|
Intel&Sebastian posted:Actually I'm pretty sure shooting someone and taking them hostage is what should "dehumanize" someone into being a "hostage taker". You're lecturing me about the shades of grey in human behavior and then giving me a choice between robocops who shoot the guy or some poor conflicted guys who forgot what job they had because their misunderstood besties gun just accidentally went off in his ex wife? Recusal is when you don't handle a certain case because of personal connection, not when a judge goes "well I don't think I could fairly try my wife so I'm gonna have to quit being a judge", are you seriously saying that he police should have just walked away and called someone else who didn't know the guy? Also I can't take this post seriously with the "I can still reprimand subordinates I'm chummy with in my totally non life or death job so that's basically the same thing as gunning down your mentor on the street". With the witness account now indicating that he was not just a sergeant but their sergeant this makes even more sense.
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 10:10 |
|
|
hobotrashcanfires posted:It's great that you're here to argue against the handful of posters who occasionally (or in some cases usually) post with enthusiastic hyperbole. Some of them even deserve a response sometimes. Good work. What does empathy for the wife have to do with jack? What action of hers are we judging? Arguing for empathy for the wife in this context is nothing but "look how bad this thing is someone must pay" mob-rule bullshit that is the exact opposite of justice. People are talking about having empathy for the cop's position because they're the ones being judged.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
Jamark posted:What does empathy for the wife have to do with jack? What action of hers are we judging? They're saying to have empathy for an innocent woman who died and putting that over empathy for the killer, so you can save her life instead of saving the life of the one who pulled the trigger. These officers didn't just hesitate. They put their murdering friend's life above his victim's. The problem with the pro-cop position in this situation is that the people arguing in favor of it were previously arguing in favor of the police killing unarmed civilians simply because a threat was believed to be present. Empathy is being applied selectively: we're expected to empathize with the police when they let an innocent woman bleed to death out of an inability to take the life of one of their own friends, but also empathize with the police when they kill or beat a person who was never a threat because they got scared and wanted to save themselves from a potential quick-draw shooting. At no point have the police supporters in this thread considered empathizing with the unarmed and sometimes innocent people who had their lives cut short because a jumpy police officer misinterpreted a hand motion and killed them on the spot, and in fact the victims have been derided for "not following orders" or making bad judgement calls that got them killed, as if it was their fault that they died needlessly. There's no logic behind it. In the end, that makes it like arguing at a brick wall.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:They're saying to have empathy for an innocent woman who died and putting that over empathy for the killer, so you can save her life instead of saving the life of the one who pulled the trigger. These officers didn't just hesitate. They put their murdering friend's life above his victim's. Yes you're correct, calling for empathy with the police officer having to make the decision whether to pull the trigger when judging that decision every time it comes up is a very inconsistent position. Again no, empathizing with the victim is loving pointless and carries zero probative value (just poo poo tons of prejudicial value!). The only empathizing that matters is with the person being judged.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yes you're correct, calling for empathy with the police officer having to make the decision whether to pull the trigger when judging that decision every time it comes up is a very inconsistent position. Again no, empathizing with the victim is loving pointless and carries zero probative value (just poo poo tons of prejudicial value!). The only empathizing that matters is with the person being judged. Do you feel that Tamir Rice was judged by the police who killed him?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yes you're correct, calling for empathy with the police officer having to make the decision whether to pull the trigger when judging that decision every time it comes up is a very inconsistent position. Again no, empathizing with the victim is loving pointless and carries zero probative value (just poo poo tons of prejudicial value!). The only empathizing that matters is with the person being judged. Like, I feel if a murderer is not currently killing than, sure, empathizing with his past victims may make no sense. This is not what happened, though, and framing it like so is missing what many posters are saying. treasured8elief fucked around with this message at 05:59 on Jun 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
