- Joined
- Sep 9, 2005
- Messages
- 34,912
- Reaction score
- 12,300
- Location
- Pennsylvania
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
You're assuming it will happen here.Yes, SC justice (i. e. all White jurors acquitting cops) is very much horrific.
You're assuming it will happen here.Yes, SC justice (i. e. all White jurors acquitting cops) is very much horrific.
Why?Cops shouldn't be entitled to the same rights as people.
Stereotyping white southerners is acceptable? I'm a white southerner and republican. I would fry this guy.
95% chance the cop is acquitted, unless the Feds get involved.
You're assuming it will happen here.
Well of course.Then you'd be dropped from the jury panel in SC if you were ever called to serve on the case.
You're right. Cops are a privileged class in this country like politicians and other government employees.
Legally (and technically), it isn't. But for all practical purposes, it is, obviously. And I like it that way
Cops shouldn't be entitled to the same rights as people.
Why?
12345
If the Feds do not threaten SC, the NC DA's office, or the police dept. in any way prior to the trial, the cop WILL BE ACQUITTED, period.
From what I read, it sounds like the governor of that state might take care of any "threats" necessary.If the Feds do not threaten SC, the NC DA's office, or the police dept. in any way prior to the trial, the cop WILL BE ACQUITTED, period.
Then you'd be dropped from the jury panel in SC if you were ever called to serve on the case.
Cops are armed agents of the (local) govt. and should therefore be subjected to tribunals, not civilian trials.
Regrettably, the system doesn't work that way
Well of course.
The defense would nix him straight off, if he flat-out stated he had already decided this...person...was guilty.
They are not the military. They are civilians. They operate within the borders of the United States. What you are suggesting would further militarize the police.
Not to mention make them further protective of each other
since they would no longer be treated justly or concern for their constitutional rights.
Cause it only matters when the victim is a black man.
Body cams on cops are 100% worthless. The police depts. would just doctor the body cam videos or else the cops would turn off the cams and/or censor specific footage.
In the event body cam videos were available for the public to see, there would be huge discrepancies in the video picked up by those cams and those picked up by bystander cameras and/or cell phones.
I agree completely. I dont think anyone denies it happens and it certainly 'happened' in this case. That was an unjustified shooting. But...if it happens (and it does) then WHY is it always the headlines about THE BLACK MAN?No matter the races involved, the actions I saw in that video IMO deserve serious consequences.
Personally, I'd say the police officer intentionally killed an unarmed, fleeing person.
For no ****ing reason that I could see.
If SC has the death penalty, this (probably former, now) cop deserves it.
If anyone does.
I agree completely. I dont think anyone denies it happens and it certainly 'happened' in this case. That was an unjustified shooting. But...if it happens (and it does) then WHY is it always the headlines about THE BLACK MAN?
There ARE some things that dont make a ton of sense about the case and some that support there was some sort of a struggle prior to the shooting. EMPHASIS...that does NOT justify shooting the man in the back.
He was reportedly pulled over for a traffic violation. How did they end up in the lot? Also...stop the tape 17 seconds into it. At 18 seconds you will see the victim (yes...I said victim) dropping a black object after some sort of physical contact with the cop, then he turns and runs.
When he shot, it is obvious he was not at risk and should NOT have shot. What happened prior doesnt justify the shooting, but it may give it some context.
The color of the victim seems to be more important when s/he is Black. In many other cases color, or race, is never mentioned.This happens. Not all the time, but it does happen. And when it does, it SHOULD be investigated, prosecuted where warranted, and punished accordingly.
But the only time it matters (and the OP so very clearly illustrates it) is when it is a WHITE cop and a black victim.
Not a ton of outrage when it is a white guy shot by a cop. or a Latino. And if the cop is black? Fuggedaboudit....
But what do the headlines say in THIS case?
"Video Shows Officer Michael Slager Shooting Unarmed Black Man In The Back In South Carolina"
Cause it only matters when the victim is a black man.
If there wasn't a cell phone video he would likely get away with it. The video shows the cop placing his stung gun near the body.As it says, he's been arrested and charged with murder. As should be.
They're already militarized, so it's irrelevant.
They already are, so that's also irrelevant.
Constitutional rights were intended for the People, not cops. Errant cops can be dealt with in tribunals, which are more cost-effective for taxpayers than civilian trials.
It is irrelevant that you want to further justify that they are not civilian?
No. Further justifying that is not ok.
Constitutional rights were intended for civilians.
OK, yeah. You go ahead and keep believing government employees like politicians are treated MORE HARSHLY than the average citizen. I'll be over here laughing at you.I really don't share your contempt for police or authority. Rather, it is how the legal system tends to work for police, but that is largely due to the public itself. Often, politicians are treated more harshly now than ordinary citizens for the publicity.