sgt wright ticking time bomb or just a dummy?

[Thomas Paine]

We are going to observe sgt wright's actions when he ejected the Doc from the council meeting. We have watched this video many times. Our collective group has over 125 years law enforcement in combination with other related fields.
The video begins with sgt wright pointing his hand at Doc in what could be interpreted figuratively as a gun.
Sgt wright"s eyes are wide open. His eye brows are raised and part of his forehead is wrinkled and his head is leaning forward (this is an attempt to invade Doc's personal space inan attempt to provoke him). The raising of the eye brows and widening of the eyes are a sign of showing dominance in an attempt to provoke Doc into a physical confrontation. All of the above is a clear indication of subconsciously wanting to do great physical violence.
During doc's discourse to the council, sgt wright appears out of no where,hesitantly steps in one direction then another, holds his arm up and orders Doc out of the meeting. This mistep, rigid body movements, holding his arm up are all indicative of misapprehension of his own actions. (Who ordered the sgt to eject Doc's?). In all fairness while leaving and out of sight but still within earshot, Doc did call the sgt a dumbass and "I will sue the shit out of you." At the above sgt wright chased down doc and impeded him from leaving and obeying his own orders.
The most disturbing elements of this incident:
1. The hand in the shape of a gun
2. The facial expressions of anger and frustration
3. Chasing down Doc and impeding him
4. The invading of doc's personal space to provoke a physical response
We conclude, sgt wright was both angry and frustrated that he could not provoke a physical response so he could physically retaliate against Doc. We don't believe there is any video record of the sgt treating persons of color in this manner. In view of his actions, our opinion is, sgt wright is of about average emotional intelligence. He harbors deep latent dendendcies of racial bias. We are of course open to other opinions and interepretations.

Your most humble servants, Thomas Paine, Comand Pimp, Po-Po Poet

We write for truth justice and the American way
TOMPOCO

[Unregistered]

We are going to observe sgt wright's actions when he ejected the Doc from the council meeting. We have watched this video many times. Our collective group has over 125 years law enforcement in combination with other related fields.
The video begins with sgt wright pointing his hand at Doc in what could be interpreted figuratively as a gun.
Sgt wright"s eyes are wide open. His eye brows are raised and part of his forehead is wrinkled and his head is leaning forward (this is an attempt to invade Doc's personal space inan attempt to provoke him). The raising of the eye brows and widening of the eyes are a sign of showing dominance in an attempt to provoke Doc into a physical confrontation. All of the above is a clear indication of subconsciously wanting to do great physical violence.
During doc's discourse to the council, sgt wright appears out of no where,hesitantly steps in one direction then another, holds his arm up and orders Doc out of the meeting. This mistep, rigid body movements, holding his arm up are all indicative of misapprehension of his own actions. (Who ordered the sgt to eject Doc's?). In all fairness while leaving and out of sight but still within earshot, Doc did call the sgt a dumbass and "I will sue the shit out of you." At the above sgt wright chased down doc and impeded him from leaving and obeying his own orders.
The most disturbing elements of this incident:
1. The hand in the shape of a gun
2. The facial expressions of anger and frustration
3. Chasing down Doc and impeding him
4. The invading of doc's personal space to provoke a physical response
We conclude, sgt wright was both angry and frustrated that he could not provoke a physical response so he could physically retaliate against Doc. We don't believe there is any video record of the sgt treating persons of color in this manner. In view of his actions, our opinion is, sgt wright is of about average emotional intelligence. He harbors deep latent dendendcies of racial bias. We are of course open to other opinions and interepretations.

Your most humble servants, Thomas Paine, Comand Pimp, Po-Po Poet

We write for truth justice and the American way
TOMPOCO

Interesting case out of the 11th Circuit. Not looking good for everyone retaliating against doc and falsely calling him a crazy sovergein citizen, and his wife whore.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opini.../201511627.pdf

Doc also finally posted the trespass closeout. Wow, this is gonna be a shitshow. Get the popcorn ready!
https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...spass-SAO.html

[Unregistered]

Well, we had made it just over a month of relative peace here until some real asshole decided to post some more tripe and then of course there has to be the follow up irrelevant court case posting in an attempt to validate the first post.
Pathetic

[Unregistered]

Well, we had made it just over a month of relative peace here until some real asshole decided to post some more tripe and then of course there has to be the follow up irrelevant court case posting in an attempt to validate the first post.
Pathetic

Irrelevant? Gues you don't much understand the First Amendment, retaliation or defamation.

[Unregistered]

The cases cited here pertain to the issues in this case like a size 13 foot to a size 6 shoe.

Don't fit.

[Unregistered]

The cases cited here pertain to the issues in this case like a size 13 foot to a size 6 shoe.

Don't fit.

Except for you idiots repeatedly retaliating against Doc's First Amendment rights for speaking out on police abuse.

How about Mata calling Doc a sovereign citizen? You know the people the FBI calls domestic terrorist. Or the people calling him crazy and his wife a badge bunny whore.

You might want to reread the case, and/or practice up on your reading comprehension skills.

I can see you babies crying for your qualified immunity, and arguing Doc's rights were not well established. We will see how well that works out for you.

[Unregistered]

Except for you idiots repeatedly retaliating against Doc's First Amendment rights for speaking out on police abuse.

How about Mata calling Doc a sovereign citizen? You know the people the FBI calls domestic terrorist. Or the people calling him crazy and his wife a badge bunny whore.

You might want to reread the case, and/or practice up on your reading comprehension skills.

I can see you babies crying for your qualified immunity, and arguing Doc's rights were not well established. We will see how well that works out for you.

Well, we'll have to go back to the beginning and have the Doctor that was going to Baker Act him initially testify under oath as to what occurred.
That should be interesting.

[Unregistered]

Well, we'll have to go back to the beginning and have the Doctor that was going to Baker Act him initially testify under oath as to what occurred.
That should be interesting.

Yeah we'd love to hear how going to the doctor correlates with being a sovereign citizen and the criminal libel of his wife. Maybe you could explain it for us Sherlock.

More interesting is what Rolle does under depo. Does he plead the fifth like Dave Chapelle, does he admit to his crimes, does he again commit perjury knowing everything was recorded, or does he skip the depo like so many HPD officers in the past have done? Enquiring minds want to know.

[Unregistered]

Yeah we'd love to hear how going to the doctor correlates with being a sovereign citizen and the criminal libel of his wife. Maybe you could explain it for us Sherlock.

More interesting is what Rolle does under depo. Does he plead the fifth like Dave Chapelle, does he admit to his crimes, does he again commit perjury knowing everything was recorded, or does he skip the depo like so many HPD officers in the past have done? Enquiring minds want to know.

Well, I have not seen many Baker Acts testifying in court that have much credibility or that their testimony has carried any weight.

BTW Mr. PhD the word is "Inquiring", just saying.

You seem to want to be the determinant of who has free speech and who does not; interesting.

[Unregistered]

Well, I have not seen many Baker Acts testifying in court that have much credibility or that their testimony has carried any weight.

BTW Mr. PhD the word is "Inquiring", just saying.

You seem to want to be the determinant of who has free speech and who does not; interesting.

The Supreme Court and the 11th Circuit have done a spectacular job of determining who has free speech and who doesn't.

By the way perjury and defamation didn't make the list.

You really should read that case again Sherlock.