Quote:
Originally Posted by baloney_detector  I don't "know" it wasn't any more or less than you "know" it was.
We don't "know" either way. |
What we do know is that we have a team of armed plain clothes officers who "say" that they heard one of these men get into a confrontation and say he was going to get a gun. But they didn't get a gun, they got in a vehicle and were leaving the scene. So these plain clothes officers decided to stop these men who they admit were already in a confrontation and trying to leave. Before it was over, they had shot 50 rounds and a man who had committed no crime yet is dead. That is my opinion of the situation.
And no I don't "know" that the race of the victims amplified the situation, but again, I know that it has happened in the past, and there had to be something that makes a human being fire that many rounds at another human being that is not firing back. I don't see where they might have thought that was okay. And even if they DID think it was okay to do it, they should not be policemen. Because it isn't okay to shoot 50 times at another unarmed unthreatening human being. Especially when you are purposely dressed as a plain citizen.
I read a synopsis of the judges verdict. And I can't disagree with his conclusion that the prosecution presented a weak case and the witnesses had poor credibility.