What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Another killing at the hands of the Police (7 Viewers)

12 user(s) are reading this topic

6 members, 3 guests, 3 anonymous users

:popcorn:
:hey: Bad police work has the guy indicted for murder. Could have let him drive off and radioed for assistance. Dumb move by guy in car has him in a grave. We discussed it earlier. Best to obey what the cop says. Of course, the more intelligent thing to do is not get in this type of situation.

 
12 user(s) are reading this topic

6 members, 3 guests, 3 anonymous users

:popcorn:
:hey: Bad police work has the guy indicted for murder. Could have let him drive off and radioed for assistance. Dumb move by guy in car has him in a grave. We discussed it earlier. Best to obey what the cop says. Of course, the more intelligent thing to do is not get in this type of situation.
"What was she wearing?"

 
For anyone who was critical of the protest movements and asked what they were hoping to accomplish- here you go. This POS is the first Cincinnati cop ever to be charged with murder for an on-duty shooting. If you think that happens without all the protests and resulting media attention you're out of your mind. Hopefully his arrest, along with similar incidents like the arrest of the South Carolina cop who shot Walter Scott, will deter future shootings by police officers.
I don't have any problems with protesting legitimate cases. Problem is, the seminal case that gave rise to all this (Michael Brown) was completely bogus and gave the entire movement a credibility issue from jump street. Let's hope it stays on track with a focus on cases like this.

 
This could be bad for cops. The old reliable excuse for shooting unarmed guys in their cars - the officer was being dragged by the vehicle and he fired in self-defense - could be starting to crumble.

Honestly, how many times have you read that as a justification for a shooting? It always struck me as bizarre and somewhat suspicious that all these cops are getting dragged around by cars.

 
In the late 90's I remember police forces changing their protocols regarding the engagement of suspects in high speed chases. My memory is a bit foggy, but I seem to recollect that the police were instructed to back off - idea being it was too dangerous to the general public to chase the perp.

Things went astray big time the last 15 years, eh? Now they just start shooting? Crazy.

 
That cop should be charged. No reason to kill him like that, no matter what the guy in the car did.

That being said, can we seriously start treating everyone like human beings? If you don't like someone for no other reason than their ancestors spent a different amount of time in the Sun than yours did, you are not a smart person. Every day, it's like the news can just put on a tape and just change the names: "Today, violence against (insert people group here) by (insert people group here)! Can anything be done?" Yeah, how about not ####### treating others like crap, and realize that we're all stuck on this dirt ball together? Can we start to do that, for a change?

 
That cop should be charged. No reason to kill him like that, no matter what the guy in the car did.

That being said, can we seriously start treating everyone like human beings? If you don't like someone for no other reason than their ancestors spent a different amount of time in the Sun than yours did, you are not a smart person. Every day, it's like the news can just put on a tape and just change the names: "Today, violence against (insert people group here) by (insert people group here)! Can anything be done?" Yeah, how about not ####### treating others like crap, and realize that we're all stuck on this dirt ball together? Can we start to do that, for a change?
We've been trying for more than a century.

 
That cop should be charged. No reason to kill him like that, no matter what the guy in the car did.

That being said, can we seriously start treating everyone like human beings? If you don't like someone for no other reason than their ancestors spent a different amount of time in the Sun than yours did, you are not a smart person. Every day, it's like the news can just put on a tape and just change the names: "Today, violence against (insert people group here) by (insert people group here)! Can anything be done?" Yeah, how about not ####### treating others like crap, and realize that we're all stuck on this dirt ball together? Can we start to do that, for a change?
We've been trying for more than a century.
Well, we're certainly doing a bang-up job. Though I guess I shouldn't be surprised, with the nation's collective IQ headed towards the cellar at unprecedented speed, and all we as a society apparently care about is whether a former Olympic athlete is packing heat anymore now that they're calling themselves Caitlyn, and the biggest name in showbiz is someone famous for getting railed on a grainy sex tape. We're so self-centered that the biggest selling item in the past year is a stick that holds your phone for you so you can take pictures of yourself. Nobody cares anymore! At least my own children will be able to treat everyone like equals.

 
That cop should be charged. No reason to kill him like that, no matter what the guy in the car did.

