Quote Originally Posted by ltorlo64 View Post
Both were investigated, so they had to prove that they acted within the law. We may not like the outcome of those investigations, but to say they did not that cops don't have to prove anything is factually wrong, as the article I posted points out. How about Amber Guyger?
Ok, so Amber Guyger got convicted. The two names I mentioned I'm sure you know about or at least can look them up.

The first one... the guy (Daniel Shaver) was on his knees, trying to comply with the officer's commands to play Twister, then the cop murdered him with five near contact shots from his AR-15. He got acquitted.

Now, the cop can claim that the victim was resisting, going for a gun, ad-nauseaum but his body cam can't lie. The victim tried his best to comply and was murdered. Cop claimed Shaver was drunk. Maybe he was. Is that a reason to murder someone?

Justify that.

As far as Lateka Anderson, an Oklahoma state trooper, she pulled a guy over, then ordered him to "stand here", "stand there", all over the place while yelling vulgarities at him. The guy complied as best as he could, then after over 5 minutes of rediculous orders to stand in different places and poses, the guy finally thought "fuck this" and began to walk back to his truck.

At this point, Anderson shot him in the back and began insanely screeching "ah shoot you 'gain! ah shoot you 'gain!". The guy slumped onto the back of his truck and said "you shot me!". Crazed Anderson started yelling again "ah shoot you 'gain".

The Oklahoma DA declined to press charges claiming "she was a rookie and made a split second decision" (I didn't know that 8 minutes was considered a "split second") and had all traces of her dash cam footage pulled from the Internet, but not before I saw it.

The cop lied, claiming the guy was resisting (he was not) and claiming that he was drunk and high on pot. The guy did test positive for pot, but that's no reason to shoot a guy in the back from over 10 feet away. Even on "cop boards" the cops called it a "bad shoot".

Justify that.

Mark and Patricia McCloskey defended their home from looters and rioters with a rifle (didn't point at the thugs, didn't shoot anyone, have full video evidence of what happened) and the city attorney Kiberly Gardner said “I am alarmed at the events that occurred over the weekend, where peaceful protesters were met by guns and a violent assault,” Gardner said. “We must protect the right to peacefully protest, and any attempt to chill it through intimidation or threat of deadly force will not be tolerated.”

The chickenshit attorney is throwing the McClosky family under the bus to appease the rioters and looters (who WERE armed and NOT peaceful AND were yelling threats at the family).

We are supposed to SUPPORT criminal acts like this, where criminals are protected and peaceful innocent people are charged, shot, assaulted and jailed by the "authorities"? FUCK NO!

I wouldn't piss on a cop or district attorney to put him (or her) out if he were on fire.

Now, why on earth would I feel this way?