posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 10:14 PM
a reply to: JonButtonIII
I'm not sure that I can reach the same conclusion you do, and I don't see an argument as "proof."
Because if they didn't want a war with the people, they could do the simplest thing in the world. They could APOLOGIZE for gunning down an
unarmed kid and shooting him multiple times for no good reason. They could discipline the officer and publicly offer the parents a heartfelt apology
and remunerations. That wouldn't lessen the sting of losing a child, but it would certainly end the threat of violence on the streets.
You're assuming facts not in evidence. How do you "know" that he was shot for no good reason? Why discipline the officer if he didn't do
anything wrong (because we don't know that he did). Offer remunerations? If they announce that it was bad shooting, and fire the officer, the
lawyer for the family will not get remunerations, they'll get somewhat more than a million dollars.
And your belief that it would "certainly" end the violence on the streets? Why should we believe that to be true? Wouldn't it be aggravated once
the police announce that they are entirely at fault (whether they were or not)?
Why wouldn't that set a precedent telling the officers "You must not hurt a black man, or we will be forced to fire you and the City will lose
millions in an attempt to pay off the mob?"
But I may be misunderstanding you. Clear it up for me, if you don't mind.