That being said, can we seriously start treating everyone like human beings? If you don't like someone for no other reason than their ancestors spent a different amount of time in the Sun than yours did, you are not a smart person. Every day, it's like the news can just put on a tape and just change the names: "Today, violence against (insert people group here) by (insert people group here)! Can anything be done?" Yeah, how about not ####### treating others like crap, and realize that we're all stuck on this dirt ball together? Can we start to do that, for a change?
All you had to say was, "Can't we all just get along!"

 
That cop should be charged. No reason to kill him like that, no matter what the guy in the car did.

That being said, can we seriously start treating everyone like human beings? If you don't like someone for no other reason than their ancestors spent a different amount of time in the Sun than yours did, you are not a smart person. Every day, it's like the news can just put on a tape and just change the names: "Today, violence against (insert people group here) by (insert people group here)! Can anything be done?" Yeah, how about not ####### treating others like crap, and realize that we're all stuck on this dirt ball together? Can we start to do that, for a change?
All you had to say was, "Can't we all just get along!"
We tried that, and even then, it was in response to people tearing the greater LA area apart.

 
That cop should be charged. No reason to kill him like that, no matter what the guy in the car did.

That being said, can we seriously start treating everyone like human beings? If you don't like someone for no other reason than their ancestors spent a different amount of time in the Sun than yours did, you are not a smart person. Every day, it's like the news can just put on a tape and just change the names: "Today, violence against (insert people group here) by (insert people group here)! Can anything be done?" Yeah, how about not ####### treating others like crap, and realize that we're all stuck on this dirt ball together? Can we start to do that, for a change?
We've been trying for more than a century.
Well, we're certainly doing a bang-up job. Though I guess I shouldn't be surprised, with the nation's collective IQ headed towards the cellar at unprecedented speed, and all we as a society apparently care about is whether a former Olympic athlete is packing heat anymore now that they're calling themselves Caitlyn, and the biggest name in showbiz is someone famous for getting railed on a grainy sex tape. We're so self-centered that the biggest selling item in the past year is a stick that holds your phone for you so you can take pictures of yourself. Nobody cares anymore! At least my own children will be able to treat everyone like equals.
Well no offense, but the history and facts have been there. People have chosen to ignore them, not take them seriously or have chosen not to look at history from a certain perspective.

What was our excuse in the 80s?

What was our excuse in the 90s? 2000s?

Only now that these situations and travesties are being filmed is when the critical mass is starting to take notice and say "oh ####." Certain groups of people have been saying "oh ####" for far too long.

 
That cop should be charged. No reason to kill him like that, no matter what the guy in the car did.

That being said, can we seriously start treating everyone like human beings? If you don't like someone for no other reason than their ancestors spent a different amount of time in the Sun than yours did, you are not a smart person. Every day, it's like the news can just put on a tape and just change the names: "Today, violence against (insert people group here) by (insert people group here)! Can anything be done?" Yeah, how about not ####### treating others like crap, and realize that we're all stuck on this dirt ball together? Can we start to do that, for a change?
We've been trying for more than a century.
Well, we're certainly doing a bang-up job. Though I guess I shouldn't be surprised, with the nation's collective IQ headed towards the cellar at unprecedented speed, and all we as a society apparently care about is whether a former Olympic athlete is packing heat anymore now that they're calling themselves Caitlyn, and the biggest name in showbiz is someone famous for getting railed on a grainy sex tape. We're so self-centered that the biggest selling item in the past year is a stick that holds your phone for you so you can take pictures of yourself. Nobody cares anymore! At least my own children will be able to treat everyone like equals.
Well no offense, but the history and facts have been there. People have chosen to ignore them, not take them seriously or have chosen not to look at history from a certain perspective.

What was our excuse in the 80s?

What was our excuse in the 90s? 2000s?

Only now that these situations and travesties are being filmed is when the critical mass is starting to take notice and say "oh ####." Certain groups of people have been saying "oh ####" for far too long.
Then maybe something will finally be done. Though I doubt it, given humanity's amazing ability to find new and terrible ways to treat each other.

