“That’s peculiar that you say that, cause the guy who got shot to death by a rifle, who was utterly innocent, didn’t get due process.”
And so? What’s your point? Does that mean that the accused loses his entitlement to due process? Does that mean that we suspend the presumption of innocence?
So in view of that -- we should *definitely* let law enforcement shoot someone in the chest from 44 yards away, even though they don't have a weapon.
Because if we don't, well, who knows what might happen.
Someone might get *hurt*.
Funny how this never applies when law enforcement *KNOWS* there is real shooting going on, like in Coward County Florida, where the noble brave heroic selfless noble heroic cops waited outside while 17 kids got shot.
If you want the reputation, ya gotta do more than gun down innocents and eat donuts and ride off into the sunset with your pension.
Which reminds me, how about that noble selfless heroic Andy McCabal? Should he have been allowed to retire and keep his pension, even though he's already worth $11 million? And has been found guilty of lying by his own agency's Inspector General?