oski003 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
oski003 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
oski003 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
DiabloWags said:
Looks like the former San Antonio police officer James Brennand was charged with the shooting of 17 year old Erik Cantu.
Cantu is still unconscious and on life support.
This is in stark contrast to what police officials had said in the wake of the shooting.
They actually said that Cantu was hospitalized "and in stable condition".
Ex-Texas cop charged for shooting teen eating hamburger (yahoo.com)
003 pointed out that the child may have been guilty of evading murder from this officer. So both sides.
Calling him a child is another example of how you modify facts that don't suit you.
Secondly, I never pointed out that he may have been guilty of evading murder by the officer. You constantly lie about what someone else says so you can "win" an argument. Liar.
Nice try but we all saw what you said.
Quote:
2) Regardless of what the officer wrongly did, the likely not innocent teen is still guilty of evading detention. Two wrongs don't cancel each other out
In the context of a rogue cop shooting a kid who was eating a burger minding his own damn business you felt it was necessary to note that he was "guilty of evading detention". The only think we can see in the video is a kid armed with a hamburger drive off after a guys yanked his car door open and put a gun in his face with no warning.
The police immediately fired him. The DA charged him. No one is defending this guy except you. There are not two wrongs here, there is one. No justification has been offered for a shooting that may cost this kid his life. Defending it is pathetic
Your adult defiant oppositional disorder is flaring up again.
I am not defending the officer. I am defending the DA for charging the kid who put his car in reverse after the officer opened his door and asked him to get out of the car. Again, as stated, two wrongs don't make a right. If you punch my dog and then I retaliate you by beating you near death, you still punched my dog. Higher level concepts become unfamiliar to you when they don't support your wokeness. I believe you do understand the above but just love to burn the witch who dares support law enforcement. You don't have any morals when doing so and absolutely twist my words because you are in the right in your black and white world.
What was the purpose of you pointing out the "likely not innocent teen" who you claimed was "guilty" of "evading detention"? The DA dropped the charges which were obviously untenable in light of the video. The teen acted reasonably given a rogue armed gunman ripped open his door while the kid was minding his own damn business eating a burger with his friend. The kid is guilty of nothing which in any way related to the gun crime he is a victim of.
The only purpose your statements could possibly serve is to partially excuse the attack on the kid, which. At very well end up being murder if he's unable to survive. This is the same sort of BS that statists bring up to defend obviously unlawful state conduct by victim blaming. You call it "supporting law enforcement" but really it's justifying illegal state action and misconduct and deserves to be demonized.
Oh, so you are reading my mind and not my words, and then what you read in my mind is now my words? That is how you justify your lies? That is ducking sad.
By the way, I am also okay with the DA dropping the charges. It could be public pressure or what he felt was the right thing to do because of what the teenager was a victim of. It could be the facts indicated such. All I have is a video. Even though what happened is awful, I still can't believe you characterize the victim as a child. What did more damage to the car, the bullets or the officer ripping the door open hulkstyle?
More oppositional defiant disorder on display. Seems like something is breaking your brain and making you unable to even understand your own actions or be able to explain them to anyone.
You saw the video. You saw and acknowledged the cop had no justification for discharging his weapon on the kid. He's a 17 year old - that is a child. You want to call him a teenager or a minor? Go for it. You want to say you would charge him as an adult if he were a black kid accused of a crime and therefore want to pretend like he's an adult - go for it. The fact remains he's a child who did nothing to provoke this idiot cop from opening fire. He had human reaction to a nutjob with a gun ripping his car door open. Many people would do the exact same thing - flea for safety to protect him and his friend.
You felt it necessary to both claim that he was a "likely not innocent teen" and that he was "guilty" of evading arrest. You later pointed out that the DA charged him, although the DA had already dropped the charges. Stop playing the victim here, you have no leg to stand on.
Everyone can see this criminal act by the cop for what it is except you. Your ODD apparently requires you to hang on until the bitter end pretending like you have something relevant to say by accusing this kid of committing a crime. I don't think any jury in America would convict a 17-year old from driving away from a rogue cop like this who so clearly breached police procedure. With all of the violent criminal cops out there, is it really that strange that a kid would react this way to a nutjob waiving a gun in his face? How would the kid even know it was a real cop and not just a criminal masquerading as one? So many questions but your answer is that the kid is guilty of a crime smh.