I give up dude, you're stuck on word definitions and staking out my positions for me. Suffice to say I very much disagree with how understanding you believe people should be when police officers let someone die because someone else was their friend. They arent giggling demons or anything but they are liable for that death in my opinion. I'll give it a college try since you are: I mention recusal because it exists, it's not a foreign concept for people in many walks of life to say "oh poo poo I have a personal connection here, someone else needs to handle this or I need to follow some safeguards to avoid even the appearance of favortism" I mention my job because if it applies to me in a job where I dont have to kill people, it should apply to a job where you do. Can't say I know exactly what they should do, I just know they did a horrible job of protecting public safety and avoiding that appearance of favoritism. What they shouldn't have done is trust someone, more than usual, in an active hostage situation to be cool and levelheaded just because they're friends. Intel&Sebastian fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Jun 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
This story reminds me of the case documented a couple years ago in that joint investigation by Frontline and the NYTimes: Two Gunshots on a Summer Night. A woman died in a comically obvious shooting murder by her abusive cop boyfriend after she tried to break up with him. His own department investigated and concluded that while the woman was packing her stuff to leave him, she suddenly removed the cop boyfriend's duty gun from its special retention holster (that not even the police's own medical examiner could figure out how to open), and shot herself while holding the gun upside-down and backwards in her non-dominant left hand (though the cop IS a lefty), which is necessary to explain how the gun recoiled forward(??) to cause a cut on her face. I think about the women in each of these cases and just feel so incredibly sad. Just the contempt by the "police." It feels like the PDs were colluding with the killers to just erase the women. It feels almost sadder than what the actual shooters did.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
So they should have what, walked away so that someone else could handle the call? I'm sure that he wouldn't have shot his wife if they'd done that. Christ. You can empathize with someone and still think they made the wrong decision. (At least if you're actually a loving human being.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
RZA Encryption posted:I don't really want to do it, I'm sure that guy has enough mental torture knowing that he ended an innocent life through his own neglect. Shooting Blanks posted:Stop Monday morning quarterbacking this thing, jesus. Armani posted:He's attacked her twice before this, with no cops helping her, only him. Booourns posted:Didn't seem like that cop had a very hard time shooting his wife When a sad Brother guns down his bitch the thing you do is hang around and collect photos for him so he is less sad while the bitch bleeds out. Thats basic humanity you cunts. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
I don't get to opt not to restrain Alice who is going after Bob, even if Bob has been provoking Alice to the point where I can put myself in Alice's shoes and know that if I were Alice I'd probably want to beat the poo poo out of Bob too. I don't care if cops are having empathy for their buddy - they still have to do their loving jobs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
tentative8e8op posted:Empathizing with such a murder victim is not at all pointless when she's still alive and not yet murdered by her husband. A police officer choosing, instead, to empathize with someone actively murdering his fleeing wife, to an extent where he is simply allowed to finish murdering her by shooting her on a second occasion and letting her bleed to death, is terrifying. We're discussing the police officers, the topic in this thread right now is judging the actions of the police officers, in that context it is not at all helpful to judge the actions of the cops by empathizing with the victim because all that leads us too is "look how horrible this is someone must be punished." If you want to judge someone's decision the pertinent information is the information, perspective, and emotional state of the person making the decision. I'm not missing what many posters at all, I'm saying its loving dumb. And again, since I haven't said it again this page I guess I'll repeat it, I think these guys hosed up and deserve to be punished. How bad that punishment should be depends on a lot of information that we don't have access to yet. Intel&Sebastian posted:I give up dude, you're stuck on word definitions and staking out my positions for me. Suffice to say I very much disagree with how understanding you believe people should be when police officers let someone die because someone else was their friend. They arent giggling demons or anything but they are liable for that death in my opinion. I really don't understand this whole "why do you keep bringing up what words actually mean instead of this unknown and imaginary definition I have in my head" complaint, but the reason I attacked the idea of recusal is it has absolutely no place in this situation. Recusal because of a personal stake in a situation is something you do when you have the benefit of having the time to find someone else to handle the situation. Saying that the cops in this situation hosed up by not killing the guy because of a personal connection, and that instead they should have recused themselves (effectively walking away) just makes absolutely no sense. Trying to characterize a pair of cops being unwilling to put a bullet in their friend and mentor when they really should have in order to do their job correctly as some sort of deliberate corruption and favoritism is either a dishonest attempt to score anti-cop points or just really loving aspie , take your pick.