1ºAntoinus Morton I am not making excuses. I am saying we don’t have the facts of why the officer shot. He shouldn’t have been there. Somebody clearly screwed up.
This idea that everyone is out to get us is not helpful.
And the other poster turning it around to make it about the 2nd amendment is absolutely ignorant.
This isn’t about gun control. It’s about someone screwed up royally and it resulted in a death.
Not blaming the victim. Most people that have a gun would have gone to the door with it in the middle of the night. He was within his rights. And with their confusion of what exactly was going on, it just made it a horrible situation. And it’s a situation that needs consideration of where everyone was coming from in that moment.
It was a tragedy that resulted from screwing up the address and lots of not knowing what was going on.
2ºMargaretha MacLeod my family is in law enforcement and no I do not know all of the details of this incident but from the knowledge background that I have and my family has... the cops probably asked the man to put down his weapon upon opening the door and he either didn't comply or pointed the gun at them. But we will have to wait for the lapel video to come out to confirm. I like how everyone has a comment about how the cops are murderers when we don't know what actually happened because it is still an active investigation....
3ºDE Ray It says he was armed with a gun. It doesn’t tell us if he was pointing it at police or what. They went to the wro mg address but they didn’t know that at the time. Domestic violence calls are some of the most dangerous, if not the most dangerous calls for them to go on. And “police” didn’t shoot him. One officer shot for whatever reason. If he was, in fact, pointing the gun and threatening to shoot, they aren’t trained to hesitate. For them, hesitation will get them killed.
This was a great tragedy and it started with the wrong address. And perhaps the officer who shot him was on edge about the call. Which isn’t an excuse but all of that will come out in the investigation.
4ºThis happens way too often. Maybe the police should be disarmed since they don't even have a duty to protect and stuff like this Kross happening. And to think libs and dems only want gun in the hands of these same police.
According to the United States Supreme Court, however, officers are not legally obliged to risk their lives for the community they swore to protect — despite the way their department’s motto brags about their duty to “protect and serve.” Thankfully, it seems that most police officers take such a motto seriously and bravely put their life on the line to help others. However, such praiseworthy attitudes among many in law enforcement don’t erase the fact that no such legal duty exists — regardless of the fact that most citizens believe that is precisely what all those tax dollars are being spent to ensure. https://thenevadaindepend...t-your-children
5ºAhmed Saadeddine they are allowed to neglect citizens when they have no duty to protect citizens.
According to the United States Supreme Court, however, officers are not legally obliged to risk their lives for the community they swore to protect — despite the way their department’s motto brags about their duty to “protect and serve.” Thankfully, it seems that most police officers take such a motto seriously and bravely put their life on the line to help others. However, such praiseworthy attitudes among many in law enforcement don’t erase the fact that no such legal duty exists — regardless of the fact that most citizens believe that is precisely what all those tax dollars are being spent to ensure. https://thenevadaindepend...t-your-children
6ºAli Keating not well when they have no duty to protect. Those that have no duty to protect I don't think can really be considered Good guys.
According to the United States Supreme Court, however, officers are not legally obliged to risk their lives for the community they swore to protect — despite the way their department’s motto brags about their duty to “protect and serve.” Thankfully, it seems that most police officers take such a motto seriously and bravely put their life on the line to help others. However, such praiseworthy attitudes among many in law enforcement don’t erase the fact that no such legal duty exists — regardless of the fact that most citizens believe that is precisely what all those tax dollars are being spent to ensure. https://thenevadaindepend...t-your-children
7ºMitchell Hubenet maybe after reinstating police's duty to protect that the government decided they didn't have.
According to the United States Supreme Court, however, officers are not legally obliged to risk their lives for the community they swore to protect — despite the way their department’s motto brags about their duty to “protect and serve.” Thankfully, it seems that most police officers take such a motto seriously and bravely put their life on the line to help others. However, such praiseworthy attitudes among many in law enforcement don’t erase the fact that no such legal duty exists — regardless of the fact that most citizens believe that is precisely what all those tax dollars are being spent to ensure. https://thenevadaindepend...t-your-children