 
For anyone who was critical of the protest movements and asked what they were hoping to accomplish- here you go. This POS is the first Cincinnati cop ever to be charged with murder for an on-duty shooting. If you think that happens without all the protests and resulting media attention you're out of your mind. Hopefully his arrest, along with similar incidents like the arrest of the South Carolina cop who shot Walter Scott, will deter future shootings by police officers.
You are stating your opinion that they indicted this cop because of the other cities protesting?That's a thought.

Or it was extremely apparent from the video that this cop shot and killed a guy for little reason. This evidence led to an indictment.

I bet the second one is more likely.

 
For anyone who was critical of the protest movements and asked what they were hoping to accomplish- here you go. This POS is the first Cincinnati cop ever to be charged with murder for an on-duty shooting. If you think that happens without all the protests and resulting media attention you're out of your mind. Hopefully his arrest, along with similar incidents like the arrest of the South Carolina cop who shot Walter Scott, will deter future shootings by police officers.
You are stating your opinion that they indicted this cop because of the other cities protesting?That's a thought.

Or it was extremely apparent from the video that this cop shot and killed a guy for little reason. This evidence led to an indictment.

I bet the second one is more likely.
You think it's just a coincidence that the first cop to ever shoot and kill a guy for little reason in Cincinnati happened so soon after all the protests?

 
For anyone who was critical of the protest movements and asked what they were hoping to accomplish- here you go. This POS is the first Cincinnati cop ever to be charged with murder for an on-duty shooting. If you think that happens without all the protests and resulting media attention you're out of your mind. Hopefully his arrest, along with similar incidents like the arrest of the South Carolina cop who shot Walter Scott, will deter future shootings by police officers.
You are stating your opinion that they indicted this cop because of the other cities protesting?That's a thought.

Or it was extremely apparent from the video that this cop shot and killed a guy for little reason. This evidence led to an indictment.

I bet the second one is more likely.
You think it's just a coincidence that the first cop to ever shoot and kill a guy for little reason in Cincinnati happened so soon after all the protests?
Here's the link to the protests... The protests expedited the usage of body cameras. So in that sense, the protests were a very good thing. If that is all that ever comes out of the protests, they will have succeeded.

 
Oh, and one more thing about body cameras - they were mostly opposed by the Left due to civil liberty concerns. In a lot of the experts' opinions, body cameras are going to end up sending more people to jail.

 
Last edited:
Oh, and one more thing about body cameras - they were mostly opposed by the Left due to civil liberty concerns. In a lot of the experts' opinions, body cameras are going to end up sending more people to jail.
Is this real snake oil?
The ACLU was against body cameras for years dour to privacy concerns. They eventually came on board after all the mayhem the last year, but prior to that they were an obstacle in getting legislation passed. Here is one example - http://www.aclupa.org/files/4013/8619/3393/memo_SB_1168_Senate_Dec_2013.pdf
 
Last edited:
Oh, and one more thing about body cameras - they were mostly opposed by the Left due to civil liberty concerns. In a lot of the experts' opinions, body cameras are going to end up sending more people to jail.
Is this real snake oil?
The ACLU was against body cameras for years dour to privacy concerns. They eventually came on board after all the mayhem the last year, but prior to that they were an obstacle in getting legislation passed. Here is one example - http://www.aclupa.org/files/4013/8619/3393/memo_SB_1168_Senate_Dec_2013.pdf
Reading your link the ACLU's objection was not really due to privacy concerns but rather that the cameras could be turned off by the police or creative editing and length of data retention:

However, the legislation falls short in several key ways. Perhaps most critically, SB 1168 is silent on when officers mayturn the cameras on and off. One presumes then that the decision on powering the cameras is left to the individual officers. This places a great deal of control in the officers hands and leaves citizens rights vulnerable to creative editing of video. [...]

SB 1168 falls short in other ways. The bill is silent on citizens access to video of incidents involving themselves and delineates no requirements on data retention. When is a department required to delete the data it captures via body-mounted cameras? At the end of a shift? At the end of the month? Never? While local departments can certainly implement effective policies on these issues, citizens rights are better protected through a statewide standard.
 
Oh, and one more thing about body cameras - they were mostly opposed by the Left due to civil liberty concerns. In a lot of the experts' opinions, body cameras are going to end up sending more people to jail.
Is this real snake oil?
The ACLU was against body cameras for years dour to privacy concerns. They eventually came on board after all the mayhem the last year, but prior to that they were an obstacle in getting legislation passed. Here is one example - http://www.aclupa.org/files/4013/8619/3393/memo_SB_1168_Senate_Dec_2013.pdf
Something stinks. It's you!

