Posted on 01/28/2015 2:31:40 PM PST by kiryandil
Certainly you did.
And you haven't been able to refute any of dragnet2's stepping through the basic procedures that Officer Incompetent was unable to follow:
1. handcuff
2. disarm handcuffed individual
3. don't murder handcuffed, disarmed, mentally unbalanced 90-pound girl
So, if I witness 3 NKVD operatives kill a victim, and I note that 2 of them did nothing wrong, that excuses the murder by the third NKVD operative.
You're going to need to write a subroutine to handle that exception, chris.
Maybe you can call it PRINT_MURDERER_LIST... LOL! :)
Well, he was sitting on top of her, all he had to do was remain there another minute or two....
Think man.
Did this not happen in a police station where lots of cops tend to be?
Maybe he had to go potty.
Or maybe he wanted some target practice...
Well that really begs the question chris;
If the officer thought the suspect had a weapon, why in tarnation would the officer get off her once he clearly had her subdued and then move away from the suspect, allowing the armed suspect to get up???
??
What if she couldn’t breathe...
It did happen in a police station, but I do not see a lot of cops there.
It was after hours, so it pretty much seemed deserted to me, but that is just my impression from watching the video.
Regardless, whatever this particular officer did or did not do procedure wise did not give her the right to try and kill him.
Whether or not his actions or lack of actions created the “opportunity” for her to charge is not relevant in a criminal sense.
That would be like saying a girl getting drunk and passing out then being raped is her fault, because she got drunk and passed out thus creating the opportunity for rape. I realize that some Muslim countries may see it this way, but we do not.
It would similar to saying that inside a bank a large pile of money was left in the lobby, and then a robber came in and stole it, but the bank is responsible for creating the opportunity for the robbery to occur.
The criminal who commits a crime is responsible of any consequences that occur as a result of that criminal action.
When she chose to assault him, it was a done deal at that point. A line was crossed that could not be uncrossed.
Now if his employer chooses to assert that he acted in a way that is not conducive to his keeping his job, then that is their right, however, I would still like to hear his side of the story as to why he took the actions he took and did not take other actions.
I’m not going to make any definitive judgment on that until I get that information.
Maybe she said I’m going to stab you.
This is a question better asked of him than me, only he knows that answer.
That being said, his getting up and, by extension allowing her to get up, is not a crime, nor is it in any way an action that forfeits his right to self defense.
Well that really begs the question chris;
If the officer thought the suspect had a weapon, why in tarnation would the officer get off her once he clearly had her subdued and then move away from the suspect, allowing the armed suspect to get up???
What if she couldn’t breathe
LOL!
chris, you've come up with every excuse, "What if that happened, and what if this happened, what about if this and that happened" and on and on...
What happened is all on good quality video.
Anyway, this is like beating on a dead horse.
I want a beer. I'll come back later. I might feel like beating the horse some more in a while.
Maybe you're getting ready to put words in the dead little girl's moth.
Maybe she said: "I'll be back.", like Arnold in The Terminator
Maybe that's why the murderers had to unleash a hail of bullets inside the police station.
Then what?
Again, this is a question that only he can answer. I have already given you the theories I can come up with. You say they are excuses, but they are just the answers I've come up with. I haven't excused him on anything else other than the shooting. I don't have enough information to excuse him or hold him accountable procedure wise at this point.
LOL! chris, you've come up with every excuse, "What if that happened, and what if this happened, what about if this and that happened" and on and on...
That was a clever response on my part though >;D
But seriously, as I said, they aren't excuses, I haven't excused him, they are simply responses in a conversation. We don't have to talk about this if you don't want. There truly isn't much point as we are both lacking necessary information at this time.
What happened is all on good quality video.
Yeah, it is, but the audio isn't there, and neither is any interview with the officers, both of which I'd like to have access to.
Also I read that the Texas Rangers declined to release the audio on the grounds that they don't want to jeopardize the integrity of their investigation.
That seems fine with me at this point. The only thing that matters is truth, so let's let them get to it.
Then what?
So, that means that you agree that since the other two officers did nothing wrong, and seeing as how they were involved in the shooting, then the shooting was wrong, otherwise they would have, in fact, by participating in the shooting done something wrong, which you agreed that they didn’t, and that means that Officer Incompetent Number One is a murderer/molester.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.