Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

US Police killing of 13 year old Adam Toledo

Options
1…1819212324

Comments

  • Options
    #602
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,128 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    beauf wrote: »
    So the problem isn't a 13yr being at a shooting in the middle of the night with a gun. It's just normal personal safety in kids in Chicago.

    I guess the cops finding armed 13yrs in the middle of the night should just let them be. Because it's more important to protect the kid with gun, than the people they might shoot.

    Of course its important to protect people who might get shot, but you fail to see that a person did get shot, a 13 year old boy, by the police.

    It's pointless shooting 1 person to prevent someone else getting shot if there is no evidence to suggest that the first person is going to shoot anyone!

    It's that kind of "logic" that leads AI down the road of killing all humans to protect them from themselves.


  • Options
    #603
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,128 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    He was armed less than a second before he was shot. I'll say that again. He was armed less than a second before he was shot. As he started to turn towards the cop he still had the gun in his hand.
    Using that logic the cop could have shot him in the back and claimed that he was armed when he was shot.
    Being armed doesnt result in getting shot in the US.
    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Only a blind man wouldn't see that he posed a threat to the cop.
    so he was *more* of a threat to the cop than Rittenhouse, the guy who had already shot 3 people and was still armed with a rifle?
    So, in the half a second or so that the cop had to respond, what non-lethal action could the cop have taken?

    False narrative. The cop had as much time as he wanted to response.
    He *chose* to take less than a second to come to his decision to shoot.
    His decision has been proven wrong by the evidence, the victim was complying, had dropped his gun and the gun was in any case empty.


  • Options
    #604
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    GreeBo wrote: »
    It's that kind of "logic" that leads AI down the road of killing all humans to protect them from themselves.

    Well lucky human beings aren't AI and can use a bit of common sense.


  • Options
    #605
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,762 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Using that logic the cop could have shot him in the back and claimed that he was armed when he was shot.
    Being armed doesnt result in getting shot in the US.

    Nope. Running away isn't posing a direct threat to the cop. Stopping and turning to face the cop while you have a gun in your hand 'is a direct threat' to the cop.
    so he was *more* of a threat to the cop than Rittenhouse, the guy who had already shot 3 people and was still armed with a rifle?

    You are trying to muddy the waters here by bringing Rittenhouse into it. Nothing to do with this case.

    But I'll bite. When the cops saw Rittenhouse walking towards them with a gun, he wasn't a direct threat to them. He wasn't being chased by them. He would have simply appeared to be one of the militia out there legally protecting property (which is what he initially was doing).
    False narrative. The cop had as much time as he wanted to response.
    He *chose* to take less than a second to come to his decision to shoot.
    His decision has been proven wrong by the evidence, the victim was complying, had dropped his gun and the gun was in any case empty.

    False logic on your part. You are viewing things with the benefit of hindsight. The cop didn't have this luxury.

    Firstly, and even you, with your anti-cop glasses on, will have to admit that there is absolutely no way that the cop could have known that the gun was empty.

    Secondly, he saw (based on his bodycam footage) an armed person stop and begin to quickly turn towards him. It's logical to think that, during a police pursuit, an armed person suddenly stopping and turning towards him with a gun in his hand is going to shoot at him. At this point in time, the cop absolutely perceived a threat to himself. So at that point he had a fraction of a second to make up his mind. He had to decide to shoot and protect himself, or potentially be shot a fraction of a second later.


  • Options
    #606
    wicklowstevo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 919 ✭✭✭wicklowstevo


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Of course its important to protect people who might get shot, but you fail to see that a person did get shot, a 13 year old boy, by the police.

    It's pointless shooting 1 person to prevent someone else getting shot if there is no evidence to suggest that the first person is going to shoot anyone!

    It's that kind of "logic" that leads AI down the road of killing all humans to protect them from themselves.

    its is clear that you either don't understand the world outside your screen or are just trying to derail another thread ,

    everything has been clearly explained to you in language a 10 year old whose second or third language is English would understand. a video of the incident disproves all you allegation and theory's and still you persist , that isn't discussion

    either way your not worth interacting with

    for the benefits of the mods there may be a issue with the troll reporting system as it doesn't seem to be working


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #607
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,128 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Nope. Running away isn't posing a direct threat to the cop. Stopping and turning to face the cop while you have a gun in your hand 'is a direct threat' to the cop.
    So obeying the order to stop is now threatening?

