this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2025
-15 points (25.8% liked)
Conservatives
114 readers
34 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
- Serial downvoting earns you a ban.
founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I didn't see anyone trying to set fire to horses in this video. I did see a police horse trample a defenceless citizen who was clearly and justifiably frightened and displaying no threatening behaviour and subsequently a police officer hit the same non-threatening citizen with a long stick for no apparent reason.
In the first second, someone tries to throw burning gasoline on a horse. That's trying to set a horse on fire.
I don't see where that's happening. All I see is a line of fire appearing underneath some trees' canopy. I can see neither who throws it, how, nor what they're throwing it at; the canopy obscures everything.
Are you claiming you can see what they're throwing it at? If so, could you take a screenshot and highlight the target?
You can clearly see the horse they're throwing the fire at.
LOL you're gaslighting me. I just said I can't see what they're throwing at and you responded by telling me I can clearly see what they're throwing at.
I'll repeat myself: I cannot see what they're throwing the fire at.
Is it pixelated for you or something? It's pretty visible on my end.
No.
I asked you to show me where and you gaslighted me in response.
Well I don't know what to tell you. The horse is right in the center, at the end of where the fire lands.
I can see a horse outside the trees in line with the line of fire but what makes you think that horse was the target?
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.
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.
The law allows rioting and burning, but only if you do it for trump.
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 out 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.