Quote:
|
Originally Posted by theking
The press was present for the trial and reported on the trial quite extensively...and I followed the press reports.
Why would you find it incredulous and inplausable that a man with a history of abuse did not do these things. While serving in the '91 Gulf War...a few fellow soldiers stated that he...as they described it...engaged in what could be considered as minor abuse to POW's that were being held in Suadi Arabia.
He has a court history of spousal abuse and his ex-spouse went to court...on at least two occasions to get court ordered protection from him (even after the divorce)...for physical abuse and harrassment...and the court ordered it done. He...as a County Jail guard...was accused of abusing and harrasing a fellow guard. As a State Correctional Officer he had a rather extensive record of prisoner abuse.
A Leapord does not usually change its spots.
|
They put a leapord in charge of guarding the sheep.
This in itself makes the superiors guilty of negligence at the very least or are you saying they had no way of knowing this or did not bother to find out?
You see with the evidence you produce I'm led to believe his superiors knew of his history and chose him for the job or they were negligent in doing their duty. Which one do you think is right?