Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Ocelot II

(129,171 posts)
6. Of course they do.
Sun Jan 11, 2026, 07:58 PM
13 hrs ago

And yes, of course an officer who's accused of a crime is entitled to due process - but that cuts both ways. The people who are the victims of the accused officer's crime - and all the rest of us - are also entitled to a fair resolution of the officer's guilt or innocence. But apparently it's OK to accuse the officer's victim of domestic terrorism and making her death at the officer's hands her fault without even investigating what actually happened in order to exonerate the officer in advance. The statement calls for "a stop to the anti-law enforcement rhetoric . . . while the facts come out." That would be fine - if we had any realistic hope of an impartial investigation and not one conducted by the same government that has already decided the outcome.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Region Forums»Minnesota»Minnesota Fraternal Order...»Reply #6