Help me out here. SO I read in the paper this morning that mother of a 22 yr old B/M was arrested the other day in Utah after an altercation with police. They didnt shoot her; such restraint!! Oh, her son was shot and killed by police back in September while brandishing a sword. The police felt threatened, so they shot him. So I have some questions. The first is, why do we not equip police with swords, because they are apparently more lethal than guns? I mean, if the cops need to shoot somebody carrying a sword, then by rock/paper/scissors logic, swords must be more dangerous. Or, in Micahel Browns case, nothing is even more dangerous. And given that they can shoot anybody and almost certainly not receieve any punishment, why can they retire at 20 years, and receive hazardous pay cosideration? And if you look at the statistics for on-the-job fatality, trees are the biggest threats to the working people: forbes/pictures/efkk45emddl/americas-deadliest-jobs-2/#gallerycontent
Posted on: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 15:08:26 +0000