Tim Reid takes an unorthodox approach to reach at risk kids; At Risk Kids; and because he doesn't run his church in the same way every Baptist or Methodist or Episcopal church does y'all want to shut him down. Have you ever thought that maybe the ambush took place because he was reaching these kids and some folks didn't like it?

Traditional churches don't seem to be reaching these kids but Tim Reid's church seems to be doing so. Perhaps rather than trying to close him down the better thing to do would be to try to figure out why those thugs were waiting outside for the party to be over. Put the blame on the shooters, not the ones trying to solve the problems.

Seems like more religious persecution for this group to me. I think the city ought to start looking at the one's causing the violence rather than the groups trying to rescue our youth from the violence.

Failing to release documents that state law requires be released shows a blatant disrespect for the law. I think that is enough to justify a recall. I would think that a publication meant to serve the community as a conduit to such information as that which is being withheld you would agree with this statement.

Your claim that a recall is "should be reserved for blatant mismanagement or legally recognized misfeasance." I believe that those organized to promote the recall are alleging exactly that. I personally see the refusal to disclose documents that state law requires to be made available shows that the mayor's office shows a blatant disregard for the law and a lack of respect for the citizens requesting those documents. It causes me to believe that the documents must give evidence for the "blatant mismanagement and legally recognized misfeasance" for which this editorial staff claims a recall should be reserved.

Obvious you are still bringing up every argument you can except for the only one that matters, was deadly force justified. Either it was or it wasn't. None of the peripheral things you are bringing up matters in determining whether or not deadly force was justified.

It is obvious to me facts don't matter to you, only a rant against the police.

Obvious, if someone I knew, was kin to or even a son or daughter endangered someone with a weapon, yes, I would feel the same way. Five bullets or One hundred and five, dead is dead and you can't get excessive past that. Pointing to the number of times a dead man was shot is just a way to divert the discussion away from why the man was shot and killed. He was shot and killed because he posed a danger to those officers lives and the lives of innocents around him. That is what is obvious and if you truly have a reason to condemn the officers actions that is where your argument lies, not in how many times they shot him or how he was excessively killed.

I'm not sure how my pointing out the obvious, that the amount of force used after death is no longer effective and therefore can not be deemed excessive, translates into my making excuses for the officers. I wasn't there, I don't personally know if deadly force was required so I can't speak to that. However it does look obvious to me that a person using the name "obvious" could obviously see that nothing can be more excessive than deat so it doesn't matter how many bullets were pumped into the man if the goal was to kill him because there can't be anything excessive in the pursuit of that goal. At least that seems obvious to me.

Oh, and I am not a cop. I am not married to a cop. I'm not in a relationship with a cop and I have no ties to any police department. Out of over 400 users of that message board I only know of about six cops that post there and one cops wife.