Ok, I will admit my bias here. I do know that cap, Harrison. I don't know him super well but enough that I would say the allegations are not characteristic of the way he acts. It doesn't seem like something he would do. I will admit that I could be wrong and he could have a dark side. That is the basis of my skepticism in this case. The fact that cases are routinely settled out of court to avoid the costs of a lengthy trial just tells me that the settlement does not suggest guilt.

And yes, I was basing my opinion on things I didn't have statistical data for but on anecdotes I have seen and read about. That is why I said "I think" instead of stating my stances as if it were fact. I combined those anecdotes with facts I do know: Police departments have deep pockets and a suspect may have multiple motives to make a false complaint.

I don't really know what happened and I don't claim to. I have said I am open to a position change given new information. Peashooter, "probably"  was not the best choice of words, too strong perhaps, my bad.

So did you have conversations with your (now retired) cop buddy about homosexuality and/or public displays of affection? If not, what were your specific interactions with him that would lead you to logically conclude that his views on homosexual public displays of affection would be other than what he was accused of? What's the factual basis for your extrapolation?

I bet there's a way you could facilitate all of us knowing quite a bit more about what actually happened. Ask your buddy Harrison to have all the evidence accumulated by both sides' attorneys to be publicly released so he can be exonerated and everyone will see how he has been unjustly accused and forced to retire and live off his pension. If he says he can't or won't do that, ask why. If he says he can't because the couple granted the settlement signed a nondisclosure agreement of any sort, ask him why he didn't object to that inclusion in the settlement and instead ask that all evidence be publicly released. Why not demonstrate his innocence by letting us all see the eyewitness reports and surveillance footage and hear the 911 calls? Please report back to us ASAP, with the link to where the evidence can be viewed by all members of the public. Thanks.

Ok, I will admit my bias here. I do know that cap, Harrison.

If you know that cop then I understand your response. Can't speak for others, but I'm not pointing fingers at anyone for being a bad guy in this story. Even if everything happened exactly as accused, I don't have any problem with what that cop did. I just said that I thought the girls did deserve the amount of money they got, which probably wasn't that much after attorney fees. Could have been nothing for all we know. The amount attorneys take in settlements is generally not disclosed.

I guess it's legal to kiss in public, but it's illegal to run around naked or make a porno in the grocery store. Maybe the girls were getting pretty X-rated when the cop intervened. After that, I can imagine the women going into a huff and talking back to the cop, and things escalating from there. Possibly some fault on both sides.

I guess it's legal to kiss in public, but it's illegal to run around naked or make a porno in the grocery store. Maybe the girls were getting pretty X-rated when the cop intervened. After that, I can imagine the women going into a huff and talking back to the cop, and things escalating from there. Possibly some fault on both sides.

I like the way you spin hypotheticals based upon absolutely no facts at all other than your apparent attempt to defend one side against the other. I'm pretty sure that if the women were engaging in naked sex acts in the aisle of the store the cop would have at least informed them of their illegal activity and possible imminent arrest rather than telling them to "take it outside". I notice you didn't provide a hypothetical along the lines of "Maybe the cop was on crack or drunk or mentally ill and lost it when someone challenged ("talking back" as you prejudicially and pejoratively put it) his (non)authority to boss them around when they weren't doing anything illegal". I have to wonder why the bias?