Posted on 04/08/2015 4:02:10 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
You know what’s funny? I’ve been posting on this thread regarding the what’s “reasonable” and “possible” and “evidential.” I do this because we, as a country, have been taught to jump to conclusions before all the facts are in (*cough* Martin/Brown *cough* university rape claims *cough*).
BUT...
I also believe that cops are generally high on their own power. They operate as if they are all double-O agents in her majesty’s secret service.
Sexist!
;-)
(Good point.)
” It won’t stop anyone from doing anything because people fool themselves into thinking that they’re safe and that these things only happen to other people, never to them.”
Some people think that way, but not everyone. Plenty of people obviously consider the consequences of their actions first, otherwise there would be no point to many of the laws we have on the books.
“When it does happen, under that kind of policy, quite frankly, there’s no reason for a woman to tell a man that she’s having his child if he’s not going to help support the child, unless she wants to marry him or she believes he should be in the child’s life.”
Perhaps, but I doubt many women would choose voluntarily to shoulder the financial burdens alone. If one thing motivates people universally, it is getting hit in the pocketbook.
“Women already earn their own income, and female students outnumber the males in most colleges.”
Yes, but one income households are pretty much obsolete.
“As it is, many fathers now are trying to be involved in their children’s lives, but the mothers shut them out and have the children calling another man “Daddy.””
This practice is enabled by child support. Mothers have the luxury of shutting the father out only because they know they can still get the government to force him to pay even if they don’t want him involved in their lives at all.
Lol. Thanks.
If he documented it, he's still gonna get yelled at by the suits, but at least his motives wouldn't be as suspect.
The applicable term is “premeditated.”
It doesn’t require hours of premeditation to qualify, either.
There is already some evidence of premeditation showing here.
Give a competent DA a week to put it all together, and who knows.........
.
What was the second item that rolled away that he did not retrieve? Flashlight or spray can? Something Scott had? Anyone say for sure?
What is the evidence of premeditation of which you speak?
It's quite possible that the guy's finger covered the mic port on his phone as he was shifting the camera.
Then by the logic of a few nuts here and man haters
He had it coming
No kidding
In this case cop went bad
Real bad
No kidding
In this case cop went bad
Real bad
Anyone on this forum who thinks that was a justified kill needs to find another place to post their bullshit
It will probably be released today or soon. But it won't save the shooter.
No, but it might help put a stop to the whining about the existing vid not showing the first few minutes of the stop. Then again, there are some folks who will likely cling to any excuse to support the killer becauseof hos uniform..
I noted nearly every video which comes out, some claim, “It’s only a partial video and doesn’t’ show the whole incident”.
What would they expect? A staged production set up before an incident ever occurs, capturing every detail?
Most are simply excuses attempting to minimize the damage.
One of the few things that would have changed this event and saved this cop’s butt was if the suspect would have been found with a gun in his hand or right next to where he dropped. Which doesn’t seem to be the case here.
It is very, very telling that the shooter knew he could do it with impunity.
I looked at the video again and the cop could have easily run the guy down in the time it took him to draw his pistol and fire. Unbelieveable!
I’m not convinced the cop planted or relocated evidence in an effort to justify his actions. However he was clearly moving items around, dropping them and picking them up. Either way, he’s in a world of hurt now and the video pretty much sealed his fate IMO.
I'd say the laws are on the books precisely because, in the heat of the moment, people don't think of the consequences of their actions. Apparently not even the thought of catching a disease stops them. They always believe that they're taking the proper precautions. Young people especially don't think of consequences.
Already today, there are women who don't tell the men about their children. If men aren't required by law to pay child support, and if there's no indication that they're going to help support the child, then many women are not going to tell them that they have children, especially if the men are entitled to visitation with their children.
Mothers have the luxury of shutting the father out only because they know they can still get the government to force him to pay even if they don’t want him involved in their lives at all.
We're talking about unmarried couples, right? The only reason why an unmarried woman would tell her partner that she's pregnant is that she (1) is looking for help with the child and/or (2) is hoping for the father to stay in the baby's life. Otherwise, there's no incentive to tell him.
I've come across both divorced fathers and divorced mothers being shut out by the other parent but forced to pay child support. But we're talking about unmarried people here, right?
Well, you see, all your arguments are based on the premise that if we changed the laws, people would go on as they have recently, having sex without bothering to marry. The whole point of changing the law is to give people an incentive to marry, so that behavior won’t continue.
Yes, if we changed the laws, and some people still didn’t get married, then sure, there would be people shutting the father out. However, I think most women would realize very quickly that they should get married before having kids, if they don’t want to get saddled with the entire burden.
We’ll never be able to fashion a system where the law can protect people (especially the children) from the consequences of unmarried sex. That is an exercise in futility. The only feasible option I see is to try to fashion laws that encourage marriage, and discourage sex before marriage. That’s my entire point. Worrying about people who would ignore those laws and continue with their foolishness and be in a worse situation than they are now is silly. The whole point of the law is to make their situation worse, so that people try to avoid that fate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.