 
Yeah, squis, they've objected to other legislation over the years in similar fashion. Good on them to cite their primary reason as the one that clearly aligns with their primary constituency. But the fact is, they still objected to it, as they have done with other state bills.

Not sure why troller Trog is getting so defensive about this statement of fact. It is well documented (and completely understandable) that the ACLU would have privacy concerns about body cameras. The good news here is that body cams are now prevalent. And the great news is that they are working.

 
Yeah, squis, they've objected to other legislation over the years in similar fashion. Good on them to cite their primary reason as the one that clearly aligns with their primary constituency. But the fact is, they still objected to it, as they have done with other state bills.

Not sure why troller Trog is getting so defensive about this statement of fact. It is well documented (and completely understandable) that the ACLU would have privacy concerns about body cameras. The good news here is that body cams are now prevalent. And the great news is that they are working.
Defensive. Who? me?
 
Yeah, squis, they've objected to other legislation over the years in similar fashion. Good on them to cite their primary reason as the one that clearly aligns with their primary constituency. But the fact is, they still objected to it, as they have done with other state bills.
Um, yes they objected to it, but I don't recall them raising civil liberty issues IIRC. The fact their opposition put them in the same camp as those on the far left, doesn't mean that they agreed with those far left concerns. And if you think the ACLU takes positions to pander to a certain ideology, then you are not that familiar with their history.

 
Yeah, squis, they've objected to other legislation over the years in similar fashion. Good on them to cite their primary reason as the one that clearly aligns with their primary constituency. But the fact is, they still objected to it, as they have done with other state bills.
Um, yes they objected to it, but I don't recall them raising civil liberty issues IIRC. The fact their opposition put them in the same camp as those on the far left, doesn't mean that they agreed with those far left concerns. And if you think the ACLU takes positions to pander to a certain ideology, then you are not that familiar with their history.
They did in a couple of areas. They always had concerns about videos being taken in someone's home or in hospitals, etc. They also had a weird insistence on people having the right to have the videos remain private - that cops couldn't release the videos without the person's consent. In the insurance biz we call that adverse selection. The only people who would object are the ones with something to hide. Completely unfair requirement on their part.
 
Yeah, squis, they've objected to other legislation over the years in similar fashion. Good on them to cite their primary reason as the one that clearly aligns with their primary constituency. But the fact is, they still objected to it, as they have done with other state bills.
Um, yes they objected to it, but I don't recall them raising civil liberty issues IIRC. The fact their opposition put them in the same camp as those on the far left, doesn't mean that they agreed with those far left concerns. And if you think the ACLU takes positions to pander to a certain ideology, then you are not that familiar with their history.
They did in a couple of areas. They always had concerns about videos being taken in someone's home or in hospitals, etc. They also had a weird insistence on people having the right to have the videos remain private - that cops couldn't release the videos without the person's consent. In the insurance biz we call that adverse selection. The only people who would object are the ones with something to hide. Completely unfair requirement on their part.
And still none of this proves your assertion the cameras were "mostly opposed by the left". You have to show comparisons to prove your not full of crap which you cannot do.
 
Yeah, squis, they've objected to other legislation over the years in similar fashion. Good on them to cite their primary reason as the one that clearly aligns with their primary constituency. But the fact is, they still objected to it, as they have done with other state bills.
Um, yes they objected to it, but I don't recall them raising civil liberty issues IIRC. The fact their opposition put them in the same camp as those on the far left, doesn't mean that they agreed with those far left concerns. And if you think the ACLU takes positions to pander to a certain ideology, then you are not that familiar with their history.
They did in a couple of areas. They always had concerns about videos being taken in someone's home or in hospitals, etc. They also had a weird insistence on people having the right to have the videos remain private - that cops couldn't release the videos without the person's consent. In the insurance biz we call that adverse selection. The only people who would object are the ones with something to hide. Completely unfair requirement on their part.
And still none of this proves your assertion the cameras were "mostly opposed by the left". You have to show comparisons to prove your not full of crap which you cannot do.
no, I have already shown one bill for body cams that was opposed by the Left. And I have more for you if you want them. It is now on you to come up with the Right opposing any such legislation. Right now it is General 1 Troller Trogg 0.
 
