Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Furball Forum' started by Black Smoke Trail, Jun 13, 2011.
The officer's expression & reaction were not visible on the video. If the suspect was in fact handcuffed, there was NO justification to tase him. That, alone makes his sentence a travesty.
You're right. The little snippet they showed within that posted video isn't sufficient to see the reaction. I was recalling the more complete video from when this first occurred. His reaction was one of obvious shock. It also seems a little out there to suggest that he deliberately executed the man in front of dozens of witnesses though, doesn't it?
Are you familiar with the current rules for use of a taser? I'm not saying that the use of a taser was or was not appropriate in that circumstance... I'm curious to know why you think it wasn't justified and why that alone makes his sentence a travesty.
So the people coming to the officers defense here are saying that he could not tell the difference between his own handgun and his own taser.
Stupid is not illegal. Stupid is not criminal. But you cant fix stupid. And stupid has no place in Law Enforcement.
Yes. The two-year rookie with a taser for two days, policing a subway where his exposure to calls was minimal, vaporlocked. He went with muscle memory and repeated the draw he was most familiar with, thinking he was doing the right thing to employ another tool, carried in an unfamiliar place on his belt.
His act was criminal, it was a negligent action that caused the death of another. That's the textbook definition of manslaughter. His agency also carries a heavy burden for equipping him and training him as they did. Whether he's actually stupid or simply the forseeable result of the training provided, I don't know.
BTW, this has happened at least two other times---confusing the taser draw with the gundraw--- but neither of those guys died.
If you are going to rant get your facts straight or you look ignorant. Show me where it says Grant was handcuffed.
I guess the jury was smart enough to listen to the people on the stand.
If you are going to attempt to drag up a thread that was started over 2 months ago and hasn't been replied to in over a month you should pay more attention or you look ignorant.
It was still on the first page and yhou are still wrong.
Law . the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).