Quote:So because CNN reports that "two or three shots" were fired it must be true right?

 

Let me ask you this.  Have you ever fired a rifle?  Someone who is trained to fire a rifle is usually pretty proficient, especially at short distances.  If the supposed "3 shots were fired" according to CNN and only one shot hit his leg which in the victim's own words "felt like a mosquito bite" doesn't that raise a flag?

 

Based on what we know right now is it not out of the question that it was only one shot because an officer was jumpy?

 

I'll tell you right now that a police officer shooting at someone does not intend to shoot them in the leg.  The way that I was taught was 3 shots... two to the chest and one to the head.  A police officer shoots to "stop the action" not to injure or disable.

 

A police officer with a rifle in close range isn't going to miss, and isn't going to be off target so much that it hit's the target in the leg.  There was clearly no intent.

 

The problem is that people like you and others are so quick to jump on the racism bandwagon and run with it without knowing the facts.

 

I still stand by my theory based on what we know right now that it was a jumpy police officer that shouldn't have had his finger on the trigger.  I don't think that it was intentional or malicious at all.

 

His attorney is stating he was shot at 2 or 3 times.

 

Ive never shot with a rifle but i know marksmanship is important, which leads me to my next point.

 

The officer was reckless with his aim and could have "accidently" killed the victim if he hit him in a major artery in his leg.

 

That's another reason why I feel he should face criminal charges. 

---