I know alot of the DA's I work with love the idea of body cams because it makes their jobs a lot easier. You have to consider there are approx. 2 million law enforcement contacts in this country a year on average and we have what, a thousand police shootings that result in deaths total (justified vs unjustified is up for people to argue). Guess what, the number of videos that show bad people doing bad things are probably going to be conservatively 1000-1.

I predict defense counsel will be filing a lot of Motions to Suppress. It is one thing for an officer to testify the Defendant was slurred and impaired and couldn't complete the roadsides, it is a whole another ballgame to see it play out for a jury on film.

Now don't get me wrong, there are going to be a fair share of Farva-type cops that make DA's cringe, but the odds are firmly stacked against the bad guys IMO with these cams.

 
Yeah, squis, they've objected to other legislation over the years in similar fashion. Good on them to cite their primary reason as the one that clearly aligns with their primary constituency. But the fact is, they still objected to it, as they have done with other state bills.
Um, yes they objected to it, but I don't recall them raising civil liberty issues IIRC. The fact their opposition put them in the same camp as those on the far left, doesn't mean that they agreed with those far left concerns. And if you think the ACLU takes positions to pander to a certain ideology, then you are not that familiar with their history.
They did in a couple of areas. They always had concerns about videos being taken in someone's home or in hospitals, etc. They also had a weird insistence on people having the right to have the videos remain private - that cops couldn't release the videos without the person's consent. In the insurance biz we call that adverse selection. The only people who would object are the ones with something to hide. Completely unfair requirement on their part.
And still none of this proves your assertion the cameras were "mostly opposed by the left". You have to show comparisons to prove your not full of crap which you cannot do.
no, I have already shown one bill for body cams that was opposed by the Left. And I have more for you if you want them. It is now on you to come up with the Right opposing any such legislation. Right now it is General 1 Troller Trogg 0.
I'm just calling you on your crap. I won't get sucked into it.
 
Yeah, squis, they've objected to other legislation over the years in similar fashion. Good on them to cite their primary reason as the one that clearly aligns with their primary constituency. But the fact is, they still objected to it, as they have done with other state bills.
Um, yes they objected to it, but I don't recall them raising civil liberty issues IIRC. The fact their opposition put them in the same camp as those on the far left, doesn't mean that they agreed with those far left concerns. And if you think the ACLU takes positions to pander to a certain ideology, then you are not that familiar with their history.
They did in a couple of areas. They always had concerns about videos being taken in someone's home or in hospitals, etc. They also had a weird insistence on people having the right to have the videos remain private - that cops couldn't release the videos without the person's consent. In the insurance biz we call that adverse selection. The only people who would object are the ones with something to hide. Completely unfair requirement on their part.
And still none of this proves your assertion the cameras were "mostly opposed by the left". You have to show comparisons to prove your not full of crap which you cannot do.
no, I have already shown one bill for body cams that was opposed by the Left. And I have more for you if you want them. It is now on you to come up with the Right opposing any such legislation. Right now it is General 1 Troller Trogg 0.
I'm just calling you on your crap. I won't get sucked into it.
LOL. You haven't called me out on anything. You haven't posted one fact or linked to one article. You just do what Trogg does - trolls.
 
For anyone who was critical of the protest movements and asked what they were hoping to accomplish- here you go. This POS is the first Cincinnati cop ever to be charged with murder for an on-duty shooting. If you think that happens without all the protests and resulting media attention you're out of your mind. Hopefully his arrest, along with similar incidents like the arrest of the South Carolina cop who shot Walter Scott, will deter future shootings by police officers.
You are stating your opinion that they indicted this cop because of the other cities protesting?That's a thought.

Or it was extremely apparent from the video that this cop shot and killed a guy for little reason. This evidence led to an indictment.

I bet the second one is more likely.
There is plenty of evidence in countless cases, yet cops are rarely indicted.

 
I know alot of the DA's I work with love the idea of body cams because it makes their jobs a lot easier. You have to consider there are approx. 2 million law enforcement contacts in this country a year on average and we have what, a thousand police shootings that result in deaths total (justified vs unjustified is up for people to argue). Guess what, the number of videos that show bad people doing bad things are probably going to be conservatively 1000-1.

