Comments

1
Your heart really goes out to the Otis family. They've suffered an unimaginable loss, and yet they take the opportunity to say how much some changes are needed in how our community deals with mental health issues. That's a dignity that not all of us would have.

You also get a new appreciation of the job that the police have. They make what must be hundreds of thousands of traffic stops a year, and any one of them could turn deadly in a split second, even with a young man who seemed to have a lot going for himself. You read a lot about why the police are so defensive, why they have to worry so much about whether someone is going to go for a weapon. This is the example of why that's the case.
2
Very well put, Polis.

Sarah - if you say that he 'allegedly' fired on police, shouldn't you also say that they 'allegedly' fired back? Why does one deserve the word and not the other?
3
The cops have said they shot him Reymont.
4
TTH hit it, Reymont. Because the cops are here to say that they shot back.
5
Reymont,
What Haters said. The police definitely fired at Otis, but until an investigation reveals all the details of what happened, we can't be 100% sure that Otis fired on the officers.

Good question.
6
No, that still doesn't make any sense. Sure, the cops say they fired on him, but they also say he fired on them. Why believe the one thing without reservation, but not the other? If you are saying that we can't be sure the officers are telling the truth without a full investigation, then mark them both 'alleged' - why believe any of it?

How can you say 'the police definitely fired at Otis?' You have exactly the same evidence in support of that statement as you do in support of him firing on them.

It's pretty offensive to mark the opening fire as 'alleged' and the return fire as factual. There's no logical basis for that at all - that's pure prejudice. It implies that the police may have opened fire for no reason, and that they might be lying about it, and that the officer hospitalized for gunshot wounds might be faking.

They all fired, so there's no need for 'allegedly.' But if you want to withhold judgement until after the investigation, used 'allegedly' on both. Using it only for the police is disgusting.
7
Reymont,
We can be relatively sure that the police fired first of all because they say so and secondly because the bullet wounds in Otis's body confirm as much. However, until the investigation uses forensic evidence to determine that Otis fired his gun first, all we have to go off of is the officers' account of what happened. Since Otis isn't alive to provide his side of the story, we're saying the officers "allege" he shot until science proves what happened.
8
Science probably won't prove anything. A hearing of some sort will be held. Evidence will be presented. Nothing much will be proven. A decision will be made. Likely it will be found that the police's actions were justified. Perhaps in this case they were, however there seems to be a disturbing rise in cases where the evidence seems strongly at odds with a decision that the police's actions were justified, and yet somehow that is still the decision made. I allege.
9
What the hell is a "Mood Disorder"? I am sorry, but that is way too vague. ADD could be a "Mood Disorder", even depression. That doesn't give you a right to shoot at the police!
If it was a mental disorder, they surely would have said that, Schizophrenia is one thing, ADD is not.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.