Gardner said he later learned that the officer who had shot him had diabetes and was suffering from a hypoglycemic, or low blood sugar, episode. [More]And wouldn't you just know:
In response to the lawsuit, the department said neither they nor Ritchie should be held responsible for the shooting.Hey, if they had no policy, how could he violate it?
Still, we can't ignore the danger armed diabetics pose to society. Perhaps some civic-minded politician could introduce a bill to alleviate the threat.
"Only Ones" exempted, of course...
[Via Harvey]
3 comments:
Watch out, here. Though this was an "Only One", they'll use this to attack civilians' right to keep and bear arms by claiming that diabetics must be prohibited as well.
I notice there is no mention of punishment for an officer that viciously assaulted a citizen with his duty firearm. From the comments on the story, this particular officer has been in similar situations before. If that is true, why was fe allowed to continue as a street monster?
This cavalier attitude toward the public is but one more item of evidence that the police are, in fact, not only the enemy but a clear and present danger to the lives of otherwise law abiding citizens. That is my conclusion, can anyone provide me with one good reason not to destroy these animals on sight like rabid dogs?
".... can anyone provide me with one good reason not to destroy these animals on sight like rabid dogs?"
A rabid dog may just be having a bad day, give him a chance. He may not be rabid. Can't say the same for the others,
Post a Comment