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.
No, young men do not get shot just for holding a cell phone. He wasn't just standing on a corner holding his cell phone. That's not how it happens so stop making fake stories. Find me a story where someone was shot for just holding a cell phone please.
You get shot for running from cops and then cops telling you not to move but you reach into your pocket and pulling out something.
It still has not been established that he did the vandalism or that he did anything other than try to cooperate with the police. And that is the rub.
So he deserved to be shot 20 times and killed for an act of vandalism or theft?
I don't think that is what the other posters are saying.
Instead, they are logically pointing out that the suspect put himself into that situation, and he alone bares the blame for what befell him.
So neither crime (vandalism or fleeing the police) meant he deserved to die, far from it. However the choice he made created a situation that cause the LEO's to think they were in danger, thus he was shot.
As to the BLM rubbish, they are leftist/liberal malcontents who run around with a racial chip on their shoulders. Thus they look for reasons to exploit, and would like not give a flip had the victim been of a different color, or the LEO who shot was black.
Because people believe their was no justification for shooting him regardless of his guilt in the vandalism matter.
This reminds me of a kid who stole a jeep and the police were chasing him. The kid lost control and crashed. He survived but was a vegetable and in a coma, eventually he died. The parents claimed racism and tried suing the police department, they said the police shouldn't have chased him. They lost the case.
The same as in this case where both would still be alive if they didn't commit criminal acts. One being chased, dying because he lost control of the car he stole, the other who was vandalizing and when caught the police felt threatened and they shot him.
Did the victims of his crime deserve what he was doing?
No. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
OK, so let's refresh the basics: We have this system in place where the state is allowed to retribute against wrongdoers. This - theoretically, at least - ensures that the weak and the powerful alike enjoy the protection of the law. However: The state is a very powerful entity, and so we do not allow the state to carry out said retribution until and unless the state has established a very good case. And we insist that the punishment is in proportion to the crime. It's all written down in this pretty cool "Constitution" document.
Hinting that someone deserves to die for vandalism is of course a complete travesty if one professes belief in the principles outlined in said document.
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.
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.
