The Attorney General Has an Agenda

Appleton WI

Description

Another more serious charge, first degree manslaughter, was levelled at the female officer who accidently shot a bad kid (who refused to cooperate with police, had an outstanding warrant, failed to show up in court, and decided to run again) with her sidearm when she intended get him with her taser gun. This is absolutely outrageous and unnecessary. Is the AG bending to some sort of black agenda? Isn't this the same AG who wanted the McCloskeys for pointing a gun at wild noisy protestors who threatened them on their private property? What's with this crap? What is the real motivation of this AG? Is it actually justice, is it virtue signaling, hatred of the white race, or some kind of anti gun agenda? So unnecessary. Society is better off without this kid and worse off without a law enforcement officer. And your community will be better off without this AG. This new charge will not be upheld in court because manslaughter, by definition, is without malice. It is clearly evident in the audio of the recordings that she accidently shot the perp when she actually wanted to taze him. She clearly feels bad about her fundamental error and will for the rest of her life. She will not be able to work in her beloved profession again, and may be unemployable in the future if she is young enough to become a productive member of society, unlike the perp she shot. Your tax dollars will go to her support. If she actually tazed him, your tax dollars would go to pay for his defense, court costs, prison time, and to support his family as they end up on welfare, continued defenses, and possible millions of dollars should his family follow suit life George Floyd's family did when they received 27 million dollars for that perps death. The message there: crime pays. There is one particular flagger to this series of posts regarding this subject. This flagger is some kind of snowflake who practices cancel culture if there is a disagreement, typical of Liberal Democrats and the 13%. I have tolerated a conversation with this flagger from their response to my original post and he/she clearly does not know the difference between murder and manslaughter, and calls me a fascist. If one actually reads the definition of fascism, it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject and my original point. It baffles me why she continued to defend a perpetrator as opposed to defending a law enforcement officer, and I surmise that it has racial overtones. I did not bring up race in a derogatory way in my original post. I left the insults out as I may have mistakenly believed it has nothing to do with the legal proceedings and charges, but the overtone is nearly unmistakable. As I have wondered, I cant help but to believe that the AG just doesn't like white people.