Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Irrelevant. He had a gun, and likely in his hand. It was justified. Cops have gotten off after shooting someone who was unarmed, simply because it was believable that they thought he had a gun (Diallo case.) The perp actually had a gun in this case, so it's pretty much open and shut. The cops won't get charged, won't get fired, and a wrongful death suit will likely fail.
I really hope you are right, and that the kid was stupid enough to try to use a gun against them. If it didn't go down as they say, we have no way to prove otherwise, they will get away with unlawful use of force again. I do hope it was a righteous shoot, I just have my doubts.
I really hope you are right, and that the kid was stupid enough to try to use a gun against them. If it didn't go down as they say, we have no way to prove otherwise, they will get away with unlawful use of force again. I do hope it was a righteous shoot, I just have my doubts.
You hope it was righteous shoot? Tase the kid, shoot him rubber bullets if anything but to kill him, is not righteous to take a child who hasn't even began life yet. That kid was 3 years younger than I, and you hope it was a righteous shooting? I can't get over that. **** is sick seeing how the human mind has slumped to such lows in morality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibelian
That's a bit harsh as well.
Nah, it's not I don't suffer from Stockholm Syndrome, fortunately. Plus it's a legitimate question.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.