The Demonstrations in Minnesota (Update: Now Nationwide){Now International} (7 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you have a link for this, or was it sent to you in an email/text?

I ask because one of the reports I read said the majority of misinformation was being transmitted that way, and not by direct linking or facebook posts.

I did hear the first-hand interview about the medic station on TV last night, but it looks like this version has some embellishment.
It happened.


https://uw-media.usatoday.com/embed/video/3133824001?placement=snow-embed

 
How many lawsuits are going to come from all this?


The police chief says they didn't have permission. Who's telling the truth? The medics said they had a verbal agreement. Verbal agreements aren't worth anything.
 
How many lawsuits are going to come from all this?


The police chief says they didn't have permission. Who's telling the truth? The medics said they had a verbal agreement. Verbal agreements aren't worth anything.

Certainly not with the police.
 
How many lawsuits are going to come from all this?


The police chief says they didn't have permission. Who's telling the truth? The medics said they had a verbal agreement. Verbal agreements aren't worth anything.

That statement is bullshirt. The medic station was identified and staffed with people with identifiers. So there were water bottles? Those cops have helmets and armor on - a Dasani bottle isn't such a threat that it would necessitate destroying a medic station.

"Officers also searched for potentially dangerous items such as explosives" - that's some sheet to sound like there was a threat, but it's just wordplay. There's no suggestion that the medical station had explosives, so what purpose is it to say they searched for them . . . other than to make it seem more threatening than it was? It's like saying "after we tackled her, we searched for suicide bombs" - well, why the hell did you do that? Was there ever any reason why you thought she had bombs? But it sure makes it sound threatening, doesn't it?

Verbal agreements are worth everything when you're talking about basic decency such as allowing a medic station in a situation where it might be needed. This is just more authoritarianism pretending to be rational.
 
This is just more authoritarianism pretending to be rational.




Not directed at you, but THIS.

When some people, like my father, and a couple friends, gave me a hard time because I couldn’t sleep the night in 2016 when Trump got elected.. THIS is the kind of stuff i feared.. even though I couldn’t articulate it at the time, and wasnt sure what form it would take.
 
That statement is bullshirt. The medic station was identified and staffed with people with identifiers. So there were water bottles? Those cops have helmets and armor on - a Dasani bottle isn't such a threat that it would necessitate destroying a medic station.

"Officers also searched for potentially dangerous items such as explosives" - that's some sheet to sound like there was a threat, but it's just wordplay. There's no suggestion that the medical station had explosives, so what purpose is it to say they searched for them . . . other than to make it seem more threatening than it was? It's like saying "after we tackled her, we searched for suicide bombs" - well, why the hell did you do that? Was there ever any reason why you thought she had bombs? But it sure makes it sound threatening, doesn't it?

Verbal agreements are worth everything when you're talking about basic decency such as allowing a medic station in a situation where it might be needed. This is just more authoritarianism pretending to be rational.
I meant that comment about verbal agreements, like this... I'd rather have it in writing. Easier to stand your ground, or file suit.
 
I meant that comment about verbal agreements, like this... I'd rather have it in writing. Easier to stand your ground, or file suit.

Sure - good advice.

But it's not a commercial operation. They didn't ask for permission to sell t-shirts (such that's a business venture with rights to secure via contract). They not an LLC - it's just some people with medical training trying to provide some humanitarian support. Who needs a forking contract for that?
 
Sure - good advice.

But it's not a commercial operation. They didn't ask for permission to sell t-shirts (such that's a business venture with rights to secure via contract). They not an LLC - it's just some people with medical training trying to provide some humanitarian support. Who needs a forking contract for that?
I mean, an email or something. To shove it right back in their face. It's awful, but I also want them to pay for it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom