Quote:
Originally posted by Reaper+Dec 11 2004, 02:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Reaper @ Dec 11 2004, 02:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Snakeeye@Dec 11 2004, 12:39 PM
If he can call me a crook, turnabout is fair play.
|
Call me crazy but I don't see where he called you a crook. [/b][/quote]
No, I certainly didn't, and I'm not going to respond to the other personal attacks.
I should have chosen my original words more carefully. Rather than saying he was talking out of his ass, I should have just berated his argument for being flat wrong -- which it is.
Can't say I've flipped off on someone on CP before, I just found his original point/ counter-punch ludicrous and I can't stand seeing such obvious injustice going on in our legal system.
Notice how Snakeeye didn't try to back up his original assertion? He just attacked the person instead. If you're mad that I attacked your position, defend it. If you're mad that I said you were talking out of your ass, I'm sorry.
This guy absolutely got off (to the extent he won't serve further time) because of his position as a cop.
Two hung juries -- which most likely means some jurors wouldn't go for less than murder, while others were holding out for manslaughter or nothing.
So the third jury makes a compromise and agrees on manslaughter. Then Hawco -- not having any information as to why the jury did that (he could only guess, like me) finds as "fact" that the first shot was justified as self-defence, but the second was not.
Cops are trained to shoot two bullets-- every time -- so that finding was bizarre in and of itself.
Now Hawco says "the public" wouldn't stand for a cop to be jailed for this incident.
That is garbage -- there is no need whatsoever for a cop to shoot a handcuffed drunk guy. All he had to do was back out of the cell and close the door.
I hope this gets appealed.