    BattleCorp wrote: »
    You are trying to muddy the waters here by bringing Rittenhouse into it. Nothing to do with this case.
    It doesnt muddy the waters, clearly the waters are already muddy since the outcome was so different in these two cases.
    BattleCorp wrote: »
    False logic on your part. You are viewing things with the benefit of hindsight. The cop didn't have this luxury.
    How can you say that? The cop didnt need to shoot Toledo, he choose to and has since been proven wrong.
    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Firstly, and even you, with your anti-cop glasses on, will have to admit that there is absolutely no way that the cop could have known that the gun was empty.
    Can you please just try to argue your point without all this childish "anti-cop glasses" nonsense? I am not anti-cop.
    Sure there is no way he could have known, just like there was no way he could have known that Toledo was a threat, or that he was going to shoot him, hell he couldnt even have known that he was chasing the correct suspect. But none of those unknowns stopped him from shooting an innocent victim.
    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Secondly, he saw (based on his bodycam footage) an armed person stop and begin to quickly turn towards him. It's logical to think that, during a police pursuit, an armed person suddenly stopping and turning towards him with a gun in his hand is going to shoot at him. At this point in time, the cop absolutely perceived a threat to himself. So at that point he had a fraction of a second to make up his mind. He had to decide to shoot and protect himself, or potentially be shot a fraction of a second later.

    So he stopped suddenly, out of nowhere and there was no way the cop could have figured out why he stopped other than assuming he was going to shoot at him?
    If it wasn't for the fact that just moments prior to that the cop had shouted "stop" you might have a point.

    So, other than actually waiting a bit longer the cops options were:
    1) Wait and potentially get shot
    or
    2) Shoot an innocent victim

    So your "potentially" outweighs the victims innocence and there are no repercussions for the cop killing the victim? Whats at the end of this road?
    We already seen plenty of scenarios where people get shot by holding something that a cop mistakes for a weapon or by moving in some random way that a cop doesnt like, or by reaching for your ID after being asked to show your ID.
    Seems like a good tactic of keeping police alive at the expense of innocent people to me.


  • Options
    #608
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,128 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    wicklowstevo wrote: »
    its is clear that you either don't understand the world outside your screen or are just trying to derail another thread ,

    everything has been clearly explained to you in language a 10 year old whose second or third language is English would understand. a video of the incident disproves all you allegation and theory's and still you persist , that isn't discussion

    either way your not worth interacting with

    for the benefits of the mods there may be a issue with the troll reporting system as it doesn't seem to be working

    It's clear that you can't or won't maintain an adult level of interaction so I will no longer be reading or replying to your posts.


  • Options
    #609
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    I think standing in front of someone known to have a gun and letting them shoot you (or someone else) dead to find out are they a threat is a really dumb idea.

    But if you think its a good idea, I think you should demo it a few times to prove it works.


  • Options
    #610
    wicklowstevo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 919 ✭✭✭wicklowstevo


    GreeBo wrote: »
    It's clear that you can't or won't maintain an adult level of interaction so I will no longer be reading or replying to your posts.

    great :)


  • Options
    #611
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,762 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    GreeBo wrote: »
    So obeying the order to stop is now threatening?

    When he started to turn towards the cop, he still had the gun in his hand. So he was still a threat.
    How can you say that? The cop didnt need to shoot Toledo, he choose to and has since been proven wrong.

    Proven by who, you? :confused: Was there a court case held already? Were there even charges?

    You bang on about innocence of the kid yet you have stuff proven against the cop. Some logic there.
    Can you please just try to argue your point without all this childish "anti-cop glasses" nonsense? I am not anti-cop.

    Ok, if not anti-cop, then maybe anti-logic? The kid had a gun in his hand when he started to turn towards the cop. Is this true or not? I'll answer that for you. Yes he did. It's in the photo I posted earlier in the thread. Therefore if he had decided not to drop the gun, he would have been in a position to shoot the cop.........that's what the cop faced. The cop didn't have the benefit of hindsight or forensic examination of video footage to see that the kid had dropped the gun approximately 0.7 of a second beforehand.
    Sure there is no way he could have known, just like there was no way he could have known that Toledo was a threat, or that he was going to shoot him, hell he couldnt even have known that he was chasing the correct suspect. But none of those unknowns stopped him from shooting an innocent victim.

