'm arguing that the people here calling for his are are doing so without any evidence. I'm saying YOU guys (not necessarily you personally, but the proverbial you who want Al's head on a plate for this) need to understand that Al is innocent until it's demonstrated that his use of force was excessive. YOU guys are reaching without thinking because you don't like Al, not because of the facts of the situation.
But it's a fact that Al tackled this guy so wouldn't he already be guilty of that? Franken bypassed the rights of the guy he tackled end of story. You don't have to fry him up for it but he should be punished just as anybody else would which is probably nothing at all because I don't think the dude went to the police.
Originally posted by trumptman
You can't say he acted appropriately on the basis of nothing.
I've never claimed that Al acted appropriately, I've claimed that you don't know if he did or didn't. There's a huge difference. I haven't defended Al in this thread, I've corrected you.
Argento, it's clear Al tackled/body slammed/assault and battered someone. What's not clear is if he had a legitimate reason to do so or not. If any of us were in that situation and we were elbowed and had our glasses broken, we could subdue the person.
And lastly, trumptman your two exaggerated examples are of people being shot not tackled. Had Al shot this heckler then your analogy might be accurate. Instead it's misdirected and off base.
Originally posted by bunge
I've never claimed that Al acted appropriately, I've claimed that you don't know if he did or didn't. There's a huge difference. I haven't defended Al in this thread, I've corrected you.
Argento, it's clear Al tackled/body slammed/assault and battered someone. What's not clear is if he had a legitimate reason to do so or not. If any of us were in that situation and we were elbowed and had our glasses broken, we could subdue the person.
And lastly, trumptman your two exaggerated examples are of people being shot not tackled. Had Al shot this heckler then your analogy might be accurate. Instead it's misdirected and off base.
There not exaggerated examples. They are real incidents that you argued against. They were real threats and you claimed the people defending themselves were not justified.
As for whether Al acted correctly, in claiming I have no authority to judge his actions, you are claiming authority to judge me. Why is it you get the authority? Why do you have the right to correct me when you have no basis and no evidence?
I have plenty of evidence to assert my own view and have presented it. You've presented nothing but conspiratorial claims of possible threats by the hecklers and claims of ignorance or correction regarding those who would judge Al's actions.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
There not exaggerated examples. They are real incidents that you argued against. They were real threats and you claimed the people defending themselves were not justified.
As for whether Al acted correctly, in claiming I have no authority to judge his actions, you are claiming authority to judge me. Why is it you get the authority? Why do you have the right to correct me when you have no basis and no evidence?
I have plenty of evidence to assert my own view and have presented it. You've presented nothing but conspiratorial claims of possible threats by the hecklers and claims of ignorance or correction regarding those who would judge Al's actions.
When you're backed into a corner you do go around in circles and pull out the ad hominem attacks.
You're trying to claim that I argue that people can't defend themselves. That's a lie. I argued that the cops that beat Rodney King were in the right as far as I could tell. I argued that the cop that shot the kid with the cell phone was in the wrong as far as I could tell. Both cases had video evidence we could all see. One case someone dies from a gun shot.
What authority do I have? I'm baseing my argument in law. The right to self defense. You're not acknowledging Al's right to self defense. You're not even acknowledging that as a potential in this situation. That's why you're wrong.
Fellows
Originally posted by bunge
When you're backed into a corner you do go around in circles and pull out the ad hominem attacks.
You're trying to claim that I argue that people can't defend themselves. That's a lie. I argued that the cops that beat Rodney King were in the right as far as I could tell. I argued that the cop that shot the kid with the cell phone was in the wrong as far as I could tell. Both cases had video evidence we could all see. One case someone dies from a gun shot.
What authority do I have? I'm baseing my argument in law. The right to self defense. You're not acknowledging Al's right to self defense. You're not even acknowledging that as a potential in this situation. That's why you're wrong.
It's much easier to understand what I argue if you read it correctly.
Secondly I've not pulled an adhominem attack on you. I've not discredited any aspect of your argument based off of some aspect of your background, actions, or any other such nonsense. All I've done is show how you are inconsistant.
You claim Al has the right to self-defense and that is true when attacked. In all these instances mentioned, the question is always on whether the harmed party was justified in their actions based on the what the person harming did.
Rodney King, you say his actions justified the officers acting in self-defense. His actions were speeding, resisting arrest and being on PCP to act in a very scary manner. (super strength without pain, nonrational, etc.)
Now that is all good and fine so we ask with Franken, what were the threats on the part of the heckler he tackled to justify his actions.
I have not read of any threats, threatening actions, or even actions that could be misinterpreted and argued about. It appears Franken simply tackled the guy for being a heckler. I have read one report that characterized the SECOND protester as possibly being threating and it was citing one source of information (theater manager) that contradicted every other source and characterization. I read one very reliable, well thought of source, Joshua Marshall, who mentioned absolutely no threatening nor even menacing actions regarding that second protester.
However the closest we have come to a threat on the initial protester is a charge of his elbow hitting someone while he was walking down the aisle.
Now you mention in the second case of the police shooting, that you thought the police, after review didn't have just cause. I cannot see ANY cause for what Franken did let alone a just cause versus unjust or excessive. The protester wasn't dealing with Franken, wasn't speaking to Franken, didn't even interact with Franken.
Yet we are supposed to believe that Franken was somehow "threatened" enough to respond to the man in the manner he did.
Videotaped or not I just can't connect the dots and see how Franken was justified or even why he should have been involved.
Nick