09-11-2010, 01:17 PM
The key here is that a trained police officer allowed her weapon to be taken control of by someone else.
Rule number one, never willingly give up your weapon.
Now that rule is an internal matter, would the officer have been charged the same if her weapon was taken from her and it was used to shoot 2 people? the answer is no, does it matter that it was kids that took the weapon from her? the answer is yes, the law that is being used to prosecute the officer is a child protection law which makes it criminal to leave a weapon where a child can get a hold of it even if the weapon was not fired and the situation came to light she could still be charged under that statute the fact that it was fired and it injured someone else makes it an aggravated charge of the same statute.
Rule number one, never willingly give up your weapon.
Now that rule is an internal matter, would the officer have been charged the same if her weapon was taken from her and it was used to shoot 2 people? the answer is no, does it matter that it was kids that took the weapon from her? the answer is yes, the law that is being used to prosecute the officer is a child protection law which makes it criminal to leave a weapon where a child can get a hold of it even if the weapon was not fired and the situation came to light she could still be charged under that statute the fact that it was fired and it injured someone else makes it an aggravated charge of the same statute.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
John Adams
John Adams