Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Otto
I suppose you're right in the sense that things said on the internet, especially in this context, hold little value in the grand scheme of things. It's not like it is going to affect the outcome of this Chu disaster.
But, if we have learned anything over the past few years, it's that wild speculation and misinformation doesn't promote a healthy dialogue and can in fact, have serious consequences. So my point was that if you want to speculate and or allege some sort of cover up or conspiracy at least have the sense to post relevant information as to why you feel that way. Again, I don't think that's too much to ask. It is a forum for discussion afterall.
Locke (and others) has a history of anti-police sentiment and of post fly-bys that add little to the conversation. If he wants to paint all police issues with one brush, that's his prerogative. But he should also be called out on it.
Sent from my HD1905 using Tapatalk
|
To ask for information on a police cover up is a losing cause as many police cover ups have been proven throughout my lifetime. Even though these cover ups are not directly related to this case, many PD's have abused this same power imbalance. That is all once again speculation but it leads to believe the potential of corruption could exist in this case. You're right that it is a forum for discussion, but no one on this forum owes anyone anything. That's the beauty of it, you don't get to enforce them to prove anything, and they don't enforce you.
If you legitimately have something to refute a cover up I can guarantee we all want to hear it.
Edit: it is also important to note that he inappropriately touched a child by his own admission, im not one for backing people who inappropriately touch children, but thats my choice.