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:We're discussing the police officers, the topic in this thread right now is judging the actions of the police officers, in that context it is not at all helpful to judge the actions of the cops by empathizing with the victim because all that leads us too is "look how horrible this is someone must be punished." If you want to judge someone's decision the pertinent information is the information, perspective, and emotional state of the person making the decision. I'm not missing what many posters at all, I'm saying its loving dumb. That is the entire point of the discussion. You may not like it but your rationalization is insane. It isn't dumb.  We can question their decisions based upon information we obtain. If they continually state they were in fear for their lives, but we see in reality that they just straight up murdered someone, we are going to ask some questions. The more this happens, the more questions we are going to ask. If they are so hyper emotional that they really thought their life was in danger and they had to shoot an unarmed person, they shouldn't be on the job. Pohl fucked around with this message at 07:54 on Jun 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
Theres a lot of stuff going on in these topics every day. Getting mired in arguing with the people who think that murder is ok when Heroes do it is a massive distraction machine. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/americas-slave-empire quote:America’s Slave Empire
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 08:46
|
|
|
Kalman posted:So they should have what, walked away so that someone else could handle the call? I'm sure that he wouldn't have shot his wife if they'd done that. Yes. This. Jesus Christ guys. If you can't understand the mental difference between shooting random person you mistakenly believe is posing a threat to your life and shooting a friend, wow. Just wow. It didn't even have to be another cop. What if he rolled up on a DV scene and the suspect was his golf buddy. It's not "giving them a pass to murder" it's hesitating because killing someone you know is not and should not be easy. Also people are overlooking the fact there was a seven year old in the car. Also plays into the shoot or don't shoot analysis. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 11:50 on Jun 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 11:47
|
|
|
Everybody understands that. Not understanding it is not the issue. The issue is that most posters here are complaining at how completely the police mishandled that situation, at which point others come in and say that it's hard to kill somebody you know which is true but also not the loving point. The fact that it's harder to kill somebody you know than somebody you don't know doesn't magically make this not a gently caress-up. And I'm getting a little tired of the same irrelevant posts calling for empathy for the cops. This is supposed to be a discussion about bad policing. Coming in and saying "but they had emotional reasons" is apologia, nothing more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 11:57
|
|
|
Killing someone you don't know is not and should not be easy either
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 11:59
|
|
|
botany posted:Everybody understands that. Not understanding it is not the issue. The issue is that most posters here are complaining at how completely the police mishandled that situation, at which point others come in and say that it's hard to kill somebody you know which is true but also not the loving point. The fact that it's harder to kill somebody you know than somebody you don't know doesn't magically make this not a gently caress-up. And I'm getting a little tired of the same irrelevant posts calling for empathy for the cops. This is supposed to be a discussion about bad policing. Coming in and saying "but they had emotional reasons" is apologia, nothing more. Actually several people HAVE argued that they should have opened fire immediately and are consistently making analogies to other suspect shootings as if they are the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 12:04
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:Killing someone you don't know is not and should not be easy either You're right. Blowing away someone you know with a gun to his own head is totes the same as shooting someone you believe is about to shoot you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 12:06
|
|
|
First, empathize with those you think are about to shoot you. Is it possible they are having a bad day? Perhaps that bitch ex of theirs was nagging them. Who can tell? Best approach them with the H.U.G. squad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 12:15
