Re: Federal judge rules Alabama city must allow gay pride float at Christmas parade

On 12/25/2024 11:28 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless 
chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, lied:

> 
> 
> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <[email protected]> wrote in message 
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 12/10/2024 11:00 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless 
>> chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, lied:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Governor Swill" <[email protected]> wrote in message 
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 09:06:21 -0600, "Scout"
>>>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>> On 12/9/2024 8:20 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless
>>>>>> chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, lied:
>>>>>>> "useapen" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>> The ruling required the city to provide at least two police officers to
>>>>>>>> escort the float throughout the parade.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm sorry, but unless ALL floats get an escort of 2 police officers
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, scooter. The other floats and parade entries are not at risk of being
>>>>>> attacked
>>>>>
>>>>> How would you know which floats are at risk?
>>>>>
>>>>> Beside, the issue isn't the risk.. it's the DISCRIMINATION.
>>>>>
>>>>> I mean don't ALL floats deserve a police escort?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why should THIS float get such a special honor?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like discrimination.
>>>>>
>>>>> See, they don't mind discrimination, they just want discrimination to favor
>>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>> Why should low crime areas get police protection?  They don't need it. They
>>>> don't have crime.
>>>
>>> Are you suggest [sic] a parade float is a "high crime area"?
>> No, scooter, he's not "suggest" that. But that one float is at *known* risk 
>> for attack by you and your mob.
> 
> Please produce your evidence that float is at a "known" risk of attack from my 
> or any mobs of mine.
> 
> Further if they are in such danger maybe they should stay home or hire private 
> security. After all the police have no obligation to protect anyone, nor to 
> provide any special protection to anyone.
> 
> I mean

Another scooterism: empty meaningless wheeze. Putting "I mean" before his 
lie/spew adds no meaning.

> you do know that the Supreme Court has ruled time and time again that the 
> police have NO obligation to protect any specific individual(s) from crime

 From *random* crime, scooter. When the cops know about a specific criminal 
threat to someone, scooter, they have an *obligation* to act to prevent the 
threat from materializing.

How can you not know such basic shit, scooter?