Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Hurst who wrote (265066)	11/25/2014 11:24:51 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 540724

This case was bound to cause disappointment. It's going to turn off all the law and order folks- who don't like the idea of robbers tussling with officers over their guns. There are plenty of abusive cases in which 1. a criminal was NOT involved, 2. the dead person was not intimidating, and there was no question of reasonable fear on the part of the officer and 3. the violence perpetrated by the officer was clearly excessive. I have no idea why so many otherwise sensible liberals got suckered in on this case. But there you are. Nothing to be done about it now.

To: Don Hurst who wrote (265066)	11/25/2014 2:07:12 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 540724

Agree with you...the wrong poster boy and I am getting quite tired of hearing about the "criminal" policeman who questioned a thug (did his job in this case), and then was attacked in his car and then shot the thug several times (most not to kill) probably to stop the thug from severely injuring (killing?) him. Well, I guess we know wherefrom you are approaching this case. I gather in your universe it's okay to shoot to kill someone who did a petty theft. And then to come to conclusions about what happened afterward when it's very, very contested ground, the kind of contested ground that usually goes to trial to settle.