BART cops shoot unarmed man - had "criminal history"

Quote:

Hmm a cop drawing his weapon and shooting an unarmed subdued man in the back, that doesn't prove wrongdoing.

If theres no investigation, people like you cry conspiracy.

If there is an investigation, people like you cry for blood.

Make up what passses for your fucking mind already. You swap positions more often than a fat man swaps ugly women at a key party.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Uh, there is no conspiracy, the Police Union rushes to the defense of every cop accused of killing innocent people.

The Blue Shield is the reason people Don't Snitch.

So your complaint is... that the cop shot someone? I mean, outside of the DUH factor here, whats the problem? Do you know this guy? Is there some kind of investment on your end?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

So then why is everyone so angry that someone got shot. By a police officer. With a gun.

I mean, Brady obviously started the thread for the "hurr hurr police negligence" factor in mind. And my reply to that is "Okay, and?"

Quote:

What's wrong with a cop killing someone?

Exactly that. Except less glib.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I am Ghost Rider. I am known for these things.

If only my Penance Stare worked through the internet.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Hmm, an endless stream of innocent people, mostly black, shot and killed by police officers that get off the hook because of police stonewalling and now that one police shooting is caught on tape the Police Chief wants to "review the evidence" hmm why would I make this thread it's a fucking mystery.

And you care enough to make an internet post. Watch me get all weepy.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Yes, thats about your speed.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Capo

I promise you this: He will one day get his due.

Damn right I'd strike the sun if it spoke ill of me.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Elfstar

I thought their broad remit was "Protect and serve" rather than "Judge and execute". Their duty of protection extends to everyone, including people they suspect of commiting a crime. That person is innocent until proven guilty and as such, by shooting him the cop has failed in his most basic of duties, to protect a member of the public and if that's not a case of gross negligence and instant dismissal I don't know what is.

The trick of it is - hind sight is 20/20. Sure, NOW we know the cop was wrong; but how many here have ever had to protect the peace? (Is anyone here in the criminal justice world?)

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?