I wasn't refuting, I stated that they must demonstrate a good reason to risk the life of the prisoner in such a manner.
And risk to life is an exaggeration.
And the safety of the Officer is a valid reason.
OHHHHH OK. This new information that came out today that said there was an additional stop that had not been reported previously was already accounted for in the past when they hadn't reported it.
Okay. That was my mistake. :doh
My apology for saying you were not paying attention at that point like you are in the others. It was me not paying attention at that point.
Now how do you think it matters?
I am pretty sure it doesn't, as it is likely they would have said if it did.
Not properly securing the prisoner does risk his life,
No. It was just put into effect nine days prior.
It wasn't a risk to life all the umpteen years before, it certainly isn't now.
Concern for safety, yes.
Risk to life, exaggeration.
obviously, as given what happened here. So no, it's not exaggeration.
:naughty
No. It is an exaggeration. And there is no indication that not having a seatbelt contributed.
The police need to produce the reason why they risked the life of the prisoner.
Stop with the exaggeration.
And I already informed you they stated the reason.
What did you not understand about the following statement?
And not securing by seatbelt out of safety concerns for the Officer as claimed, is another valid reason.
It says kicking and making noise, it's not an exaggeration. Jeez, how about a touch of intellectual honesty in your arguments?
OMG! You don't even have the argument straight.
There is no intellectual honesty in you saying "kicking and screaming" (an exaggeration) is the same as "kicking and making noise" as reported.
The claim is dishonest exaggeration.
That post was in reference to the information presented that Gray tried to injure himself. Nothing that was presented exonerates the police, both statements are true. You have to take one out of context, remove the beginning portion of the sentence and forget that it was in response to a specific argument to claim it was "assumption".
There is that lack of honesty again.
No, they are not the same.
And it has nothing to do with the portion that came before. That is a dishonest claim. It is not out of context.
Your original claim was an assumption, period. Your second claim is different and is an observation.
"Nothing can exonerate the actions of the police."
You can not change the fact that it is an assumption on your part.