If I’m wrong about your positions or arguments, it’s because you refuse to clarify them despite repeated requests. I believe that’s because you know you can’t really defend them, and want to hide behind claiming we can’t really ever know anything.
…from a kid who twitched when a cop car sped towards him and someone (supposedly) yelled something at him.
- How much time was there between the yelling and the shooting?
- How would you have reacted if the same thing happened to you?
It’s disgusting to believe people have a right to self defence? How pathetic. I just hope you’re never in a position where you need to defend yourself.
Enough time for him to reach for the air pistol he had modified to look like a real weapon.
I’d probably have had a panic attack, and ended up dead. You?
I pointed out several specific words of yours that were wrong (or were asserting as facts things that aren’t known facts at this time). You haven’t done the same for me – you’ve asked me to clarify, broadly, and then I do, and then you complain broadly again without specifics.
If you have a problem with the things I’ve said, be specific and careful and accurate and point to those specific words and say why they’re wrong.
Your extremely deceptive reactions to his posts defend his position well enough, in my opinion.
Airsoft guns are toy weapons. Here’s what Wikipedia says:
From here:
My specific complaint, to repeat myself, is that you are making vague claims, and saying the we can’t really know anything, instead of saying what you think actually happened, why you think that, and what should have happened in response - both the cops’ response to Rice’s actions, and what action, if any, should have been taken against them.
That’s not a specific complaint. A specific complaint would be about a specific post, with an attempt to refute some of my words as false or misguided.
I did tell you what I think happened in the instance of the shooting. I did tell you what I think should have happened in response as well – I agree with the local judge Ronald Adrine, who asserted that Loehmann should have been indicted.
If you follow the “toy weapons” link on the wiki page you cite, you’ll see that Airsoft guns don’t fit the description. Also, the claim that they are toys isn’t cited, and as with any other uncited claim on wiki, should be treated with scepticism.
Here’s another cite from a company selling them.
Yes it is.
Your opinion is probably one of the least valued on this board. Off the top of my head, only BigT and Clothahump produce less worthwhile posts.
Seeing as how this “fact” is coming from you, that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. 
I said what I thought happened, and what I thought should happen in response. You ignored all that.
No, you’ve repeatedly said you don’t know what happened and, despite that you want him indicted. You constantly refuse to reconcile that contradiction, which is why I can only assume you want him punished despite the lack of evidence, and indeed evidence of innocence.
There, another clear and specific complaint for you.
It’s a false complaint. I said the following:
That’s what I think happened. There are details I’m not certain of, but based on the evidence I agree with judge Adrine that Loehmann should have been indicted. A trial may have gotten to the bottom of many of the unknown details.
What’s the contradiction?
You have failed to address the self defence claim, and the evidence that Rice was reaching for his gun.
You also claim that an indictment would help to get to the bottom of unknown issues, ignoring the fact that there was a thorough investigation that found that there should not be an indictment.
You also fail to understand why someone should be charged with a crime. It should only happen if they are likely to be convicted, to do otherwise would be unethical and could potentially lead to the prosecutor losing their professional status.
Despite all this, you still call for an indictment, relying on the authority of a judge - someone who doesn’t have the authority to call for prosecutions - rather than that of the grand jury, who saw the evidence and decided that there was no need for a prosecution.
In short, you still refuse to say what you think happened - specifically, why the officer shot Rice - and yet still say that officer should be charged.
There is no evidence Rice was reaching for his gun except for the reports of cops who already had probably lied (or were otherwise inaccurate). As for the self-defense claim, I think there’s sufficient evidence that it was not self-defense to charge Loehmann, as judge Adrine wrote.
That the investigation was “thorough” (and unbiased) is an opinion statement, not a factual one.
This is another opinion statement, and you’re not a lawyer. I’ve known plenty of lawyers who disagree with you on this.
I think it’s likely the prosecutor was biased against the possibility of prosecuting police officers. Whatever the grand jury actually said or did (which is under secrecy rules), it was highly unusual, according to legal experts like Professor Lewis Katz. They declined to even question the officers involved, which leads me to believe that they were biased against prosecution from the beginning.
I don’t know what happened, but trials are meant to be fact-finding efforts when there is good reason to believe that illegal conduct may have occurred. IANAL, but I agree with Judge Adrine that based on the totality of evidence, including the video, witness statements, the officers’ statements (parts of which were probably either lies or otherwise false), I think there’s sufficient reason to suspect illegal conduct to warrant an indictment.
Legal ethics aren’t an opinion, they’re a set of requirements lawyers agree to follow.
It would almost certainly have been legal to charge the cop. But unless there was a good chance of winning it would have been unethical, as it wastes a lot of people’s time, and a lot of taxpayers money, as well as being unfair to the defendant.
Your claim that the coos probably lied, on the other hand, is unsupported opinion. At best, if you ignore the video, you gave conflicting witness statements. But when you include the video that shows Rice reaching for his waistband, you have, on balance, evidence that supports the cops. The only way you can get around that is to presume they are lying, which is what you and others have been doing. It’s blatant bus.
Here’s a link to the Rice video
It was a drive by shooting.