Yeah, but we're not. She is jumping to conclusions about a bad cop
without waiting for facts to emerge. It is best to reserve judgement
for later when facts come out about what actually happened instead of
using people's statements to reporters as facts. Many people will say
inflammatory things to reporters (and they are more than happy to
publish them) which under oath they would not say.
Years of history with "Muggles" doing just that sort of thing makes me
believe she thinks this was a bad cop and the statements are her way of
supporting that view.
We may very well be wrong about the justification for the shooting. But
what is known leads to justification at this time and I think the rest
of us understand that. But the liberal fool can't accept the fact
there's more to the story and believes a person should be able to act
any way they want without repercussion from the cops. Thus, apparently
it's acceptable to have a society run amok, in her blind eyes.
Therefore, the facts could be smacking her in the head till she's
bruised and battered and she will still think she's right.
Based on the NC laws in regards to lethal force used by LE, those
conditions didn't exist to warrant deadly force:
NC statues state:
Use of Deadly Force. -
(2) A law-enforcement officer is justified in using deadly
physical force upon another person for a purpose specified in
subdivision (1) of this subsection *only when* it is or appears to be
reasonably necessary thereby:
a. To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably
believes to be *the use or imminent use of deadly physical force*;
b. To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of
a person who he reasonably believes is attempting to escape by means of
*a deadly weapon*, or who by his conduct or any other means indicates
that he presents *an imminent threat of death* or *serious physical
injury to others unless apprehended without delay*; or
c. To prevent the escape of a person from custody imposed upon
him as a result of conviction for a felony.
Nothing in this subdivision constitutes justification for willful,
malicious or criminally negligent conduct by any person which injures or
endangers any person or property, *nor shall it be construed to excuse
or justify the use of unreasonable or excessive force*.
I'm a conservative, and I don't believe those who are highly trained
should be allowed to respond with deadly force when it suits their
fancy. THAT is very much a conservative point of view.
On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 6:29:26 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
It;s amazing that you can't grasp that we don't even know the
"conditions" that existed, because the reporting on this was very
limited, and not much is out there. So how the hell can you apply
any laws to the conditions, when none of us know what happened
when the shot was fired? We don't have a statement from
the cop, statements from other cops, witnesses, car cams, body cams,
neighborhood cams. You've already made an ass of yourself by telling
us he was just a poor confused deaf guy who drove to a safe place,
his house, to pull over. Now we've found and provided links to his
arrest record that shows similar run ins with cops in other states.
And we have a newspaper reporting that both the perp's car and the
cop car were damaged, that the perp's car spun out at the scene,
a neighbor who is actually named, saying the cop car was smoking badly.
Doh! There goes that peaceful drive home to a safe place!
But the village idiot rides on!
There are plenty of facts known right now. That's what I base my
If at anytime in the future details come available that show the deaf
man had a weapon, or intended to do bodily harm when he got out of his
car I'll take that into consideration.
Why it's so important to anyone here that I wait for some magical
"facts" that'll clear the officer is a puzzle to me. It's my opinion
and conclusion and it shouldn't tick anyone off, annoy anyone, hurt
anyone else, or push anyone to the point of frustration JUST because
I've come to the conclusions I've come to.
Why is my viewpoint so important that it draws debate from people who
not only want to counter my arguments, but attack my character, call me
stupid, or an idiot? Do I threaten them in some way? It's JUST my
point of view.
Why does it matter that I wait for more facts JUST because someone else
here thinks I should? I'm very well capable of making up my own mind.
You're incorrect. You should be saying "Not ALL facts have been reported".
There ARE many facts that HAVE been reported thus far, and those facts
are valid. You're welcome to come to your own conclusions when you see
fit, and there's nothing wrong with me doing the same thing.
Why it bothers you or anyone that my point of view isn't a clone of your
own view is really weird.
Several people seem to feel I should either take the cops side, or wait
for an investigation. I see no problem with my current viewpoint based
on the information that is FACT, now.
It's simply MY point of view, and I've have good reasons why I've come
to my conclusions.
Other people are free to their own opinions, too. If they want to
engage me in debate over it, I've no problem arguing my viewpoint with
them. They seem to take my disagreement with them, personally. <shrugs>
On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 7:11:16 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
I don't see anyone saying you should take the cops side, so that's false.
Everyone other than you here is basically saying the same thing. That
it's not right to condemn the cop when we don't know the facts about
what happened just before the shot was fired. We can already demonstrate
how you've made an ass of yourself, by making conclusions without the
facts. You tried to tell us the perp was just a confused deaf guy, who
wanted to drive somewhere that was lighted and safe to stop, so he
drove 7 miles home. Let's look at how that fell apart. First, it
happened at 6PM, so it was light everywhere. Second reports soon
were found of both cars arriving damaged, the cop car smoking.
Now we have the NY Daily News reporting that he was clocked at 88
in a 70 zone when the cop first noticed him. The chase speeds
reached over 100. So, it went from a peaceful deaf guy just driving
home to a felony eluding pursuit. Why can't you learn from that?
Why can't you learn from the Michael Brown case, where the BS narrative
from the limited "facts" in the days immediately after turned out
to be almost total BS? What conservative figures out who is guilty,
who is innocent, without any facts as to what happened just before
the shot was fired?
And in addition to all that, I think most people here agree with
me that the deaf guy carries the blame for creating the toxic, volatile,
chaotic scene, by leading police on a high speed pursuit, instead
of pulling over. From his rap sheet, this wasn't his first rodeo.
If he can't obey the laws, can't control himself, then he should
not be driving. Does that mean that it's all his fault? No. It's
possible the cop acted improperly too, but we don't know because we
have zero facts on that final engagement.
In addition, you made the claim that the cops should have de-escalated
and not pursued him. You're entitled to that opinion, that police
policy should be different, but it matters not a wit with regard to
your allegation that the cop behaved improperly. The only thing
that matters is what the rules of engagement were for a chase like
this where it happened and if the cops followed them. In most
parts of the US, if you flee from a traffic stop, the police do
pursue you, they don't just let you go. If you fail to pull over
here in NJ, the cops will pursue you just like they did here. Watch
any of the COP reality shows on TV and you'll see them chasing
cars that flee from routine traffic stops all the time. If I
lead them on a smash em, crash em 100mph+ chase, spun out in front
of my house, jumped out of the car, then maybe rushed toward the
cop who was pointing a gun at me, acted aggressively, I would not
be surprised to wind up shot. What happened in that last part,
we simply don't know, because there are no facts at this point,
which is why it's so foolish to speculate.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.