View single post by srossi
 Posted: Wed Oct 2nd, 2019 01:10 am
PM Quote Reply Full Topic
srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 49752
Status: 
Offline
Papa Voo wrote: Okay, I am still baffled by all of this.



Was there actually any intent or motive explained during the trial to show that this was not a bad case of the female officer making a big mistake? I have not seen anything address those issues? Did the officer and victim communicate with each other before that day?

There are conspiracy theories that she was fucking the guy, but that never was mentioned in court and likely aren’t true. Both sides agreed on most of the facts, which was that this bitch just shot him and aimed to kill with no communication. Her only defense was that she was confused, tired, and scared. There was no basis for her to be any of these things. The defense simply tried to play the “overworked cop” card, as if working 40 hours in 4 days is really that crazy compared to the hours that millions of Americans work who don’t shoot people. There was never a logical explanation as to how she didn’t realize the furniture wasn’t hers, why she didn’t think something was strange when the door was unlocked, why she would be that frightened by an unarmed man eating ice cream, and why a trained officer would not simply draw her weapon and ask questions but felt the need to immediately shoot to kill instead. And yet I’m still surprised they got a conviction, but thank God they did. 

Last edited on Wed Oct 2nd, 2019 01:14 am by srossi



____________________
This thread was great before AA ruined it.