That's a far cry from being guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt by a jury of his peers, and then sentenced according to the guidelines for the crimes which he might theoretically have been found guilty of.
Sounds like a moot point to me...
That's a far cry from being guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt by a jury of his peers, and then sentenced according to the guidelines for the crimes which he might theoretically have been found guilty of.
Not to stick up for the guy, but he only sexually assaulted two people. He assaulted 6, but only 2 of them were sexual assault.
And had those other 4 not fought him off or whatever, the count would be 6.
2 official rapes. 4 other assaults with intent to rape.
Now dead, one less completely worthless mammal no longer taking up space and hurting people.
Good.
Claiming a man has not been proven of any wrongdoing other than brandishing a gun is a flawed argument....it doesn't matter what your previous experiences have been, if you threaten the law, you're going to get it and deservedly so. End of discussion. Its obvious what you're trying to say....yes he deserves his day in court in front of the judge, but he took that scenario out of the equation when he drew a weapon on a lawman. Thats all there is to it man.And that's a determination (well before he died, at any rate) of the criminal justice system, not a bunch of people drawing conclusions from a 50 word article that implies not even a scintilla of evidence that he was guilty of anything other than allegedly brandishing a weapon when questioned by police about a crime that he may or may not have had knowledge about.
That's a far cry from being guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt by a jury of his peers, and then sentenced according to the guidelines for the crimes which he might theoretically have been found guilty of.
Claiming a man has not been proven of any wrongdoing other than brandishing a gun is a flawed argument....it doesn't matter what your previous experiences have been, if you threaten the law, you're going to get it and deservedly so. End of discussion. Its obvious what you're trying to say....yes he deserves his day in court in front of the judge, but he took that scenario out of the equation when he drew a weapon on a lawman. Thats all there is to it man.
Not to stick up for the guy, but he only sexually assaulted two people.
Since when does "person of interest" equate to "definitely guilty"?
Good lord, I hope you don't all own torches and pitchforks.
Pulling a weapon is certainly suspicious, and I won't fault the officers for shooting (and killing) the guy, but assuming he was guilty of a crime worthy of the death penalty just because he was a "person of interest" is a pretty huge leap.
Unless he was, say, mentally ill. Or a freaky crazy conspiracy theorist/guy who was convinced that Obama was coming to take his guns away.Well he was obv guilty of something if he had to pull a gun on a police officer...anyone not guilty of something and someone that has nothing to hide would not pull a gun on an officer.
Well he was obv guilty of something if he had to pull a gun on a police officer...anyone not guilty of something and someone that has nothing to hide would not pull a gun on an officer.
I never convicted him of anything...the point is once he pulled a gun on a cop who was questioning him it doesn't matter what you think, what I think, what the judge would have thought. Its all a mute point once he does that....and he got what he deserved. Now, if the cops shot him before he pulled a weapon or pulled some story out of thin air because they wanted an excuse to shoot him.....then I would agree with you, and they jumped to conclusions. But being I have no immediate knowledge of the situation, I'm siding with the cops on this one.It's not a flawed argument. You've convicted him of a crime he hasn't been proven to have committed.
Pulling a gun on a cop is a stupid idea and he probably deserved what he got (though we don't have the details even on that yet...there are certainly cases of cops shooting people when it hasn't been justified in the past).
That being said, I guess jumping to conclusions is one of the things people around here do best, so I really shouldn't be surprised.
It's not a flawed argument. You've convicted him of a crime he hasn't been proven to have committed.
Pulling a gun on a cop is a stupid idea and he probably deserved what he got (though we don't have the details even on that yet...there are certainly cases of cops shooting people when it hasn't been justified in the past).
That being said, I guess jumping to conclusions is one of the things people around here do best, so I really shouldn't be surprised.
Unless he was, say, mentally ill. Or a freaky crazy conspiracy theorist/guy who was convinced that Obama was coming to take his guns away.
Edit: or the cops busted into his place and he didn't know what was going on....
Unless he was, say, mentally ill. Or a freaky crazy conspiracy theorist/guy who was convinced that Obama was coming to take his guns away.
Edit: or the cops busted into his place and he didn't know what was going on....
There are TONS of cases where someone has pulled something out of their pocket that is mistaken for a gun by the cops, that the cops lied to cover up a mistake, etc., etc. I'm not saying at ALL that this is what happened here (I truly don't think it is), but it's been known to happen. All he's saying is that this isn't something about which anyone on here can say, "Case closed, he's 100% the guy," or "I'm confident this was concluded perfectly." Stuff happens.
Unless he was, say, mentally ill. Or a freaky crazy conspiracy theorist/guy who was convinced that Obama was coming to take his guns away.
Edit: or the cops busted into his place and he didn't know what was going on....
I never convicted him of anything...the point is once he pulled a gun on a cop who was questioning him it doesn't matter what you think, what I think, what the judge would have thought. Its all a mute point once he does that....and he got what he deserved. Now, if the cops shot him before he pulled a weapon or pulled some story out of thin air because they wanted an excuse to shoot him.....then I would agree with you, and they jumped to conclusions. But being I have no immediate knowledge of the situation, I'm siding with the cops on this one.
I think you are missing the point that most are making......that is:
1. I hope it was the guy.
2. Assuming it was the guy, then he got what he deserved.
If it wasn't him, it would be a completely different ballgame, but that should be proven one way or the other by DNA.