‘Sir, why did you shoot me?’

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Jarnauga [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

why did they even have their weapons out ? i don't know the us police process in that kind of situation, but it doesn't seem like there was any threat that would require the use of any weapons..

i guess there's gonna be an investigation, wait for the conclusions before shouting fool.

Hoping the investigation is not gonna be:

Judge "why did you shoot him ?"
Police guy "i felt threatened"
Judge "ok you're out"

It's going that route. https://twitter.com/ChuckRabin/statu...05074548924417

[Sage Truthbearer]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's going that route. https://twitter.com/ChuckRabin/statu...05074548924417

So his defense is "Not only am I incapable of identifying an actual threat or controlling my fire but I can't hit a stationary target with a rifle." Really happy this guy gets to carry a lethal weapon to work.

[Cecily]

Originally Posted by Sage Truthbearer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So his defense is "Not only am I incapable of identifying an actual threat or controlling my fire but I can't hit a stationary target with a rifle." Really happy this guy gets to carry a lethal weapon to work.

Was it an assault rifle? Because 3x burst accidental discharge makes sense in that case. The missed shots and unintentional target hit also makes sense then.

[Saludeen]

Originally Posted by Sage Truthbearer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So his defense is "Not only am I incapable of identifying an actual threat or controlling my fire but I can't hit a stationary target with a rifle." Really happy this guy gets to carry a lethal weapon to work.

Just remember that the craziest people you meet on the internet are potential police officers, and why the argument of "only the feds should have guns" is null.