You have your own major issues to deal with yet alone be qualified to criticize others. A person going through a rough time personally isn't allowed to cry? I guess you would want a person like that holding all their anger in, huh? Keep it bottled up inside until an explosion happens.
His girlfriend dumped him. It wasn't like both his parents died, which is what happened to me when I was in college. Guess what, I didn't break down crying on a rifle range when I was in the service.
He was part of a union. He could have taken a week or two of personal days, called off sick, but he went to work instead. Everybody has different ways of dealing with their problems. A coworker of mine lost his mother two weekends ago. He was back to work on Wednesday, and said he planned on coming back Tuesday. While talking about the situation of his mother, he began to tear up. Is my coworker mentally unstable? Should he resign as a tractor-trailer operator?
Guy, given the chickenshit outfit you work for, I'm glad Im 600 miles away from any of you. But having a girlfriend dump you isn't the same as losing a parent. And driving a truck isn't the same as getting crazy on a gun range where the range officer HAD TO TAKE HIS WEAPON, and then initiate the procedures to dismiss him.
You have no idea what the prosecutor did. It was a closed session. Like so many other things, you dream up all this crap in your head and call it reality.
We know exactly what the prosecutor did. He presented evidence favorable to the cop, excluded evidence that wasn't favorable, and then didn't call for a vote. He DIDN'T HAVE TO CALL A GRAND JURY AT ALL! A judge already ruled there was sufficient evidence to go to trial. (You know, videotape of shooting an unarmed kid.)
The thing is, his job is to prosecute people, not defend them. He was confused on his job, and the voters straightened it out for him by voting him out.
No, they could look at the recording where it showed the kid pulling something out of his pants and being consistent with the forensic investigation as to where the gun landed. They could have looked at the Grand Jury opinions. They could have brought in trainers at the police academy to show how officers are trained when somebody is pulling a possible weapon at them.
Except there's no evidence any of that happened.
He shot a kid playing with a toy.
He was fired for it and he should have been prosecuted.
The city KNEW what would happen if they got a competent lawyer to persue the case and they settled, becuase it would have been a LOT WORSE for them having to explain how Cleveland put an emotionally unstable loser out there to confront a kid with a toy.