Sportsaholic Mamaw Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 Fair enough. As to the bolded, I never said it was "conveinient", but in situations like this when it isn't, you can understand why some may feel it wasn't just an accident, can't you? Why are police officers always doubted first and proven correct in how they handled the situation second? I know there are some bad actors in law enforcement but come on, they handle most situations correctly by an almost perfect margin. With the way they have been disrespected lately, why would anyone choose to have this job for a career? I read an article that they were lowering requirements on applications to the academy. How does lowering standards give us a more highly trained officer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKMustangFan Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 Why are police officers always doubted first and proven correct in how they handled the situation second? I know there are some bad actors in law enforcement but come on, they handle most situations correctly by an almost perfect margin. With the way they have been disrespected lately, why would anyone choose to have this job for a career? I read an article that they were lowering requirements on applications to the academy. How does lowering standards give us a more highly trained officer? For me, whether it's an officer or anyone else, any time there's a loss of life I think it's the right thing to do to figure out if the situation could've been handled differently that would've prevented that loss of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sportsaholic Mamaw Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 For me, whether it's an officer or anyone else, any time there's a loss of life I think it's the right thing to do to figure out if the situation could've been handled differently that would've prevented that loss of life. It's a shame the Supreme Court of the United States did not agree with you in 1973.:no: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKMustangFan Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 It's a shame the Supreme Court of the United States did not agree with you in 1973.:no: Which has exactly what do to with the topic at hand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sportsaholic Mamaw Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 Which has exactly what do to with the topic at hand? You were speaking so eloquently about the saving of lives and every abortion stops a beating heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKMustangFan Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 Must have missed the part where the law considered an unborn child a life. While morally, I may agree with you, we're talking about whether a death is a legally justified loss of life. In the case of abortion, legally it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hidinout Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 Seems like the book .. I mean gun , found on the deceased was stolen in a B and E . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clyde Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 Seems like the book .. I mean gun , found on the deceased was stolen in a B and E . Plus he has a violent past including having at one time a restraining order against him by his wife. Keith Scott WAS carrying stolen gun – and his wife filed for a restraining order | Daily Mail Online Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAC Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 Must have missed the part where the law considered an unborn child a life. While morally, I may agree with you, we're talking about whether a death is a legally justified loss of life. In the case of abortion, legally it is. http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx Love how some laws consider it a life and some don't. It you intentional murder the baby via abortion it is Ok, but if someone else kills it, it is fetal homicide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sportsaholic Mamaw Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 Must have missed the part where the law considered an unborn child a life. While morally, I may agree with you, we're talking about whether a death is a legally justified loss of life. In the case of abortion, legally it is. I think the Roe vs.Wade decision has hurt us as a nation. An unborn child has been refused the life he or she is entitled to. So you state the unborn life can be legally taken? How can one life be valued more highly than another? Any life lost is one too many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plato Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 For me, whether it's an officer or anyone else, any time there's a loss of life I think it's the right thing to do to figure out if the situation could've been handled differently that would've prevented that loss of life. From both perspectives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bugatti Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 Lets's keep this to North Carolina and not an abortion debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigVMan23 Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 Stolen gun. Threatened to kill his wife and child and had physical assaulted them. Restraining order. According to wife had threated the police and called himself "a killer". Had a gun at the scene and was evidently in his hand at the time of the shooting. Ignored police commands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clyde Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 Stolen gun. Threatened to kill his wife and child and had physical assaulted them. Restraining order. According to wife had threated the police and called himself "a killer". Had a gun at the scene and was evidently in his hand at the time of the shooting. Ignored police commands. ...and all that really matters is did he have a gun in his hand and pose a threat. If so, we're done. If not, we've got a problem. The rest just tells us the family was misleading us but, in the end, immaterial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigVMan23 Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 ...and all that really matters is did he have a gun in his hand and pose a threat. If so, we're done. If not, we've got a problem. The rest just tells us the family was misleading us but, in the end, immaterial. It all interrelates and shows the guy had a propensity to act the way he did in that situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts