Quote:
Originally Posted by Armistead
Certainly it's my belief, because it's my opinion, just as you have yours.
We call those people nut cases. I don't see that here, I see a man that got angry, instead of dealing with that anger, he let it spiral out of control to the point it consumed his life and he sought revenge.
|
Why.
Quote:
|
It's shameful how many are making a hero out of him.
|
Me not.
I was just asking two very legitimate and important questions: now that the case of 2007 is reopened, can an unbiased and unobstructed examination be expected in a department like LA with a certain kind of not really positive reputation that lasts since very long time now, and with the to be expected political pressure to get the report that is wanted to avoid more attention being drawn to this mess. And second question, what will it mean - for example for the public perception - when it is now found that the guys' original file report on his colleague - was correct and justified?
And later I added in the second post that you simply do not know whether he was just born evil, or in other ways turned bad by his own responsibility - or whether he had no other choice than to become what he became due to for example a genetic disposition to form a psychosis, a personality syndrome, whatever.
Why you accused me of excusing what he did, and wrote all the other stuff, simply is beyond me.
Heck, even Bin Laden'S motivation could be explained - without being accused of defending what he did.