You are a particularly obnoxious, arrogant sort, aren't you.
What nerve to tell me how he should have reacted and what he would have done. What unmitigated gall!
A few hints:
* You were not there.
* You do not know him.
* You are not him.
Wrong.You are a particularly obnoxious, arrogant sort, aren't you.
What nerve to tell me how he should have reacted and what he would have done. What unmitigated gall!
A few hints:
* You were not there.
* You do not know him.
* You are not him.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. But very illuminating in terms of what makes you tick.
You see, Mr. Statist, I am not a police officer, and I am not placed in a position of enforcing the law, and I am not placed in a position where I am, as part of my job, required to potentially take a life.
There are certain basic obligations of those in that position. It seems pretty obvious to me from reading the article that the people involved in this clstrfk were derelict in those duties.
Therefore, I don't have to "know him" etc. to know that he violated the trust placed in him by those he putatively serves.
That must be quite the novel concept to you -- the idea that the police serve the public, rather than "manage" us.
You see, this country is not a "police state". As disappointing to you as that epiphany must be, I'd suggest trying to wrap your mind around the idea. Who knows? Maybe it'll grow on ya. Give it some time.