You say he was innocent so why didn’t he simply stop? He wasn’t innocent he was guilty of a long list of serious motoring affences during that chase, he would also have had to explain the large quantities of skunk and cell phones he was carrying. If a police car flashes me I pull over, I am a law abiding member of society with nothing to hide I don’t initiate a high speed car chase. Also you need to get it into your head the police didn’t kill him it was his choice to do what he did and as far as I read he crashed into traffic under his own steam he wasn’t shoved off so why on Earth you chose to bring this up as a defence of Abbott’s comment I’ve no idea.WF10 wrote:Henry Hicks wasn't a criminal. Had zero convictions. Ergo, was innocent.alftupper wrote:We aren’t talking about innocent people, you’ve just brought that up to try and justify your crazy argumentWF10 wrote: No more than letting the police kill innocent people is either.
Trying to justify police officers being able to intentionally drive their motor vehicles into other people is right up there with one of the daftest and most dangerous 'policies' I've ever heard of.
All under the guise of having a pop at a black woman in power as well.
As for Abbott being black I hadn’t noticed and it speaks volumes that the hysterical socialist should bring up the fact. I suppose you think the current Home Secretary is doing a fine job, if not why...
Maybe working with ‘young vulnerable little dears’ has addled your brain. Of all the comments I’ve heard from all sides of the political spectrum regarding Abbotts comments yours is the first I’ve heard giving unqualified support.
Beginning to wonder if you are a troll.