View Single Post
Old 10th December 2017, 07:55 AM   #301
Professional Nemesis for Hire
bluesjnr's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Not where I should be.
Posts: 7,109
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
I've gotten flak when I've said this before, but I stand by it. If you shoot someone because you _THINK_ they have a gun, if they in fact do not have a gun, then you are in the wrong.

Hell, in this case, he never had anything that even looked like a gun. So deal with that before we get to "what do you do about things that look like guns." That question is irrelevant to the situation where they don't have anything that looks like a gun in the first place.

This is turning into Jimbo and Ned from South Park. As long as you yell, "My God! He's coming right at us!" it is an excuse to shoot anything.

And that isn't right. They actually have to be a threat.

I heard a claim by the defense that the reason he was acquitted is because they showed that he followed his training. If this is how they are training officers, it's wrong. That needs to be made clear.

I only watched the first minute or so. You know, when he laid sprawled out on the floor. Why wasn't he piled on there and cuffed? He was completely submissive and in a defenseless position. He was easily subdued, especially since there was more than one cop. Why wasn't he trained to do that?
He was but that wouldn't have given the **** of an officer the opportunity to execute him which was his stated aim. He had to get him nearer to ensure his first shot entered into Shavers face.

That jury should be ashamed of themselves.
bluesjnr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top