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.
Now, this doesn't mean he should be shot in the back, but it's interesting because he doesn't appear to be just a "kid who got arrested some and was using/selling drugs now and then."
He seems to have been an actual, and (at some point) active member of a well-known street gang.
Soo... I guess we should wait and see what really happened. Him actually being armed, if he was still affiliated with them (and my understanding is that people really don't often get out of gangs) is quite high.
I hope the investigation is swift and the information is available soon.
I hate to think of the police overstepping just as much as I hate to think of protests turning violent if it turns out the the officer was within rights to shoot him like he did.
It's a tough situation, given the current police/private citizen climate in many parts of the country.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
I love how you made up things I never said or wrote lol but thanks I think!
The only thing I attributed to you is "condemn one, and blindly accept the other". I admit, I assumed that, based on your open statement that his killing was a service to our society, and nothing more to you than a savings of tax dollars. (pretty much what you said, right?), and assumed that since you were so outspoken toward one profile, that your silence about the other, paired with your clear justification for their action, was a form of acceptance.
Pretty reasonable, I think. If there is something else, or if you have a more detailed thought process, just spell it out so we can understand. Otherwise, from what you've posted so far, you don't think the constitution applies equally to everyone.
Look at the record of the SBI's findings against an officer involved in a shooting. Its truth is not the public's truth. As a result of its investigations, I believe the SBI has law officers batting nearly .999.
Only the Feds are removed enough to even begin to investigate in a fashion that could lead to an "objective" truth.
Look at the record of the SBI's findings against an officer involved in a shooting. Its truth is not the public's truth. As a result of its investigations, I believe the SBI has law officers batting nearly .999.
Only the Feds are removed enough to even begin to investigate in a fashion that could lead to an "objective" truth.
Does the RPD have a history or reputation of being heavy handed? You seldom hear of officer involved shootings, and rarely hear of allegations of excessive force. If the department is misbehaving, then the DOJ does need to investigate. But, I haven't heard rumblings of that.
Does the RPD have a history or reputation of being heavy handed? You seldom hear of officer involved shootings, and rarely hear of allegations of excessive force. If the department is misbehaving, then the DOJ does need to investigate. But, I haven't heard rumblings of that.
RPD doesn't have that sort of reputation from my understanding.
Just highlighting how the SBI is neither objective nor concerned with any measure of objective truth when it comes to officer involved shootings of this nature.
The only thing I attributed to you is "condemn one, and blindly accept the other". I admit, I assumed that, based on your open statement that his killing was a service to our society, and nothing more to you than a savings of tax dollars. (pretty much what you said, right?), and assumed that since you were so outspoken toward one profile, that your silence about the other, paired with your clear justification for their action, was a form of acceptance.
Pretty reasonable, I think. If there is something else, or if you have a more detailed thought process, just spell it out so we can understand. Otherwise, from what you've posted so far, you don't think the constitution applies equally to everyone.
Well we all know what it means when you assume.
The constitution doesn't apply to everyone equally. Convicted felons lose some of their rights don't they ?
The constitution doesn't apply to everyone equally. Convicted felons lose some of their rights don't they ?
Right, but not the right to a fair trial. (And I'm pretty sure, not positive, this guy was not convicted of felonies, only accused of them.)
So again, your deflections are avoiding the point of my post, that you seem to have little respect (or perhaps no understanding) of the constitution.
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.
