This isn’t licking boots, this is laughing about someone FAFO.
If someone walked up to a cop and said, “guess what, I just robbed that bank over there but I have diplomatic immunity and here’s my International Citizen card” and the cop cuffed him and took him down to the station, I’d laugh at that person too.
Hahaha yeah, let’s laugh at the dad getting thrown around in front of his kids because his papers were wrong. Cops should immediately resort to physical violence when someone is dumb and annoying. Speeding is the same as a bank robbery, after all
The “victim” here is the one telling the story guy. But you’re right, we don’t have all the facts, but we have some. Like him not obeying lawful commands and getting arrested for it, which he admitted to. He broke the law and you wanna go at the cops for holding him accountable, literally doing their job. You blame the stove for your bad tasting food too?
I will laugh at him. He’s a dumbass and he found out what happens when you’re a dumbass in front of a cop. It’s not about the cop. It’s about the dumbass being a dumbass.
This isn’t licking boots, this is laughing about someone FAFO.
If someone walked up to a cop and said, “guess what, I just robbed that bank over there but I have diplomatic immunity and here’s my International Citizen card” and the cop cuffed him and took him down to the station, I’d laugh at that person too.
This is basically the driving equivalent.
Hahaha yeah, let’s laugh at the dad getting thrown around in front of his kids because his papers were wrong. Cops should immediately resort to physical violence when someone is dumb and annoying. Speeding is the same as a bank robbery, after all
You’re twisting the facts so hard to fit your narrative here, it’s really dishonest and makes people take your view on cops a lot less seriously.
It’s called “the consequences of your actions”. But oh, would someone please think of the childriiiiin :(
So you think because he shat out some crotchgoblins he is exempt of being a criminal?
Do you also think Trump is innocent because he is a father?
Ok let me break it down with crayons because apparently y’all don’t understand that multiple things can be true at the same time:
Given the above, maybe we don’t have to give the cops the benefit of the doubt and assume that whatever they did to him was necessary and justified?
The only good guys in this story are the kids, who were probably traumatized by the experience.
The “victim” here is the one telling the story guy. But you’re right, we don’t have all the facts, but we have some. Like him not obeying lawful commands and getting arrested for it, which he admitted to. He broke the law and you wanna go at the cops for holding him accountable, literally doing their job. You blame the stove for your bad tasting food too?
What benefit of the doubt? This is literally the guy’s side of the story.
I will laugh at him. He’s a dumbass and he found out what happens when you’re a dumbass in front of a cop. It’s not about the cop. It’s about the dumbass being a dumbass.
Also, it’s east texas. He’s lucky they didn’t toss some meth in the car and get him on that.
Surely you realize that this is more than simply having “wrong papers” right?
Guy shouldn’t be a dad.