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Actually several people HAVE argued that they should have opened fire immediately and are consistently making analogies to other suspect shootings as if they are the same thing. I'm actually at a loss how to explain this to you because you still don't seem to understand. If somebody is shooting their wife, has a gun in hand and is making threats, you (as a cop) have to neutralize that person in order to get to the wounded wife. That is literally the job you're there to do. They did not do that job. The fact that they had emotional reasons is entirely besides the point. The reason people are bringing up other suspect shootings is because we're concerned with the structural failure of policing in the US. One of the structural issues is that, for the same sort of crime, cops tend to be handled much differently by the system compared to ordinary citizens, or, god forbid, minorities. This incidence, especially when compared with e.g. the Tamir Rice shooting, is evidence of that structural problem. The fact that it's more difficult to shoot somebody you know than somebody you don't know is irrelevant to the structural problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 12:19
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:You're right. Blowing away someone you know with a gun to his own head is totes the same as shooting someone you believe is about to shoot you. In an ideal world the police would have overcome their reluctance and opened fire after the first shot at his wife. In a slightly less ideal world the police would have opened fire after the first 'barrage' of fire at his wife, rushed in and handcuffed his prone body and then had the paramedics take his wife to the hospital to see if she could be saved. In the loving world we live in, they waited 30 minutes, he fired at his wife some more before they finally eventually talked him down. Are you afraid that if you admit 'Yes, the police could have done better' then one of your colleagues is going to find out and murder you in open court or something? We're discussing what the desired outcome of training and policies should be. The conversation is (mostly) not "The cops hosed up, so we should execute the cops." The cops hosed up, we should make sure that police departments establish training priorities to avoid this happening again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 12:45
|
|
|
I'm just afraid that criminals will adapt to take advantage of officers' natural weaknesses by imitating off-duty cops while committing crimes. In a world where even the basest gutter criminal grows a goatee to cover their double chin, who will be able to tell right from wrong?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 12:53
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Yes. This. Jesus Christ guys. If you can't understand the mental difference between shooting random person you mistakenly believe is posing a threat to your life and shooting a friend, wow. Just wow. treasured8elief fucked around with this message at 13:16 on Jun 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 13:14
|
|
|
No one has said they didn't gently caress up. What people are objecting to is the line of thought that says "well they shot so and so without any hesitation, so why not this guy?" Clearly there's a lot that could and should have been done differently.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 13:46
|
|
|
botany posted:Everybody understands that. Not understanding it is not the issue. The issue is that most posters here are complaining at how completely the police mishandled that situation, at which point others come in and say that it's hard to kill somebody you know which is true but also not the loving point. The fact that it's harder to kill somebody you know than somebody you don't know doesn't magically make this not a gently caress-up. And I'm getting a little tired of the same irrelevant posts calling for empathy for the cops. This is supposed to be a discussion about bad policing. Coming in and saying "but they had emotional reasons" is apologia, nothing more. Lol I love it when after arguing with a whole group of people for pages and a new person waltzes in and says that "everyone understands that," because no, they really loving don't. CheesyDog posted:Killing someone you don't know is not and should not be easy either When you're actually having a fear response from an imminent threat (real or perceived) it really isn't that hard. Which brings me to a second point, even with strangers it's much harder to kill someone from rational calculation(I.e. because it's a good idea) then from fear of an imminent threat, even when that calculation is that they will become an imminent threat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
Similar to the Gay Panic defense, the Fear of a Black Preteen defense is a separate but equal legal argument rooted in the existential threat to officers posed by minorities
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:No one has said they didn't gently caress up. What people are objecting to is the line of thought that says "well they shot so and so without any hesitation, so why not this guy?" Clearly there's a lot that could and should have been done differently. Let me summarize it. "To protect and serve" is the generic catchphrase of the police. If the police are incapable of protecting the public from one of their own murdering an unarmed bystander, how can I objectively assume they will protect me when I need it? Displaying poor judgement in a critical moment when civilian lives are on the line should be the point where we question their effectiveness. That is literally what they are there for. That's before we even touch on the appearance of the entire system being stacked because officers seem to have this magical ability to get out of legal situations that cost civilians their lives and livelihoods, or the appearance of deeply embedded racism, or the old boys