I predict defense counsel will be filing a lot of Motions to Suppress. It is one thing for an officer to testify the Defendant was slurred and impaired and couldn't complete the roadsides, it is a whole another ballgame to see it play out for a jury on film.

Now don't get me wrong, there are going to be a fair share of Farva-type cops that make DA's cringe, but the odds are firmly stacked against the bad guys IMO with these cams.
The defense side strongly favors body and vehicle cams too. Anything that documents what really happened makes everybody's job easier and makes the outcome more fair.
 
For anyone who was critical of the protest movements and asked what they were hoping to accomplish- here you go. This POS is the first Cincinnati cop ever to be charged with murder for an on-duty shooting. If you think that happens without all the protests and resulting media attention you're out of your mind. Hopefully his arrest, along with similar incidents like the arrest of the South Carolina cop who shot Walter Scott, will deter future shootings by police officers.
You are stating your opinion that they indicted this cop because of the other cities protesting?That's a thought.

Or it was extremely apparent from the video that this cop shot and killed a guy for little reason. This evidence led to an indictment.

I bet the second one is more likely.
There is plenty of evidence in countless cases, yet cops are rarely indicted.
The only good to come of this is that the defense of being a cop is out the window. No one in their right mind could assume innocence just because someone is a cop. The woefully insufficient hiring selectivity and training have been exposed. There is nothing in place weeding out individuals who for one reason or another should never have authority over others and who damn sure shouldn't have the power to kill. I really, sincerely hope this and the Freddie Gray case and the Tamir Rice case produce meaningful convictions. SC too. Getting hard to keep up with all the people being needlessly killed by these thugs.

 
Sorry, I misread your post. I thought you were postulating about police protecting their own. No doubt the bad cop in question lies on the incident reports - I concede that 100%.
In Cincinnati, a second officer backed up Tensing's claim that he was dragged by the car.

Officer Kidd was on scene with OIT Lindenschmidt. Officer Kidd told me that he witnessed the Honda Accord

drag Officer Tensing, and that he witnessed Officer Tensing fire a single shot.
 
That Cincy cop had no right patrolling an urban neighborhood if that was the maximum level of stress he could take before panicking. I usually side with the cops in these things but this guy is a POS.

 
That Cincy cop had no right patrolling an urban neighborhood if that was the maximum level of stress he could take before panicking. I usually side with the cops in these things but this guy is a POS.
He was a Univ of Cincinnati officer patrolling off campus. They have suspended the authority of those cops to do that now. He wasnt even a cop in that community.

 
For anyone who was critical of the protest movements and asked what they were hoping to accomplish- here you go. This POS is the first Cincinnati cop ever to be charged with murder for an on-duty shooting. If you think that happens without all the protests and resulting media attention you're out of your mind. Hopefully his arrest, along with similar incidents like the arrest of the South Carolina cop who shot Walter Scott, will deter future shootings by police officers.
You are stating your opinion that they indicted this cop because of the other cities protesting?That's a thought.

Or it was extremely apparent from the video that this cop shot and killed a guy for little reason. This evidence led to an indictment.

I bet the second one is more likely.
There is plenty of evidence in countless cases, yet cops are rarely indicted.
Yeah I never said there was not evidence in other cases.I am stating that he was indicted because of the evidence (mainly the video). This is how our legal system is supposed to work.

I am refuting that his indictment had anything to do with public opinion, previous riots, or demonstrations. This is what TF is stating I believe.

I'm all about holding these overzealous cops accountable but the truth of the matter is they are rarely prosecuted because it's not an easy conviction. Police have/had a very wide privilege when applying the law in some situations.

 
That Cincy cop had no right patrolling an urban neighborhood if that was the maximum level of stress he could take before panicking. I usually side with the cops in these things but this guy is a POS.
He was a Univ of Cincinnati officer patrolling off campus. They have suspended the authority of those cops to do that now. He wasnt even a cop in that community.
I thought they had some authority to patrol the surrounding area. Regardless, he shouldn't have been on the job.

