There are two more stories of violence in Indianapolis this morning. One involved the shooting of a man at 38th Moeller Road, the second was a shooting last night outside the Walker Theatre.
Frankly, I’m getting a little tired of reading or watching another story about violence in this community. And while I’m all for crime prevention, I’m falling back into my old belief that what this town needs are a couple good police beatings.
I don’t want anybody killed or put into a coma, but I honestly think that a clear message needs to be sent that crime won’t be tolerated and if these knuckleheads even dream about pulling out a gun on someone or committing an act of violence, they’ll will wake up and apologize.
How kind of Mr. Shabazz not to wish anyone killed or put into a coma due to the police beatings he proposes. I can't help but ask if the liberal voices in this community would remain silent as they have today if a white radio talk show host had made an equally outrageous statement. And do you think a white radio talk show host would not at a minimum be suspended from his job, if not fired ala Don Imus?
11 comments:
Meanwhile, homicide victim #57 - a 30-ish black male - was gunned down this evening near 34th and Caroline.
Also liberals dont listen to the crap peddled by Abdul.
Thanks for the publicity! :-)
That's the point of it all, isn't it?
Well, back in the day, police would beat people, and crime was much lower. They also could shoot fleeing felons in the back if they wanted. People decided those things were wrong, so they are now not allowed. As such, there is no longer any fear of the police, any fear of the criminal justice system, etc. etc.. Living 1/4th or 1/3rd of your life in jail is now seen as a part of life for some people.
It is not possible to "shoot a fleeing felon in the back". You might shoot a suspect in the back but you are not a felon until the judge and jury make that determination. It is not the role of the police to decide on the spot if a person is a felon or not.
Actually artfuggins, that is the terminology still used. You could use the argument that you can no longer shoot a 'fleeing suspected felon' in the back and that would probably be more accurate.
Under today's laws you can still shoot a 'fleeing forcible suspected felon,' but it hasn't been done in a while and I would think (in Indianapolis) the party involved would be done in by the court of public opinion, even though the court of law says it's okay. I don't know when the court of public opinion (i.e. the concerned clergy) began swaying the court system but that's about seventy to eighty percent of the problem right there.
"It is not the role of the police to decide on the spot if a person is a felon or not."
Actually, Mr. "artfuggins," that shows just how little you really know about the actual world that most of us live in.
The police DO have the authority and duty to decide if a "fleeing" person is a "felon" or not (did they just commit a serious, bodily injury or death crime, and/or are they still a "threat" to any person).
If the police officer believes at that moment that the fleeing person is a "felon" they have the legal right to use deadly force.
That's one reason why most of us want only the best to be hired as police officers, not someone to satisfy a whiny liberal's quota.
Once a felon, always a felon. Since most of them seem unable to change their ways, it's a good bet the fleeing 'suspect' is in fact a 'felon' - one with a long list of convictions.
Why would anyone flee the police, fleeing as a felon or not? I mean, it would be very financially-rewarding to be falsely arrested so why not stop and go for the payout?
Oh, "Maybe the fleeing person is actually a criminal," says Mr. Occam.
Completing the thought: Liberals listen to the crap peddled by Amos.
Post a Comment