club mentality that punishes the upright officer for blowing the whistle. Your constant defense of these officers does neither you nor them any justice. When I read that story, I was repulsed because they let a gun wielding madman murder a woman in cold blood in front of their seven year old daughter, and were more concerned with talking their brother down than saving the life of the civilian. That's a problem, and it needs to be fixed. Until it is fixed, you will have a substantial number of the population who are like me, who fear police interaction, because the appearance is that they give zero fucks about keeping innocent people safe, and zero fucks about keeping peace. Had the officers actually put bullets in the assailent, then sure they'd have my empathy, and my respect as well for heroically putting aside their brotherhood to protect lives. And who knows, maybe now nine people wouldn't have had to spend the rest of their lives without both parents.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:Let me summarize it. "To protect and serve" is the generic catchphrase of the police. That reminds me, wasn't there a legal case where it was decided that police aren't actually required "to protect and serve"? I heard something like that years ago. May have been another country.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:You're right. Blowing away someone you know with a gun to his own head is totes the same as shooting someone you believe is about to shoot you. Don't most killing happen between people who know each other? Also I think the main issue here is not with the whole "it's difficult to shoot a friend" angle, and more with the fact that Officers are trained and paid to go into situations where you need to be able to over come emotions, like fear, hate, anger, and even love, to fulfill a duty to protect people. Clearly in this case, and many others, they're failing. With this case you're looking at a systematic failure to stop an abuser, who showed multiple signs of being dangerous, and no one, not a single god damned person, on that force ever tried to get him, or his wife, the help they needed. If the cops can't reform and help their own, what chance do regular people have? And what right do cops have to police people, if they don't hold themselves to a higher standard than other people in more then just rhetoric.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
Anora posted:Don't most killing happen between people who know each other? Most murders happen between people who know each other. Seriously, I thought at first that this argument was so loving dumb that it must be people being disingenuous, but holy poo poo the number of people who've made it has got me wondering if people in this thread really truly in fact have their head so far up their rear end that they can't tell the psychological difference between murdering someone and killing by necessity. A new corollary of Poe's law perhaps? Anora posted:Also I think the main issue here is not with the whole "it's difficult to shoot a friend" angle, and more with the fact that Officers are trained and paid to go into situations where you need to be able to over come emotions, like fear, hate, anger, and even love, to fulfill a duty to protect people. Clearly in this case, and many others, they're failing. This is actually the biggest fuckup and outrage from this case and its being completely ignored in favor of "look I guess cops only shoot black people  " because a pair of cops didn't want to shoot their sergeant bullshit. This is actually real, intentional corruption and enabling by the police which directly contributed to this women being killed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:This is actually the biggest fuckup and outrage from this case and its being completely ignored in favor of "look I guess cops only shoot black people So you're settling on #NotAllCops then. Alright.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:So you're settling on #NotAllCops then. Alright. I'm not sure how to respond to this because I"m not sure how a functioning human brain can come to the conclusion that saying that we should be more outraged about the systemic corruption in the department that led to this situation then a couple of cops failing to make a hard decision to kill someone they had a close relationship with is a #notallcops argument. edit: also trying to typecast someone's argument into made up D&D stereotypes so it can be dismissed without addressing it is some intellectually lazy bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:So you're settling on #NotAllCops then. Alright. Did you read what you quoted? Because that isn't at all what you quoted. He's also right in that quote, but this thread has become so red v. blue no one really pays attention, they're just yelling past each other to try to score the most internet points.