    See answer to previous paragraph. I ain't typing it out again.
    So he stopped suddenly, out of nowhere and there was no way the cop could have figured out why he stopped other than assuming he was going to shoot at him?

    Again, same answer as above. The kid had a gun in his hand when he was turning towards the cop.
    So, other than actually waiting a bit longer the cops options were:
    1) Wait and potentially get shot
    or
    2) Shoot an innocent victim

    I'll reword that for you.

    1) Wait and potentially get shot
    or
    2) Shoot an innocent victim someone who you perceive to be a direct threat to you[/quote]

    I know which option I'd take and it ain't number 1.

    So your "potentially" outweighs the victims innocence and there are no repercussions for the cop killing the victim?

    Absolutely. If a cop is faced with an armed suspect, then I'd expect the cop to protect themselves. They aren't expendable. They are just citizens doing a job.

    And leave off with the victim's innocence. 0.7 of a second earlier the kid had a gun in his hand and had the potential to kill the cop.

    So yeah, the 'potentially' counts. Cops are actually legally allowed to defend themselves you know.
    Whats at the end of this road?

    I reckon this cop will go back to work. I can't see him getting charged.

    But if you are talking about the US, it's a sh1tshow. It'll end up in a race war or mini race war I think. Or it will end up with cops not bothering to do anything that would put themselves in danger and it will turn into an even bigger sh1tshow.
    We already seen plenty of scenarios where people get shot by holding something that a cop mistakes for a weapon or by moving in some random way that a cop doesnt like, or by reaching for your ID after being asked to show your ID.

    Agreed. But this isn't one of those scenarios. The kid had a gun in his hand as he turned towards the cop.
    Seems like a good tactic of keeping police alive at the expense of innocent people to me.

    This is what I would consider innocent. Greebo is walking down the street minding his own business and not breaking the law. A cop shooting him 'in those circumstances' would be considered shooting an innocent person.

    Being chased by the cops while holding a gun used in an illegal shooting a short while earlier and then suddenly stopping and turning towards the cop with the gun in your hand, not so much as innocent as my previous example.

    Innocence depends on circumstances.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #612
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,184 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    BanditLuke wrote: »
    This kid was a piece of work, his friends called him Lil homicide for goodness sake but much like Floyd the mob will want the police officer hung, drawn and quartered.

    Does this nickname justify the cop killing, if so how.


  • Options
    #613
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,184 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    What difference does it make if Toledo was a gang member. He wasn't shot for being a gang member.

    He was shot because the cop justifiably (in my mind) thought Toledo was about to shoot at him.

    I can't see the cop being prosecuted over this. And even less so him being convicted.

    On the contrary I could see how he would face prosecution because of 8/10ths of a second where he chose to fire on an unarmed suspect.


  • Options
    #614
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,184 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Danzy wrote: »
    Does Bandit Luke carry an illegal gun, sell crack and is a member of one of the most murderous crime gangs in America.

    Probably not.

    Lil Homicide was.

    He was shot for having a gun out and being a threat to the police officer.

    That he was a cancerous growth to his community is irrelevant.

    They are safer now he is gone but he was only shot because he was threatening with a gun.

    We’ve so far established he held a gun. And that he fired it at some point that night. But we’re is the evidence he touched crack or that he was, probably, in a named gang?


  • Options
    #615
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,184 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Danzy wrote: »
    You consistently defend people who were shot by Police in America who have a history of extreme violence towards the African American community, especially women.

    It's a pattern at this stage. I wonder if you prefer to see these violent people continue to inflict misery.

    Is it a proxy for you?

    Argumentum ad hominem.


  • Options
    #616
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,184 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    He was armed less than a second before he was shot. I'll say that again. He was armed less than a second before he was shot. As he started to turn towards the cop he still had the gun in his hand.

    Only a blind man wouldn't see that he posed a threat to the cop.

    So, in the half a second or so that the cop had to respond, what non-lethal action could the cop have taken?

    The one he was already taking seemed good. “Stop. Stop right ****ing there. Show me your ****ing hands.” - and then the suspect did. He had already won the encounter and secured a surrender.

    Then he executed him.


  • Options
    #617
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,762 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Overheal wrote: »
    On the contrary I could see how he would face prosecution because of 8/10ths of a second where he chose to fire on an unarmed suspect.

    We disagree so.

    Do you think he'll be charged?


