MD - Off Duty Officer Shoots, Kills Man After Dispute

[Scrivener]

What that man did was the right thing. He shot a dipshit down who thought assaulting women was some sort of cute "trademark joke".

So in your vaunted world of "chivalry," summary execution is a just and proper response to a simple groping incident. What a achievement of reason and social evolution you espouse.

OH - those of us who actually read the article and, therefore, have a clue, are aware of something you are not - or chose to ignore:

The shooting by Gahiji A. Tshamba, a 15-year veteran of the city police force, has left his commanders publicly questioning whether the Eastern District patrol officer legitimately thought his life was in danger before firing.

That, by the way, IS the standard for the use of deadly force. Oh, that's right - your perfect little world of brute force and knee-jerk reaction has been subverted by the Evil Attorney Conspiracy.... How frustrated you must be.

Police said the woman's companion, an off-duty Baltimore police officer, got into an argument and physical confrontation with Brown after they left the club Eden's Lounge. His sister said there was no fight, and that her brother apologized and tried to walk away. What happened next is not in dispute — the officer pulled out his department-issued Glock handgun and fired at the unarmed Brown 13 times from just a few feet away

Yes; clearly a case of Brown posing an imminent threat to Womanhood and Western Civilization. I can see your concern and the immediate need for deadly force...

But, some background on Your Hero, the Stalwart Defender of Female Honor:

A department spokesman said Tshamba has been involved in at least one prior police-involved shooting. In 1998, he shot a man in the back during a foot chase, according to The Baltimore Sun's archives.

So he's a consistent performer....

But wait; there's MORE!

The spokesman said the officer refused to make a statement and declined to submit to a breath test to determine whether he had been drinking alcohol or how much he had consumed.

And why would that be an issue - well, besides shooting an unarmed man at close range, but with a less than 50% hit rate? Maybe this:

Police commanders said privately that they were troubled by Saturday's shooting, which took place near a rear door of Club Hippo. It raised numerous questions, they said, including whether the officer had been drinking and was impaired when he fired his gun, and why he did not call for help from the many on-duty officers stationed nearby.

Oh, dear - there I go again; thinking like a lawyer - which is to say, using logic and facts.

But, of course, I'm not a lawyer, and not part of the problem like you are.

You clearly lack the qualifications of a responsible attorney. Rather, your knee-jerk rantings are custom-made for quoting by the anti-gun rights crowd, seeking to portray all firearms owners as homicidal maniacs just waiting, like a ticking bomb, to go off. Stellar performance. Tell us again who's the problem...

You make your living by parsing idiotic laws and finding discrepancies you can exploit for profit. If it wasn't for an overreaching legislature encroaching upon the natural rights of men, you'd have to be out in the real world making an honest living producing something of value. Scary though, isn't it?

Your ignorance of what I do and how is exceeded only by the presumptuousness of your pontifications upon it. Well, that and your evidence resentment. Both are your problems; not mine.

You apparently seek to pose as superior, while not disclosing what great contributions to the world you are supposedly responsible for. Don't bother doing so now. Not only do I not know what you do; I don't care. But feel free to preen in your imaginary moral fantasy land, where you can dispense your own perverted form of justice at will - or whim.

As for your adjective of choice, "douchebag," I yield to what is your clearly superior knowledge of the subject. Have a Midol on me.

 

[mvagusta77]

So with no statement by the officer and none from witnesses other than those associated with the giddy dead prankster, we are to know for sure that there was no weapon involved from the deceased? Hmmm....

I'm commenting on the story as it is written. There is a statement in there that he was unarmed. This is what I'm commenting on. When the full story comes out and the facts come out my comments may change. As far as shooting an unarmed man for ass grabbing I stand by what I commented.

 

[P-14]

That, by the way, IS the standard for the use of deadly force. Oh, that's right - your perfect little world of brute force and knee-jerk reaction has been subverted by the Evil Attorney Conspiracy.... How frustrated you must be.
<snip>
As for your adjective of choice, "douchebag," I yield to what is your clearly superior knowledge of the subject. Have a Midol on me.

Go get 'em, Scriv. Not a lethal force situation and alcohol was involved. "Chivalry" does not justify murder of an unarmed man.

 

[Scrivener]

The problem is that we don't KNOW anything other that what has been reported by those ASSOCIATED with the supposed victim. So you and others are making the statement that he was EXECUTED and you have no earthly idea whatsoever that that is the case...Do you???

Not quite the one-sided report you seem to think it is. Besides the obvious physical evidence (cop empties gun into person who posed NO threat to anyone's life by all reports and NO evidence of the victim having a weapon), there's this:

A patrol officer standing in an alley off East Eager Street, used by officers to park their vehicles, heard the gunfire and quickly responded. "The guy was in no harm, no danger," Kangalee said, disputing that he identified himself as an officer. "He could see he had no weapon, nothing."