wlsc 0
billvon 2,396
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>But the police decided there were no facts to use to charge him with
The police don't decide. A grand jury does. Which is good; the chief of police has admitted he handled the case poorly and has stepped down.
Seems to be a trend, actually. The previous chief of police resigned after he refused to arrest a man for assaulting a homeless man a year ago - even though the attack was on video.
The police don't decide. A grand jury does. Which is good; the chief of police has admitted he handled the case poorly and has stepped down.
Seems to be a trend, actually. The previous chief of police resigned after he refused to arrest a man for assaulting a homeless man a year ago - even though the attack was on video.
rushmc 18
QuoteQuote
Thus proving their own Racism.
Really?
Yes.
Yes, your tenedancy toward that has been proven
Facts be damned
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
jakee 1,254
QuoteQuoteIf the kid assaulted the man after the man threatened him with a gun, then that was a justified response.
It would also be a very stupid response. The smart response would be to just walk away. Assaulting someone who is holding a gun while armed yourself only with your fists, is a sure way to get shot. Proceeding in that manner is likely to lead to a predictable end, and not in your favor.
John, while it may be very easy for someone who has experience in the police or the military, or someone who has simply watched too much 24, to know what to do when confronted by a man with a gun, this was a 17 year old kid with no known history of violence. Furthermore, if indeed he was threatened, we have absolutely no idea what was said, whether he was told he would be shot if he tried to escape etc. To call any reaction 'stupid' from such a hastily sketched hypothetical is a bit of a stretch.
It has also not escaped my notice that you seem to be judging the killer only on whether or not his actions were strictly legal, but the victim on whether his actions were legal and sensible. Hmm.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
rushmc 18
Quote>But the police decided there were no facts to use to charge him with
The police don't decide. A grand jury does. Which is good; the chief of police has admitted he handled the case poorly and has stepped down.
Seems to be a trend, actually. The previous chief of police resigned after he refused to arrest a man for assaulting a homeless man a year ago - even though the attack was on video.
No, they do decide when the evidence is there
And the spin of the police chiefs move is the same as you post here
But given the media feeding frenzy, along with the left wigging out, his move seems logical
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
wlsc 0
QuoteQuoteQuote
Thus proving their own Racism.
Really?
Yes.
Yes,
Agreed then. I hear Obama has called this racist too now. Took his time but he's coming off that fence.
billvon 2,396
>No, they do decide when the evidence is there
They didn't in this case (or in the last two similar cases.) Fortunately we have the justice department looking at this now, so there likely won't be a fourth case like this.
>And the spin of the police chiefs move is the same as you post here
Sorry, can't parse the grammar in that sentence.
They didn't in this case (or in the last two similar cases.) Fortunately we have the justice department looking at this now, so there likely won't be a fourth case like this.
>And the spin of the police chiefs move is the same as you post here
Sorry, can't parse the grammar in that sentence.
rushmc 18
QuoteQuoteQuoteIf the kid assaulted the man after the man threatened him with a gun, then that was a justified response.
It would also be a very stupid response. The smart response would be to just walk away. Assaulting someone who is holding a gun while armed yourself only with your fists, is a sure way to get shot. Proceeding in that manner is likely to lead to a predictable end, and not in your favor.
John, while it may be very easy for someone who has experience in the police or the military, or someone who has simply watched too much 24, to know what to do when confronted by a man with a gun, this was a 17 year old kid with no known history of violence. Furthermore, if indeed he was threatened, we have absolutely no idea what was said, whether he was told he would be shot if he tried to escape etc. To call any reaction 'stupid' from such a hastily sketched hypothetical is a bit of a stretch.
It has also not escaped my notice that you seem to be judging the killer only on whether or not his actions were strictly legal, but the victim on whether his actions were legal and sensible. Hmm.
Well come on jakee
From your posts it would seem you were there!
Either that, or you are just picking the lines that fullfill your world view on this
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 18
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
Thus proving their own Racism.
Really?
Yes.
Yes,
Agreed then. I hear Obama has called this racist too now. Took his time but he's coming off that fence.
Nice little side step
Do you waltz too?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Really?
Yes.