Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="trplnkl" data-source="post: 859811" data-attributes="member: 13254">did you read anything more than the first sentence of the article? 911 call, house door broken in by a possible black man. Police arrive to investigate, it is their job, the man inside the house is indeed dark skinned, the police try to question him, but he doesn&#039;t co-operate ( because he either doesn&#039;t speak english or he has the mind of a child) the police try to arrest him and he resists. IMO, they had the right to arrest the man. Now, given the fact that there is a language barrier (not by fault of the police) and the man may indeed be mentally deficient(but how can the police tell if he doesn&#039;t respond to their warnings) I fully understand the arrest. If I had been on the jury, I may have voted to let him go but then we don&#039;t know all the facts. &nbsp;If the man&#039;s record is clean of any other convictions, I think the sentence is a bit harsh.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="trplnkl, post: 859811, member: 13254"] did you read anything more than the first sentence of the article? 911 call, house door broken in by a possible black man. Police arrive to investigate, it is their job, the man inside the house is indeed dark skinned, the police try to question him, but he doesn't co-operate ( because he either doesn't speak english or he has the mind of a child) the police try to arrest him and he resists. IMO, they had the right to arrest the man. Now, given the fact that there is a language barrier (not by fault of the police) and the man may indeed be mentally deficient(but how can the police tell if he doesn't respond to their warnings) I fully understand the arrest. If I had been on the jury, I may have voted to let him go but then we don't know all the facts. If the man's record is clean of any other convictions, I think the sentence is a bit harsh. [/QUOTE]

Verification