  • Options
    #618
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,762 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Overheal wrote: »
    The one he was already taking seemed good. “Stop. Stop right ****ing there. Show me your ****ing hands.” - and then the suspect did. He had already won the encounter and secured a surrender.

    Then he executed him.

    Again disagree.

    Do you think the cop will be charged?


  • Options
    #619
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Well he didn't "win" because the intent was to disarm the suspect not shoot him.

    If the intent was to shoot him. He didn't have to wait until the last fraction of a second to do so.

    You're asking cops to play russian roulette in high risk situations.

    If you know the cops are going to turn up armed its a bit of death wish to play chicken with them.


  • Options
    #620
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,184 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    We disagree so.

    Do you think he'll be charged?

    I think it will be presented to a grand jury absolutely. Whether a grand jury decides to indict is another matter. Almost was a grand juror this week but wasn’t chosen as a juror or alternate - the role of a grand juror isn’t to try cases but to be presented briefings by state prosecutors then deciding (by at least a 2/3rds vote of 18 jurors at least in SC) whether that case the prosecution wishes to issue an indictment on can proceed. I don’t think state prosecutors will sit on this one I think they will present it to a grand jury because there’s clearly a public duty to do so with as much consternation as the particulars in this case bring up: dropped guns and split second decisions.

    Conviction is an entirely different matter. No clue.


  • Options
    #621
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,184 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Again disagree.

    Do you think the cop will be charged?

    What don’t you agree with? The tactic was clearly working/had worked. And execution is the appropriate term for what many wish to be argued is a justifiable and legal killing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #622
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,762 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Overheal wrote: »
    What don’t you agree with? The tactic was clearly working/had worked. And execution is the appropriate term for what many wish to be argued is a justifiable and legal killing.

    With the benefit of hindsight it appears that for about the last second or so Toledo appeared to be complying. He stopped running away and turned towards the cop. He then dropped the gun while he was turning. So yes, it looked like he was complying. But like I've said in my discussions with GreeBo, both yourself and GreeBo appear to be judging this with the benefit of hindsight. The cop didn't have that luxury. What he saw (assuming he saw what was on the bodycam footage) was an armed person turning towards him with a gun in his hand. The cop didn't have the benefit of time. He had a fraction of a second to respond. He perceived a danger and took action. Remember, Toledo had the gun in his hand 0.7 seconds before he was shot. Not much time for the cop to carry out a forensic analysis of the situation. I can't say for sure but I doubt the cop saw Toledo dropping the gun. It all happened so fast and from the pic I posted earlier, Toledo's body would more than likely have blocked the cop's view of Toledo dropping the gun.

    It's an unfortunate event for sure, but it's pretty far from the execution as you describe it.


  • Options
    #623
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,184 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    With the benefit of hindsight it appears that for about the last second or so Toledo appeared to be complying. He stopped running away and turned towards the cop. He then dropped the gun while he was turning. So yes, it looked like he was complying. But like I've said in my discussions with GreeBo, both yourself and GreeBo appear to be judging this with the benefit of hindsight. The cop didn't have that luxury. What he saw (assuming he saw what was on the bodycam footage) was an armed person turning towards him with a gun in his hand. The cop didn't have the benefit of time. He had a fraction of a second to respond. He perceived a danger and took action. Remember, Toledo had the gun in his hand 0.7 seconds before he was shot. Not much time for the cop to carry out a forensic analysis of the situation. I can't say for sure but I doubt the cop saw Toledo dropping the gun. It all happened so fast and from the pic I posted earlier, Toledo's body would more than likely have blocked the cop's view of Toledo dropping the gun.

    It's an unfortunate event for sure, but it's pretty far from the execution as you describe it.

    No sorry.

    Your whole argument hinges upon “hindsight” yet none is needed. We can see in real time the moment he complies with the officer. We can see, in real time, the moment between seeing open hands and deciding to pull the trigger.

    It also falls apart when you factor in just how much of that split second was engineered by the cop themself, and the tactical decisions they made.


  • Options
    #624
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,280 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Using that logic the cop could have shot him in the back and claimed that he was armed when he was shot.

    Yes, and the logic is valid and supported.

    https://uapdi.com/my/docs/shotback.pdf

    https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/response-time-human-factors-self-defense-shooting/
    Why have some police officers shot suspects in the back? Despite what is claimed by suspects’ relatives or attorneys, Lewinski has established that it takes a second to a second and a half for an officer to stop shooting when firing rapidly at an obvious threat. During this time, a suspect could have turned his back to the officer. Force Science Research Center did extensive research to determine just how long it took for a suspect to fire at an officer and then turn his back.5

    In 11 different experiments, repeated several times, it was found that a suspect could fire and turn his back in well under a second. Specifically, a suspect could stand facing an officer, raise and fire his gun, and then turn away with his back to the officer in half a second.

