It's an article without proof. It interviews no witnesses. It has no response from the police. It quotes only the perpetrator and his counsel. You're right, it isn't rocket science. Now, what keeps eluding you? You are alluding to the fact that the police are lying. Where's you proof?This isn't rocket science. What keeps alluding you?
Er, no. It doesn't. I just reread the article. The police are not quoted. All that's there is the charge that he was arrested on and HIS report of what the police did.If you had bothered to read it the article also reports on what the police said as well.
I am not saying he's a liar, I'm saying that, and this may come as a surprise to you, there are two sides to a story and you are jumping up and down and claiming fascism based on one side of this story. It doesn't seem to occur to you that he may be lying, exaggerating, or misquoting. To you it's a clear story of some poor preacher having his rights infringed. It might be, but you can't draw that conclusion from one poorly researched article in one partisan newspaper.Ah so he's a liar until another article says he isn't even though you have no basis he is lying. Nice logic.