Worcester District Attorney John J. Conte declined yesterday to prosecute a state trooper who fatally shot an unarmed man in 2005, despite a judge's report three months ago finding the trooper had engaged in "wanton and reckless conduct" that "amounted to criminal negligence"...Let's you and me shoot a driver in the back of the head and see how quick DA Conte is to drop the charges. But then, we're not The Only Ones.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
We're the Only Ones Wanton and Reckless Enough
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I agree he the trooper is getting better treatment than you or I would, that much is clear.
But I think the DA and grand jury made the right call none the less.
The guy who was shot was a convicted violent felon, who was evading arrest and under the influence behind the wheel at the time. God forbid he killed somebody with his car that day.
He took his life into his own hands through a series of VERY bad choices.
The fact that a life is ended is not as sad as the fact that a life was wasted before.
Used your "We're the only ones..." theme in my latest post at my blog, hope you don't mind.
Terrible. Grade F. (On your comments, 1894c.) I don't care if the guy was a conivcted felon! I don't care if he led a wasted life. It is UNACCEPTABLE for the Only Ones to draw down and cap someone's ass just for the hell of it! God forbid, the driver COULD have killed someone with his car. So could anyone else that's DUI. Is it acceptable to shoot them "before they kill someone?!" Well that's just a great defense of an indefensible action - "he had it coming."
You shoot the next drunk you encounter and tell me how it goes for. Hold on, it just occurred to me that you could be a cop. Disregard that. I was kidding. After all, you certainly wouldn't face any consequences.
BobG, I don't mind one bit. I encourage it.
As I told Reason Engaged:
I’m not the originator of that phrase, Lee Paige, the goofball DEA agent who shot himself in front of a classroom of children is.
My goal is to get information out so people start to think for themselves—make their own connections—have the first thought in their minds when they read stories of LEO abuse/incompetence be an “only ones” connection—because I think it is a simple and powerful tool to combat the “only the police military should have these types of firearms” lies spread by the antis and their MSM co-conspirators.
So, yeah, go for it—I’m delighted to see it spread.
1894c: My main point, which you recognized, was that the "only Ones" could get away with something We the People can not. Add to this the apparent disconnect between the cop's sworn testimony and the evidence, and it appears we cannot believe things went down the way he says they did.
I recall a story from a few days ago where a cop fired into a fleeing car at night, and remember thinking to myself that there is no way he could have known who was in the car--perhaps hostages, perhaps sleeping children.
So I'm not against the principle of defending yourself against assault just because the weapon happens to be a vehicle--but based on the evidence, it's not clear this was the case.
M1Thumb: I agree with your sentiments and points, but don't think that last speculation added anything but heat. 1894c is a valued contributor here, as are you.
Yeah, I'm guilty of that from time to time. Sorry for the cheapshot, 1894c...
Post a Comment