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I'm not sure how to respond to this because I"m not sure how a functioning human brain can come to the conclusion that saying that we should be more outraged about the systemic corruption in the department that led to this situation then a couple of cops failing to make a hard decision to kill someone they had a close relationship with is a #notallcops argument. I came to that conclusion because we're discussing police and criminal justice in a thread that has a new allegation of police abuse every few pages, and yet you're dismissing a clear cut example of the blue wall as a case of two corrupt cops. So either that's the biggest loving coincidence in the history of coincidence, or maybe, just maybe, there might be a causal link between police departments on a national level protecting their own at all costs and civilian death. In the last month we've had a cop straight up murder his wife with on site police refusing to even draw on him, an unarmed black man killed in a confrontation initiated by a police officer, and an unarmed black man killed for not listening to an officer. Each one of these incidents occurred in different locations in the country. Each one, a police officer reacted to a situation with far and away more force, to the point that our armed forces, the people we actually employ to kill other people, are saying officers are too trigger happy. Each time there's officer misconduct, even the appearance of it, there are no charges. Yet somehow, there's no systemic failure of police training in your eyes. That's the intellectually lazy bullshit. Each month brings a new series of abuses. Each month you and Dead Reckoning put forth the most bile inducing defenses that magically exculpate the officer from any wrongdoing. Each month, you quibble and troll up on minor details when you know full drat well the points being made. And you have the brass balls, when I call out your statement for what it is, to call me intellectually lazy. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:I came to that conclusion because we're discussing police and criminal justice in a thread that has a new allegation of police abuse every few pages, and yet you're dismissing a clear cut example of the blue wall as a case of two corrupt cops. So either that's the biggest loving coincidence in the history of coincidence, or maybe, just maybe, there might be a causal link between police departments on a national level protecting their own at all costs and civilian death. Except its not even remotely a blue wall issue, the non investigation of the wife's prior complaints is a giant, glaring blue wall issue Raerlynn posted:In the last month we've had a cop straight up murder his wife with on site police refusing to even draw on him, an unarmed black man killed in a confrontation initiated by a police officer, and an unarmed black man killed for not listening to an officer. Each one of these incidents occurred in different locations in the country. Each one, a police officer reacted to a situation with far and away more force, to the point that our armed forces, the people we actually employ to kill other people, are saying officers are too trigger happy. Each time there's officer misconduct, even the appearance of it, there are no charges. Yet somehow, there's no systemic failure of police training in your eyes. That's the intellectually lazy bullshit. I'm sorry did the cop who killed his wife not get charged or are you seriously saying that not killing someone is a criminal offense? Just for the sake of my own amusement could you tell me what you think that charge should be? Also I find you calling something intellectually lazy in the same paragraph you forward the arguement that "well look all these different cops in different departments in different parts of the country in different situations were bad, how can you say this cop isn't bad too?" somewhat hilarious. Though the crown jewel of this little gallery of idiocy you've provided is the fact the person who was in the armed forces, the person who's actually been employed to kill other people, the person who was complaining in different incidents of cops being too trigger happy and having horrible gun safety/handling compared even compared to soldiers in a warzone, that was me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
Cops not wanting to shoot their friend has nothing to do with the blue line and everything to do with human nature, there must be a lot of beep boop robots that post here to have this conversation go on for more than a couple posts. But that's ideologues for you. It's really sad to see people lamenting these police were not more trigger happy just to prove some stupid point. Isn't that what we should want?
tsa fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Jun 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Theres so many conflicting accounts of what happened with this story. After he shot his wife the first time, was the little girl still in the car? How long after the first shots into the wife did he let the girl go? And then, how long after the police had the girl did he fire the second shots? There was a summary of witness statements on the last page and that gives the impression that all of this happened very very quickly and the waiting came after he had his gun to his head until they chucked the pictures of his family to him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
tsa posted:Cops not wanting to shoot their friend has nothing to do with the blue line and everything to do with human nature, there must be a lot of beep boop robots that post here to have this conversation go on for more than a couple posts. But that's ideologues for you. It's really sad to see people lamenting these police were not more trigger happy just to prove some stupid point. Isn't that what we should want? Not really.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 10:10 |
|
|
nm posted:to try to score the most internet points. This matters a lot in American politics now, and even helped change the entire country yesterday.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 19:11
|
|