← Back to context

Comment by thinkingtoilet

16 hours ago

Exactly. A fragile man needed assert his authority.

You don't know the man, and you don't know all of the details and nuances of the situation he was called into. How then do you think to judge him like that? You're just stereotyping.

  • Those "details and nuances of the situation he was called into" become completely irrelevant once one is presented with irrefutable evidence that their actions were completely legal. What matters is his conduct after that happened, which was blatant and persistent abuse of power.

    Stop justifying and excusing abuse of power, he hurt innocent people, cost the taxpayers $600k in a single incident of abusive and wrongful conduct, and he's now enjoying taxpayer-funded retirement without facing any accountability.

    https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/11/how-a...

  • I do know the details of the situation. And so did the jury who awarded them $600k.