LOL

Not true

You seem to think he’s still sitting there and the police are still beating him

What makes you think that?

After I pointed out that he was pulled to the ground when he tried to get up and walk away, you said:

Now they should have given him a chance to walk away again but that isn’t a requirement.

So clearly you’re agreeing that they wouldn’t let him leave. Then you changed your tune and said:

They didn’t prevent him from leaving.

But a police officer clearly pulls him back down on to the ground after he gets up to leave. That officer prevented him from leaving. Your statement “they didn’t prevent him from leaving” was false. A police officer preventing the man from leaving is an event that occurred. It’s shown in the video. I don’t understand why you can’t accept that what you said was wrong. You’re acting like a child.

The horse is right in the center, at the end of where the fire lands.

I can see a horse outside the trees in line with the line of fire but what makes you think that horse was the target?

I wasn’t wrong

You said they didn’t prevent him from leaving when they did prevent him from leaving. You were wrong.

No word confused me, I was confused by you changing the subject away from you being wrong.

LOL WTF are you talking about?

They didn’t prevent him from leaving.

As I already pointed out, they did prevent him from leaving. He got up and started to move and then a police officer forcefully pulled him back on to the ground.

Is it pixelated for you or something?

No.

It’s pretty visible on my end.

I asked you to show me where and you gaslighted me in response.

LOL you’re gaslighting me. I just said I can’t see what they’re throwing at and you responded by telling me I can clearly see what they’re throwing at.

I’ll repeat myself: I cannot see what they’re throwing the fire at.

have the right is a reason to hit someone

Why is having a right to hit someone a reason to hit them? I have the right to smash my own hand to pulp with a hammer but the fact that I have that right isn’t a reason for me to do it.

Now they should have given him a chance to walk away again but that isn’t a requirement. They can keep hitting him till he leaves.

So you’re saying the police have the right to hit whoever they like for as long as they like, all they have to do is prevent them from leaving the area? That’s crazy.

In the first second, someone tries to throw burning gasoline on a horse.

I don’t see where that’s happening. All I see is a line of fire appearing underneath some trees’ canopy. I can see neither who throws it, how, nor what they’re throwing it at; the canopy obscures everything.

Are you claiming you can see what they’re throwing it at? If so, could you take a screenshot and highlight the target?

They hit him because he’s behind the line.

I don’t understand what line you’re referring to.

By law they can use force to compel him to move.

But he got up and started to move and then yet another police officer forcefully pulled him back on to the ground. What you’re saying doesn’t make sense.

In layman’s terms, they can hit you until you leave the area.

Having the right to hit someone isn’t a reason to hit someone. The police officer who hit the citizen with a long stick had no apparent reason to hit him.

Could you provide any sources to back up anything you’ve said here?

I didn’t see anyone trying to set fire to horses in this video. I did see a police horse trample a defenceless citizen who was clearly and justifiably frightened and displaying no threatening behaviour and subsequently a police officer hit the same non-threatening citizen with a long stick for no apparent reason.

Well done Karen Bass