- Joined
- Jan 21, 2009
- Messages
- 65,981
- Reaction score
- 23,408
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
But what if these cops are acquitted because the prosecution couldn't meet that high standard of proof? Isn't that why you stated you'd be completely fine with someone attacking or even killing cops for being cops? No standard of proof required.
Eliminate their being police and conviction would be a certainty.
3 or 4 people jump someone on the street, assaulting that person. Tying his arms behind his back, they drag him as he howls in pain to put him in the back of a big steel tool box on the back of a truck. For over half an hour that person is driven around. After this, the person has a broken back or neck and days later dies.
Would ANYONE buy the claim that they committed no crime? Of course not. BUT they are police, so there are entirely different standards it seems. People are SO conditioned to police violence and abuse now they accept that police literally are above the law.
THAT is how extreme the double standard is. Police can literally assault and kill anyone - until it can be proven that the thoughts in their head were unquestionably to kill that person.
ANYONE BUT police absolutely would be found guilt of aggravated assault or minimally manslaughter. The only thing the police should be immune from in criminal charges because they are police is illegal imprisonment/kidnapping. Otherwise, they SHOULD be held to the same standards as everyone else - but they are not.