BIGREDIOWAN
Mods
Never said those situations weren't wrongful. The problem is those situations are cherry picked and used to paint a broad picture of officer involved shootings generally speaking. I refuse to allow folks in here to take their anger out of me for these situations and that's what happens. I'm a person too folks, whether you like that or not. Those folks can literally go fly a kite because I'm not going to be the whipping boy.I skimmed through the article and I agree with much of his fact based comments explaining the use of force rules. He could have saved his editorials. And his statement that in 2004 you could shoot any male aged male is a lie, unless he's talking about action during direct contact during the invasion or subsequently during the various battles against militias and insurgencies.
That said, I don't think every police shooting has been improper, even when a gun wasn't found or they shot a kid who had a fake gun.
but certain ones are definitely wrong and would have violated ROE and common decency, like the shooting of the guy sitting on the street with his hands up helping an autistic kid or a guy not complying with orders but also not being threatening or a guy running from a cop and then the cop trying to stage a scene after shooting him in the back.
Can you at least admit those situations were wrongful?
Or do you believe there is no problem and people are overreacting?
Last edited by a moderator: