Jump to 1:00 for the actual tazing
|
|
Jump to 1:00 for the actual tazing
12 users like Irish_Sooner's post: DHF, greensooner, Julz, McRib, OU Sam, SirPrize, SoonerArtillery, Soonerfan84, Soonerpsycho, Sponge, suncoastsooner, Yatahaze
Funny ****. I watched it three times in a row. Can't stop laughing.
That was pretty good.
Not as good as the mall security guard but still pretty sweet.
Cold Blooded.
LOL at the dude thinking he has rights over any authority
OOO will be all bent out of shape if he sees this..
those guys handled it extremely well, love it when people get what they deserve
Well done P. Barnes
3 users like OldSooner's post: OUHomebrew, SoonerArtillery, soonerintn
First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of ****embly; right to petition
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to ****emble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Those officers violated the First Amendment!
Heh.Originally Posted by SoonerSteve
Lil douchebag got what he deserved.
freedom of the press!
Sarcasm?
That dude didn't deserve to be tazed. He didn't get physical with them, he asked them to step aside, they didn't, he got tazed. They looked like goons with a nice lil badge on their coats. Appears a little power went to their heads.
There is nothing wrong with real journalism.
yeah, he's obviously a real journalist too
If a judge doesn't want a camera in his courtroom, there will be no cameras in his courtroom. That's not a violation of the 1st Amendment. If you're going to be a ****head and talk out of your ****, all the while not listening to the officers, bad things are going to happen.
The following users like this post: Soonerp
Sorry, but you do not understand the First Amendment or how to apply it to the instant case. Just like the "reporter."
The officers were willing to let the "reporter" in without the camera. He insisted on being let in with a camera, citing the First Amendment as his right to do so. Do you see where you both fail in your application of the First Amendment's right to freedom of the press?
Exactly. It was clear this "reporter" (which he obviously was not) could've gone in without the camera. Also, not sure if what kind of court this, but cameras (video or still) are never allowed in a Federal courtroom. Thus, all the sketch artist compositions of suspects like McVeigh during federal hearings and trials. State courts leave it up to the judges ... some do, some do not.
If he had been a real reporter, he would've known the rules of covering a trial and more than likely, would've respected the judge's authority (or Federal regulations, whichever it was). He was just a pain in the **** who thought he knew it all and ended up getting one-upped by P. Barnes, who is now my new personal hero.
What this video told me is that I would really like to taze someone.
3 users like suncoastsooner's post: Clark W. Griswold, ImTheDude, Irish_Sooner
It is incredibly awesome.....
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
