Quote:
Originally Posted by Bent Wookie
Factual errors because you disagree. Right.
I just don't get it. In the video, the cop doesn't shoot. Yet another cop would. Doesn't that, in itself prove it's not this cut and dry world you live in?
|
ok, one last time....the issue is this, you took a look at the video of the murder suspect chasing down a cop in Ohio and said that
in no uncertain terms I was inccorect and that the cop had no legal gounds to shoot the suspect dead. You said I was an
uninfomed internet bumpkin and I should speak about only that which I was trained in.
I then showed you the chief of police from Notsocrazycop county, Ohio who said that the video proves beyond any doubt that the officer did have the right to shoot the suspect. A cheap CNN analysis says the same thing. Tennessee vs Gardner is the specific case you could reference for the legal definitions. But somehow you are not incorrect and I'm a wiki-dunce.
Your simple mistake then turned into more errors because you tried to suggest your analysis of the video is fine because every cop and situation is different. That brought up your incorrect opinion that criminal history does not matter, that the only thing that matters is the fearful state of mind of the cop involved, and that every case is different (if it were, every case would then go to the supreme court for a precident setting ruling).
And finally, not that it matters even slightly, I have a few degrees in the subject and have taught at universities in the states. However the common sense of a ten year old is about the extent of the knowledge required to get this.
In short, every cop who would have shot the murder suspect would have been justified in doing so. Just as every cop who didn't would have been a hero. It isn't different depending on the mind set of the cop.
Anyway, I'll stop being a pain. But if you call me out you need to at least be right about the subject matter.