[lostalex]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

America is a democracy, and has a Criminal Justice System which affords the due process of law to even murderers.

Whether this guy was a violent thug or not, and I agree that he seems to have been, he had his hands up - the universally recognised gesture of surrender, irrefutable proof that he was not holding a weapon of any kind, and a categorical admission that he was submissive -- willing to go quietly.

Since when, then, does a cop have the autonomy to execute a 'suspect' as he sees fit?

Where does it end? Shooting Roman Catholic priests on sight because the cop in question is an atheist? Blowing away guys with beards and long hair because the cop doing the executing has alopecia?

Why not just let cops round up everyone that frightens them or doesn't fit their brief of who should be breathing, and crack open a few canisters of the old 'Zyklon B' ?

The guy was executed - like the 12 year old kid with the toy gun in the other thread - by racist cops with their own agenda because he was black.

A giant druggie violent thug that attacked a cop is the same as a 12 yo boy with a fake gun? really?

you just lost all credibility. the cases have nothing to do with each other, unless you think all black people are the same, which would make you a racist.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by lostalex

A giant druggie violent thug that attacked a cop is the same as a 12 yo boy with a fake gun? really?

you just lost all credibility. the cases have nothing to do with each other, unless you think all black people are the same, which would make you a racist.

I never said the victims were the same - I said the motives for each victim being killed were the same - racism, because both victims were black.

I wouldn't worry about my credibility if I were you Alex, I am not blinded by any deep seated rage when I form opinions on what I read or see or hear, so when I eventually put metaphorical pen to paper, my views are the result of detached, logical analysis, and/or personal experience, and are as comprehensive and balanced as I can make them. This being so, other people may disagree with my views, or ignore them - as is often the case on here - but they can never question their credibility.

I welcome responses, but would ask that if anyone is going to respond critically to anything which I state in my posts, then please have the courtesy to have actually read and understood exactly what I have written before critiquing.

This, in particular, appears to be a flaw in your good self Alex - you seem to constantly paste angry retorts to my posts which often come across as irrational ranting because you have not correctly read and understood what I have written and become irritated by the false results of your own misconceptions.

Hardly my fault.