What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Cops: No Snarky Nor Positive Title

Status
Not open for further replies.
You know what doesn't make you fear for your life? When you don't pull someone over for having something hanging in their mirror. What a stupid decision and one that would have destroyed her arguments since she likely never pulls over White Kids with the same offense.

I believe she feels bad, and I believe she made a mistake but the mistake was not the tazer. It was the traffic stop in total.
 
Handyman said:
she likely never pulls over White Kids with the same offense.

[The mistake] was the traffic stop in total.
Click to expand...

And that's really it, isn't it? Never would have pulled a white kid over. Never would have tazed a white kid. None of this would have happened if he was white.
 
One thing I haven't seen mentioned:

Is there any truth to the rumor that the jury actually wanted to say "Innocent", but got confused under pressure and accidentally wrote "guilty" instead?
 
Uh no...cause they would have mentioned it. That is like how pale say Marissa Tomei won her Oscar cause the presenters screwed up and read the wrong name. (Which was a rumor back then)
 
RaceBoarder said:
One thing I haven't seen mentioned:

Is there any truth to the rumor that the jury actually wanted to say "Innocent", but got confused under pressure and accidentally wrote "guilty" instead?
Click to expand...

I would imagine the jury was polled after the verdict was read. Basically, the judge asks whether either party wants the jury polled to confirm the verdict. Usually, the losing side will say yes. The judge will then ask the jurors whether the verdict that was read accurately represents their verdict. Each juror confirms. Or, if a juror was confused, the parties (or the judge) would ask some questions as to their confusion. If it turns out that the juror (or multiple jurors) inadvertently made the wrong verdict, it would get fleshed out at that time.

So, my guess is there is no truth to the rumor.
 
Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
Yes. Serial killer is a better term

https://twitter.com/theferocity/status/1476844115702829069?s=21
Click to expand...

Even with too many trigger happy cops out there most LEOs will never fire their weapon at another person during their career. That one person did it 4 times, let alone killed 4 people, is beyond astonishing. It is all but statistically impossible for those shootings to all be justified. There is a greater chance the Webb telescope is going to discover proof of intelligent life within 10 days of being operational. The next time that cop puts his hand on his firearm I hope someone shoots him in the head to save an innocent life.
 
WeAreNDHockey said:
Even with too many trigger happy cops out there most LEOs will never fire their weapon at another person during their career. That one person did it 4 times, let alone killed 4 people, is beyond astonishing. It is all but statistically impossible for those shootings to all be justified. There is a greater chance the Webb telescope is going to discover proof of intelligent life within 10 days of being operational. The next time that cop puts his hand on his firearm I hope someone shoots him in the head to save an innocent life.
Click to expand...

It used to be a point of pride for cops that they never even drew their weapon let alone use.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top