Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mountain_hare
quiet bear:
Quote:
|
Let's see. First, he refuses to provide identification, then refuses to leave the building. Interesting.
|
I'm just curious, but are you literate?
Not immediately leaving the building =/= A refusal to leave the building.
He could have been taking his sweet ass time. He could have been saving his work onto a disk before shutting down the computer. He could have been putting his stuff in his backpack.
Quite simply, he was leaving the building at the time the officers arrived (about 5 minutes after he was giving the warning to leave. That's quite reasonable, if you tie up whatever you are doing, save your work, and pack your bags). So no, he didn't 'refuse' to leave the building. I suggest you stop making shit up. |
"Refused to leave" is no more likely to be an overstatement than "was leaving
at the time the officers arrived" -- as opposed, say, to "tried to leave when the officers arrived". If that's making shit up, there's plenty of it to go around.
On another note, something in the article that had me shaking my head was this: "[Assistant Chief] Young, however, has said the officers could not have known at the time that Tabatabainejad was not a threat nor could they have been sure that he was not armed."
I think by the time he was handcuffed and prone, the question of his being armed was somewhat stale. I just can't see a defense for the last few tasings, on
anyone's theory of what the cops might have believed.
Sorta like the NYC cops shooting up the car of unarmed men. Whatever story apologists want to tell about how fast it can all happen, pressure on cops, poor visibility... still, the guy who stopped to reload and then kept shooting is just fresh out of excuses.