And back to her words. The only reporting of this is coming from her contact to the Blaze (surprise surprise) and is very explicit and detailed, even down her tragic family past. So if there’s any legal coaching going on, it’s only being done to weigh things in her favour and, as I keep saying, is being incredibly careful about what she says she said. So yes; if this goes to court, she’ll say under oath that she didn’t say ‘gun’; but there’s a lot of threat that she could have come out with without specifically using that one word.

Let’s see how this plays, however, see what happens if/when the footage comes to light. If Glenn doesn’t report it (he’s not exactly good at following-up on stories – the headline is everything to him, even if it subsequently proves to be utter bollocks), then you’ll hopefully see it locally as you appear to be local to the story. I’d be really inteterested in hearing how it plays out, so please let me know – my name here is my twitter name.

As to who’s more believable, look at the behavior in the council meeting of the fool who made the report. At no time during the debate did she lose her temper, threaten, call names or attempt to intimidate. What was HIS reaction? Hostility, name calling, intimidation and threats. The police failed to even follow up with him. He should have been brought to the police station to make a statement. I have searched the internet and nowhere have I found that he swore out a complaint or was even questioned as to what happened. The security tapes of the altercation are going to be pulled and how much would you like to bet that they show this gentleman following them into the parking lot? How much would you like to bet that HE was the one who first started screaming. This is overtly threatening behavior. Why would they bring the suit knowing what’s on the tapes if it shows them approaching him and screaming? You don’t need sound to understand body language or who is more agitated. Why was he outside of the building at that time of day? Now, they will have to answer those questions on the stand and I would venture to say that those videos will be quite interesting to see. If his story on the stand is different than what can be easily seen, he can be charged with perjury, making a false police report, etc. The police can be charged with making a false arrest and civil rights violations.

How exactly is it that you believe that the police are innocent in this? At some point someone on that force should have stepped back and realized that they could be held liable for every single procedural violation. These are not just nebulous rules, there is a written protocol. There HAS to be in order to receive state and federal funding for the police force. They broke protocol at every step, when they had a chance to turn back and do the right thing. These are not unusual protocols and when it became apparent that there was no way to verify either party’s story, they should have stopped. They cannot simply take away a person’s civil rights out of expediency. This is what leads to abject abuse of power. This is what brought about that evil monstrosity called the Patriot Act. Those who will trade safety and security for a loss of rights are fools cowering in the shadows, afraid of every bump in the night.

Here’s another tidbit for you. Those buildings probably have metal detectors, security, etc. How would she get guns/knives/ammo, etc, through the security cordon? Do most orthodox Jewish women strike you as the types who would find a ceramic gun and bullets and risk everything to get them through security? Give me a break. This was an overreaction on their part.

And no, it’s not unusual at all that they are not giving details on what happened or what she said, since now she has an attorney who would have very carefully told her what she can and cannot say prior to trial because every single word she says can be used in court. There’s nothing suspicious there. They will tell their story in front of a jury.

Again, her denial is very carefully worded and, to me, is rather revealing. She denies swearing or using the word ‘gun’. Don’t you think it’s strange that she doesn’t tell the world what she actually said? She’s very clear on every other detail here, yet fudges the part on which this whole argument hinges…