Tom Skerritt

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Tom Skerritt last won the day on December 12 2015

Tom Skerritt had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

973 Excellent

About Tom Skerritt

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

4,258 profile views
  1. So what is your solution to fix the problem as you see it?
  2. You say this as though I don't feel the same way. You are just expecting the perfect outcome, and anything less is criminal on the part of police officers. I choose not to see it that way.
  3. I would argue that resisting arrest is an aggressive response. It escalates an already tense situation, and it results in everyone being more aggressive. Would we like officers to have more awareness in ALL situations, sure? Do I expect officers to make the best decisions EVERY SINGLE TIME?!? I just can't expect that, sorry. We will have to disagree here.
  4. Of course. But that's not what we have here. If police see what appears to be a weapon, they won't hesitate to use deadly force. If this guy wasnt out committing crimes and running from the police, he would likely still be alive.
  5. I do understand your point. And I am not condoning the systemic racism, but all the more reason to not be stupid if you are of color.
  6. I simply refuse to be upset when criminals get shot by police during the act of committing crimes. You have to know that is one of the possible outcomes.
  7. No. Helicopter patrol was watching the suspect the whole time. They knew it was him. Foot patrol cops see him (and the suspect sees that the cops see him) and chase him into the backyard. Cops tell him to put his hands up. Suspect shows his hands with an object in one of them. Then suspect proceeds to approach the cops. One of the cops yells "Gun, gun, gun!" Game over. It's messed up for sure. But how about not committing crimes and then running from the cops?
  8. I don't. That's why I used the word "presume".
  9. I presume that the guy knew he was running away from the cops.
  10. I rarely see things this way, but I agree with you on this one.
  11. It's night, it's dark, guy committing crimes and running from the cops, you see an object in his hands, adrenaline is on tilt... Not saying what is right or what is wrong. I'm just saying that I can understand how something like this might happen. If I'm running after a criminal, and I see an object in his hand, I'm going to make sure that I'm not the one who is going to die.
  12. Haven't seen it here, and wondering if i read it correctly elsewhere... But I swear that when I first heard of this story, it was reported that someone was breaking into cars in the neighborhood, and this guy was running from the police and hopping over fences and running through backyards until he reached his grandmother's house. And then once there is when the cops shot him. It certainly appears to be an overreaction to the crime, but if this guy is resisting arrest and running from the cops... cops are going to have an itchy trigger finger, no?
  13. Not that any crimes should go unpunished... but how is anyone surprised that your personal information, at FB no less, gets compromised? And further... how is anyone duped by targeted advertising, particularly in the political arena?
  14. 1. Where did I say you weren't civil? Often you are abrasive, and you kind of have been here too, but nevertheless I didn't accuse you of it in this case. 2. OK, sure. But you had time to return and post this, but still haven't answered by entirely reasonable question ... why are all these Trump campaign and administration people lying about their many, many contacts with Russia, often in situations where the lies expose them to felony charges, when the simple act of meeting those people isn't illegal or scandalous? Isn't it reasonable to assume that they're doing it because the substance of those meetings was something potentially more damaging than prison time? I'm not the first person to ask this question either, and it's not the first time I've asked it, and to my knowledge nobody here or anywhere else has ever given a decent explanation for this. 3. Sure, but you did neither here. You dismissed a piece about Trump/Russia based on the site hosting the excerpt and didn't answer my related question, or questions at all. That's not "sharing a different point of view," that's unjustifiably crapping on someone else's point of view and then not sticking around to defend it. Then you pivoted to Stormy Daniels, where you wrongly accused others of hypocrisy with a straw man argument about Bill Clinton without acknowledging the hypocrisy of a party that spent decades being hysterical about gay couples ruining "the sanctity of marriage" suddenly not caring if its leader and the most famous and powerful man on earth nailing a porn star while his third wife was at home with their infant son. 4. I didn't call Joe to "investigate." I was making a point to him. He argued last week in the "liberal echo chamber thread" for more respectful discourse on substantive issues and blamed both sides but mostly focused on the left for being so angry about Trump that we scared away people across the aisle. I told him we've tried ad nauseam to engage on the issues for the last two years and it never ever ever works. This was just a fresh example of this. Like I said, if someone pops in here and tries to pooh-pooh the investigation and scandal as a nothing story, it's reasonable to expect that they would answer a simple follow-up or two justifying their perspective in the face of certain facts. But nobody ever does, and I suspect nobody ever will. Edited 21 minutes ago by TobiasFunke So is somebody going to go to bed with somebody or what?