As for the facts and verifiable statements / actions of feminists you blithely dismiss, I salute you. Not just everyone can take that many solid examples of something and pretend that calling them "clap trap" means they have been refuted.
What will happen when the footage and audio captured repeatedly shows that the police were in the right, that they acted reasonably, and that it was in fact the other party/parties who were in the wrong?
Exactly the same thing as if you were to review the footage of red light cameras filming cars stopping at an intersection correctly. Nothing. This is because it's how things are supposed to work. Ideally people should always stop in time for a red light and police should always act reasonably towards the people they are there to protect. Unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world (shocker, I know). People occasionally run red lights and cops sometimes abuse people.
For your own well being BTW, please disabuse yourself of the notion that all people must / should act rationally when presented with solid evidence contrary to their preconceived notions. You'll sleep better at night!
If someone wants to kill all the jews and you give them a public forum to speak, you're not being tolerant, you're being the opposite of tolerant. You're granting them a way to spread and amplify their message.
In our society, it's vitally important that ignorance gets exposed in public. This includes people saying ignorant things you don't agree with. Fortunately, you can avail yourself of the very same public forums to espouse your own views in opposition. As soon as we have people deciding who can talk in public and who can't, we've lost something important. We have employed censors. If we can bring the stupid to light, we get a situation like the Westboro Baptist Church. They still get to shout their message from the rooftops and they earn all the derision they receive.
Where is the 5-1/4" floppy drive on your laptop?
It's right underneath the 8 1/2" floppy drive, kid. Get off my lawn!
"Though liberals do a great deal of talking about hearing..."
I know this is considered unusual behavior, but scroll to the end of TFA and look at the list of signatories. This isn't really a "liberal" thing, it's a feminist thing.
In any case, this is a private college, not the government, so the constitutional protection against government limits on speech does not apply.
Are you kidding me? Did you read the article?!?! This is not about a "private college" and for that argument to have any traction whatsoever the college can't accept government money. Now from TFA:
"But though the Supreme Court cited this Tinker language in the college context, in Healy v. James (1972), the court in Healy made clear that [T]he precedents of this Court leave no room for the view that, because of the acknowledged need for order, First Amendment protections should apply with less force on college campuses than in the community at large."
so characterizing this as "shooting 12-year old kids for holding a toy gun" is wrong
I (don't really) hate to break it to you, but factually, the cop killed a 12 year old kid who was holding a toy gun. Nobody questions the validity of those facts. If you want to debate the efficacy / wisdom / morality of shooting someone before you know what's going on, I'm up for that.
How do you gain and keep the respect of a group of people...
They had it. Through their own actions they lost it. Now they have a problem.
Going the speed of light is bad for your age.