Originally Posted by Redsfaithful
Yep, I agree on both points.
And thinking a mans death is "simple" only reinforces my agreeing more with both points.
Yep, I agree on both points.
And thinking a mans death is "simple" only reinforces my agreeing more with both points.
The mans death isn't a simple matter. It's tragic on many different levels. It's the facts, as presented, that led to his death that are simple. (the facts as presented, perhaps others will come to light).
No great mystery to unravel there.
My guess is that those who feal there's some great political/sociological commentary on that film are those who feal the cops always in the wrong and guilty until proven innocent.
Last edited by Ltlabner; 09-29-2007 at 11:59 AM.
Yeah that's it.My guess is that those who feal there's some great political/sociological commentary on that film are those who feal the cops always in the wrong and guilty until proven innocent.
Black and white, black and white everything is black and white isn't it?
I know what I "feel" about it, and I'd venture your "guess' is just that, a "guess"
Nope, not everything is black and white. Neither, however, is everything gray.
I've stated several times that perhaps more details will come to light that show the police to have acted incorrectly. I'm open to whatever the investigation reveals. I'm only commenting on what is presented in the video...sorta the point of a discussion forum.
Yep, it's a guess. Sorta why I said, "my guess is....".
Last edited by Ltlabner; 09-29-2007 at 12:05 PM.
There are a lot of things that need to be "no color of gray" and one of them is personal resposibility. When you can't act as a responsible citizen, bad things often happen, and personally, I am happy that people are held accountable. I feel sorry for the guy's family and the burden that they will endure, but as for the criminal, I don't have a lot of sympathy for him. He decided the way that he wanted to conduct himself. He had plenty of opportunity to avoid the outcome.
I don't know for sure, but I'd guess 9mm and .40S&W are the most common callibers with .45Auto being in the mix somewhere. 9mm and .40S&W have become more common as more rounds can be carried in a smaller weapon relative to .45Auto.
Most police departments no longer cary revolvers, but some might (perhaps a rural department, or a state forest ranger, for example). If so, .357magnum is likely most common, with .38spl being less popular than it used to be.
Last edited by Ltlabner; 09-29-2007 at 12:33 PM.
Politics has nothing to do with why an officer uses deadly force, or why people are discussing it.
I think any of us who were involved prior in political/religious discussions on this forum, before they were banned, understand fully what types of specific political topics/discussions were being targeted by the moderators.
This discussion only becomes politcal when someone purposely injects it. Haven't seen it on here yet.
Last edited by GAC; 09-29-2007 at 04:17 PM.
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
And sadly enough, those "gray areas" can get the law enforcement officer killed.
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
As you rush to judgement, don't forget to look up these two:
The officers are:
Sgt. Edward Charron - policeman since 1988. Blue Ash Police Department member since 1995. Promoted to sergeant in 2002. While a member of the Cincinnati Police Department in 1991, he shot and killed a Golf Manor teen after the 18-year-old tried to grab the officer's gun during a scuffle.
Sgt. Paul Hartinger - policeman since 1984. Blue Ash Police Department member since 1989. Promoted to sergeant in 1998. Sued for excessive use of force after a 1993 traffic stop.
Now, now Rojo, I'm sure if you picked any two random police officers you'd find stuff like this in their background. The things they have to go through to protect us all dont ya know.
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Not sure the point you are making with Officer Charron. Trying to grab an officers gun is a bad, bad decision. You present this as if it is evidence that he was/is some wreckless, over-wraught officer.
But all use of force incidents are reviewed (as they should be) and certinally an officer, like Officer Hartinger, is going to recieve extra scruitiney because of the past incidents mentioned. (then again, being sued for excessive use of force and being found guilty are two different things).
Last edited by Ltlabner; 09-29-2007 at 07:43 PM.
What from your post is relavent about their backgrounds?
One officer killed a kid who was going for his gun....
The other "was sued" for excessive use of force. Since when is being sued the same thing and being found guilty of?
If I am a police officer and you try to grab my gun during a fight - and why was this teen fighting with the officer and trying to grab the officer's gun? - and you'll probably end up shot. If you were that officer, what would be going through your mind as to why this teen was trying to get my gun, and what was he going to do with it once he got it? Was he convicted of any wrongdoing or misconduct in this situation?
Is being sued equate to guilt/wrongdoing? What was the outcome of the excessive force charge? If he was exonerated in a court of law, then your point is moot.Sgt. Paul Hartinger - policeman since 1984. Blue Ash Police Department member since 1989. Promoted to sergeant in 1998. Sued for excessive use of force after a 1993 traffic stop.
And I really don't see how the above situations have an bearing on the current one? Completely separate issues.
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
Is the car thief's criminal past irrelevant as well?
Maybe there's only smoke in the case of Officer Charron, but I don't empty my head when I see a badge.
Of course the car thiefs criminal past is irrelevant in this case. In no way should the police officers act on that past history, except perhaps to excersize more caution IF they know who the criminal/suspect they are dealing with is (ie, the offender has a history of attacking police officers, so they might use more caution approaching him). That doesn't mean an officer shouldn't excersize common sense (ie. a man with a long history of stealing diamonds is seen down the street from a reicent diamond heist. It's not unreasonable for the officer to approch the man on the street, however, he can't arrest the guy soley based on past history).
I didn't think they know who was behind the wheel in this case...IIRC.
I agree Rojo, I don't think a badge is a gift of immunity. Neither, however, is it a mark of guilt and/or suspicion.
Last edited by Ltlabner; 09-29-2007 at 08:04 PM.
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote