originally posted by: SR1TX
a reply to: SlapMonkey
Saying things are or could have been an accident and wait for the investigation are things everyone internally says as by nature of maturing to an
adult. It's Sage advice, not real advice, or even pertinent to the discussion at whole.
No, it's an appropriate approach to a potentially illegal (and possibly covered-up) act by a police officer.
Jumping to conclusions and resorting to conspiratorial ramblings prior to much even being known about the case is not, at all, a logical approach to
take. It's fine to be skeptical of the 'official story,' as I often am, but to take the skepticism and prematurely accuse the officers of proof-less
rape and then a murder to cover it up is--well, asinine at this point.
Now, this is the last time that I'm going to reiterate that to you, as I feel like you've cause me to repeat this same thing half-a-dozen times at
this point. If you don't agree, that's fine, but let's stop with the façade that your approach is perfectly logical at this point.
It sounds like you and the people that cannot fathom the police in this case actively trying to cover up their possible crime absolutely ignore
everything that has been presented to you as a possibility because a court of law or the MPD themselves have not come out and told you directly what
happened. Sorry to say, but you don't need to be on a conspiracy forum. Maybe to find a blue lives matter forum that does not allow for speculation on
You are not speculating--you have presented and stated your proposed conspiracy as fact on numerous occasions, going as far as saying that it should
be perfectly clear that the real scenario is exactly as you describe.
But, please, since you are so omniscient, where have I ever said or implied that I cannot fathom a police cover up in this case? In fact, on multiple
occasions, I have noted that it's possible, but IMO, improbable at this point without further evidence.
Are you going to keep spewing out BS about me and my stance, or can you just accept that I'm approaching this objectively, whereas you're approaching
it subjectively? That's okay to do, on both our parts, but just don't act so surprised that you have people who are countering your claims, many of
which you present as facts without evidence.
ETA: You are talking to someone who, during my stint as a paralegal, helped prosecute police officers and even criminal investigative agents on more
than one occasion. If you truly think that I'm incapable of not thinking that LEOs are capable of wrongdoing and lying about it, you are presenting
yourself as a presumptive ignoramus (in the least derogatory way to use that word) who understands nothing about those whom you consistently apply
edit on 27-7-2017 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)