 
For anyone who was critical of the protest movements and asked what they were hoping to accomplish- here you go. This POS is the first Cincinnati cop ever to be charged with murder for an on-duty shooting. If you think that happens without all the protests and resulting media attention you're out of your mind. Hopefully his arrest, along with similar incidents like the arrest of the South Carolina cop who shot Walter Scott, will deter future shootings by police officers.
You are stating your opinion that they indicted this cop because of the other cities protesting?That's a thought.

Or it was extremely apparent from the video that this cop shot and killed a guy for little reason. This evidence led to an indictment.

I bet the second one is more likely.
There is plenty of evidence in countless cases, yet cops are rarely indicted.
Yeah I never said there was not evidence in other cases.I am stating that he was indicted because of the evidence (mainly the video). This is how our legal system is supposed to work.

I am refuting that his indictment had anything to do with public opinion, previous riots, or demonstrations. This is what TF is stating I believe.

I'm all about holding these overzealous cops accountable but the truth of the matter is they are rarely prosecuted because it's not an easy conviction. Police have/had a very wide privilege when applying the law in some situations.
I suspect that many other cops have done something similar to what this one did but got away with it because the attention of the public and elected officials was not honed on these incidents until recently. And I suspect that either the presence of camera footage, the careful review of camera footage, and/or the decision of law enforcement not to cover up or dismiss that footage is a product of the recent national attention on the issue. Obviously I can't be sure, but it would be pretty amazing if it's just coincidence considering the fact that this is the first such charge in a large-ish American city with a long history of racial tension.

 
Thousands dead, few prosecuted.

Cops have had open season on Americans for far too long. Sickening.
Americans per se are not at risk. Black Americans are. Latino Americans are. The rest of us are fine.
In 2014 twice as many whites were killed by police as blacks. http://thereelnetwork.net/the-primary-victims-of-police-brutality-and-theyre-not-black-people/This linking of police brutality with racism may be correct. Heck, I actually kind of want it to be correct at some level. But there's one small problem. The facts just don't support it. And the latest studies don't support it either. What the facts and studies do show is that blacks are probably unfairly targeted (profiled) by police; that there appears to be a disparity in sentencing as compared to whites; and that blacks are approached by just about everyone in society (cops, retailers, even 5 year old children) with a negative implicit bias. And what recent research also shows is that cops are actually LESS LIKELY to discharge their weapon on a black person for fear of being charged with a crime (the University of Washington study that I have posted a few times).

This linkage of police brutality to racism is not supported by the facts, but it is bought into hook-line-and-sinker by the liberal media, and now by proxy - mainstream America. Until I see some conclusive evidence showing racist malice by police officers, I'm not buying it. And once again, I am open and willing to see it, and if it does in fact exist - I will gladly join the crusade.

 
Last edited:
Thousands dead, few prosecuted.

Cops have had open season on Americans for far too long. Sickening.
Americans per se are not at risk. Black Americans are. Latino Americans are. The rest of us are fine.
In 2014 twice as many whites were killed by police as blacks. http://thereelnetwork.net/the-primary-victims-of-police-brutality-and-theyre-not-black-people/This linking of police brutality with racism may be correct. Heck, I actually kind of want it to be correct at some level. But there's one small problem. The facts just don't support it. And the latest studies don't support it either. What the facts and studies do show is that blacks are probably unfairly targeted (profiled) by police; that there appears to be a disparity in sentencing as compared to whites; and that blacks are approached by just about everyone in society (cops, retailers, even 5 year old children) with a negative implicit bias. And what recent research also shows is that cops are actually LESS LIKELY to discharge their weapon on a black person for fear of being charged with a crime (the University of Washington study that I have posted a few times).

This linkage of police brutality to racism is not supported by the facts, but it is bought into hook-line-and-sinker by the liberal media, and now by proxy - mainstream America. Until I see some conclusive evidence showing racist malice by police officers, I'm not buying it. And once again, I am open and willing to see it, and if it does in fact exist - I will gladly join the crusade.
And because there are the same number of black people as white people in the country, that statistic holds up.

 
Whoah, wait - I just read there are like 4-4.5 times as many white people as there are black people in this country. What does that do to that statistic? Anything? You know, if we adjust for the fact that 414 isn't actually twice as much as 233?
Crime rate amongst the two populations probably deserves some consideration also.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top