    I would also observe the US Supreme Court case of Graham v Connor.
    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/

    All claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force -- deadly or not -- in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard, rather than under a substantive due process standard.

    [snip]

    The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.
    [...] With respect to a claim of excessive force, the same standard ofreasonableness at the moment applies: "Not every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge's chambers," Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d at 1033, violates the Fourth Amendment. The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments -- in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving -- about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.


  • Options
    #625
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Well I reckon there would have to be a trial before he could possibly be convicted right?
    Unlike Mr Toledo who has convicted of being a gang banger involved in shootings already on this thread...
    Why wasnt Toledo innocent until proven guilty?

    Why the focus on Toledo’s innocence or otherwise?

    It’s irrelevant; unless you think that it would be justifiable to shoot him if he had been found guilty of some crime or other.


  • Options
    #626
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,762 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Overheal wrote: »
    No sorry.

    Your whole argument hinges upon “hindsight” yet none is needed. We can see in real time the moment he complies with the officer. We can see, in real time, the moment between seeing open hands and deciding to pull the trigger.

    It also falls apart when you factor in just how much of that split second was engineered by the cop themself, and the tactical decisions they made.

    The cop had an armed suspect turn towards him with a gun in his hand. I don't think you really understand how long 0.7 of a second really is in such a situation? It's the blink of an eye (almost).

    As for saying that the cop engineered the situation......:rolleyes:

    I'd be very surprised if the cop is charged over this incident but I'd be absolutely amazed if he's convicted.

    We aren't going to find any common ground so I'll leave you to it.


  • Options
    #627
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,184 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    The cop had an armed suspect turn towards him with a gun in his hand. I don't think you really understand how long 0.7 of a second really is in such a situation? It's the blink of an eye (almost).

    As for saying that the cop engineered the situation......:rolleyes:

    I'd be very surprised if the cop is charged over this incident but I'd be absolutely amazed if he's convicted.

    We aren't going to find any common ground so I'll leave you to it.

    Do the physics of the 4th dimension, time, bend literally around police shootings? If not than a unit of one second is still one second. Nevermind the theory of relativity at walking/sprinting speeds, as it is entirely negligible.

    The officer did indeed engineer part of the encounter when they ran through the alleyway and even more saliently, ordered the suspect to stop right ****ing there and show his ****ing hands, which was complied with. The cop had already anticipated the impulse to kill them yet was barking de-escalation orders - which were ultimately followed. Clearly very arguably the cop was “going through the motions” and had no actual commitment to the de-escalation commands being used.


  • Options
    #628
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,280 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Overheal wrote: »
    The officer did indeed engineer part of the encounter when they ran through the alleyway and even more saliently, ordered the suspect to stop right ****ing there and show his ****ing hands, which was complied with. The cop had already anticipated the impulse to kill them yet was barking de-escalation orders - which were ultimately followed. Clearly very arguably the cop was “going through the motions” and had no actual commitment to the de-escalation commands being used.

    So is it your contention that if Toledo had done as barked at, no more, no less. (Stop, show hands. Not turn, chuck the gun, bark back, etc) that the cop would have shot him in the back regardless?


  • Options
    #629
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    If the suspect hadn't been there in the first place at that time, with a gun, at a shooting, it wouldn't have happened either.


  • Options
    #630
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,184 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    beauf wrote: »
    If the suspect hadn't been there in the first place at that time, with a gun, at a shooting, it wouldn't have happened either.

    Of course, that’s the baseline. I’m not sure that anyone disagrees with or contends that. It’s not grounds for a rank dismissal of discussing the case or analyzing the faults of the officer or of their training though, or the discussion of guns and parenting, etc etc.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #631
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,184 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    So is it your contention that if Toledo had done as barked at, no more, no less. (Stop, show hands. Not turn, chuck the gun, bark back, etc) that the cop would have shot him in the back regardless?

    Touché. Really, the best question in defense of the officer so far in thread. To which I agree there is too much reasonable doubt to stand behind my charge of momentary premeditation.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement