1. I'll avoid the bait to take this part of the discussion to another meaningless tangent. The point was that my reply was specific in addressing your "choking" comment so your omission accusation falls flat on its face.
2. Saying that to begin with could have saved us a ton of time...
3. Actually that comment was to address your accusations of "how I needed to get my story straight", implying that what I being inconsistent with what I said. But if you're done with that line of debating, then let's get back on topic, shall we?
Anyway, yes, it was most likely an accident. I never said they meant to kill him. But an accident due to negligence and a complete disregard for another person's life is a crime (manslaughter up to murder 2 depending on the judge). He used a move that was banned for a reason. Literally rolled the dice about a person's life when it wasn't really necessary. Then left an unconscious man who was obviously in distress to slowly die on the sidewalk. And every single cop who participated needs to be made accountable.
4. Yes, semantics are important. Frivolous tangents into semantics during a debate, however, less so. If you wanted me to clarify, maybe use less accusatory language and just ask for clarification instead?
5. Seriously? Simply talking him down would have worked. Gardner seemed agitated but agitated people run out of steam pretty quick if you don't engage them. Heck, writing him a ticket and letting him walk away would have been enough. You understand selling cigarettes (which they never found btw) is a misdemeanor right?
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
