1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI would say it is a true statement, wouldn't you?
An interesting comment to be sure.
All I can say is that both the Republican and Democrat parties are opposed to securing the borders. In fact, all McCain had to do to help his election bid was to strongly oppose illegal immigration but he could not bring himself to do so. Now all that is left is to figure out why the US has an unwritten policy of keeping the borders open. I have my list of reasons as I am sure many of you do as well.
Originally posted by whodeyNO. your statement wasn't true; it was, however, borderline racist.
I would say it is a true statement, wouldn't you?
All I can say is that both the Republican and Democrat parties are opposed to securing the borders. In fact, all McCain had to do to help his election bid was to strongly oppose illegal immigration but he could not bring himself to do so. Now all that is left is to figure out why the US has an unwritten p ...[text shortened]... cy of keeping the borders open. I have my list of reasons as I am sure many of you do as well.
Your raving second paragraph has nothing to do with this thread. One doesn't have to support "open borders" to realize that shooting an unarmed man and then attempting to cover it up is a serious criminal act deserving of punishment.
Originally posted by no1marauderMy only point was that shootings in poorer areas are often under policed and investigated. In contrast, if you have a shooting in a well to do area of town you will be more likely to be arrested and sentenced. I think the border is in a similar vein to the well to do area of town.
NO. your statement wasn't true; it was, however, borderline racist.
Your raving second paragraph has nothing to do with this thread. One doesn't have to support "open borders" to realize that shooting an unarmed man and then attempting to cover it up is a serious criminal act deserving of punishment.
Originally posted by no1marauderi'm glad you've become a supporter of prosecutors and now believe anything they assert.
I'm glad you've become a supporter of unions and now believe anything they assert.
The jury found differently.
this article was written AFTER the jury's decision, didn't you read it?
1 edit
Originally posted by zeeblebotI read it.
i'm glad you've become a supporter of prosecutors and now believe anything they assert.
this article was written AFTER the jury's decision, didn't you read it?
The jury, the legal finder of facts, found differently after hearing all the evidence presented at trial including such evidence as the defendants presented.
Originally posted by no1marauderActually, that proscription refers to deadly force otherwise known as "shoot to kill", right?
We have and you remain ignorant of basic legal principles no matter how many times I instruct you.
Police may not use deadly force against an unarmed, fleeing suspect unless that suspect has committed a serious violent crime. Google Tennessee v. Garner for further details.
In hindsight, as the suspect lived, it is clear that the force used was not deadly.
1 edit
Originally posted by spruce112358Absolutely ludicrously incorrect. Shooting a gun at someone is using deadly force.
Actually, that proscription refers to deadly force otherwise known as "shoot to kill", right?
In hindsight, as the suspect lived, it is clear that the force used was not deadly.
Deadly force is generally defined as physical force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/use-of-deadly-force/
Hindsight is not used nor does the fact that the force didn't result in death mean it wasn't deadly force.