Posted on 06/01/2015 3:11:31 PM PDT by gwjack
Edited on 06/01/2015 5:56:13 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Perhaps those that cast judgment will see this. The gathering of facts is still ongoing. This is being released less than 72 hours from the shooting. Those that were front running should examine prior to forming a judgment. It is still under investigation.
Get out of the floodwaters —> BAM
Sounds like a rerun of Katrina, New Orleans.
Much discussion here.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3295475/posts?q=1&;page=1#1
Still not much information???
If the boys want to play in the flood, let them win a Darwin award.
Thank you for posting the link. I thought it had been discussed this weekend. I just now ran across a story from the Washington Post, slugged today. In the story they do write that it isn’t yet clear what occurred.
If the boys want to play in the flood, let them win a Darwin award.
.........................................................
Prosecutor: “So, officer, you saw the men in the flood water. They appeared intoxicated, and the you just left them there?”
Officer: “yes”
Prosecutor: “Do you take any reponsibilty now that the men have turned up drowned two days later?”
Nanny state. The supreme court ruled the police have no obligation to protect individuals, only the collective. In your hypothetical, the police would never face a jury. It would not happen.
Keep your hands off an officer of the law.
Exactly!
I could care less if the trooper was shoved, smacked in the face or anything else that did not threaten his life. Since the moron trooper did not understand he was dealing with non-criminal members of the public who were under great stress, he should be fired.
People were losing their property they worked hard to get. People who do not have guaranteed government job like the trooper and me for that matter were struggling to salvage their lives. They are worried about their property. They are worried about where their next pay check might come from. They are worried about other family members.
If the trooper was assaulted, he had arrest powers. The guy was in what apparently the trooper thought were dangerous flood waters. Maybe he slipped on an underwater object. Maybe exhaustion caused him to fall into the trooper. You can not tell from the video.
better shot dead than drowned, fer sher!
With all the sarcasm I can muster, thank you for your righteous, infallible judgment before all facts are known.
BTW, perhaps you should watch the video. I think (my opinion) that it clearly dispels slippage on an underwater object.
I understand the anger. But anger, to be productive must be directed in the proper direction. To quote a federal judge to a complaining lawyer, “Counselor, it appears your wounds are self inflicted.”
I’m still waiting for the results of the full investigation. I won’t form a judgment based on sound bites and short news blurbs. If the Trooper is not justified, I will be the first to call for discipline/prosecution. But, until there is more meat on the bones I refuse to start picking at the skeleton.
JLS, I hope you are well my FRiend. I appreciate the contributions you have made to this forum over the years.
Gwjack
Unless there is a clear state law being broken, the officer should not be able to do more than offer assistance and advise. If, upon being advised of the danger, the person refuses to vacate or rejects assistance then the officer can leave the person to his fate
That’s how it should be.
The officer was wrong to try and force the person to leave, but you don’t touch an officer if you don’t want to get shot.
I understand you point of view, but mine was formed during Katrina. Either you have a natural disaster and an emergency or you don’t. If you have a natural disaster then you must act differently.
You don’t send FEMA disaster workers to sexual harassment classes first. You don’t charge MDs with murder for making the best of a bad situation. You don’t shoot citizens for disrespecting you disrespecting them as in what I saw in the video.
You try to help out people save their lives. Oklahoma seems to have real problem here particularly Oklahoma trooper thinking they are so important that other people’s emergencies must stop while the public bows down to them. You think these guys were a bit upset that they had two morons yelling at them while they were trying to save their property in a flood?
.
>> “but you don’t touch an officer if you don’t want to get shot.” <<
.
I know that you know what would become of you if you shot someone for touching you.
BTW, here is another example of an Oklahoma trooper thinking he is more important than he is:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/23/oklahoma.trooper.suspended/index.html?eref=ib_us
I do not care whether or not technically this moron cop can get away with shooting this guy. He took a natural disaster and made it worse. How much more scum can you be.
“If the boys want to play in the flood, let them win a Darwin award.
.........................................................
Prosecutor: “So, officer, you saw the men in the flood water. They appeared intoxicated, and the you just left them there?”
Officer: “yes”
Prosecutor: “Do you take any reponsibilty now that the men have turned up drowned two days later?”
.........................................................
Officer: “Those men appear to be grown up adults.”
Prosecutor: “Don’t you think you could have done something before those poor men drowned.”
Officer: “I guess I could have shot them dead.”
Not if my perceived risk was that by shoving me, you are prepared to take my life
If he was, he had a right to defend himself.
If he was not assaulted, there is now sufficient public scrutiny to investigate the matter and make him pay the price.
Many people assume that a police officer can never be held liable for not aiding a member of the public. This is not strictly true.
If someone is worried more about his truck than his life, then he should probably have car insurance. And his misplaced priorities do not absolve third parties from the moral obligation of helping someone who is in danger.
There is much talk of what an exemplary Christian the dead man was. He may have been.
But there is also the notion of not treasuring material goods above more substantial ones, of turning the other cheek, of submitting to lawful authority in all things but sin, etc.
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.