Honestly, if cops would replace “excessive brutality” and “trigger-happiness” with “surreal passive-aggression”, I think most people would be OK with the switch :).
You know, I don’t want to drop any more money on the “Guess the skin colour” game. I feel like that game might could be rigged somehow.
Sorry, I can’t share your humor about this.
If the young man in that vehicle had flipped out after enduring the first five minutes of that knocking, we’d likely be talking about another tragic story about a black guy being killed at the hands of a cop.
That kind of harrassment is NOT harmless.
A cop sympathizer at the bar asked how we would all feel if our every move at work was recorded. Thinking it over, we all realized that we would be fine with it.
His surname was only Brown, but he was Black. However he was married to a fine-looking blue-eyed blond.
Maybe that’s why they had to kill him; miscegenation was a crime in Texas until the libtards won Loving v. Virginia in 1967.
That’s “miscegenation”, but how do you correctly spell a word that never should have existed in the first place?
Another police killing: Florida officer finds his police dogs dead.
He forgot about them? Left them in the vehicle for nineteen hours??? What the ever-loving fuck? He must have been new at this.
:smack:
haha no
Let’s go to the quarry and throw stuff down there! This is ridiculous. There would never be a murder trial again if our laws allowed things as you’d like.
That is exactly what your law does say, at least in many states, and hopefully the rest will follow suit. And yet there are still murder trials and convictions. Just, fortunately, not so many trials where victims of crime are forced to defend themselves against accusations of murder.
haha yes, idiot. You are innocent until proven guilty. That’s not a technicality or a meaningless statement, it’s an actual, legal, fact. That arseholes like you don’t respect that, thinking you know better than the lawmakers you elect and the juries that you and your peers are part of doesn’t change that.
Next time you’re the victim of a crime and aren’t expected to prove you’re not a criminal yourself, fucking remember that.
Oh, and people aren’t gonna claim self-defence if they don’t believe it was, because that means admitting you killed the person, and by doing so you’ve done 90% of the prosecution’s work for them. Instead of having to go to all the work of proving that you’ve found the right killer - proving that he was there, that he actually pulled the trigger or whatever, that it wasn’t an accident, and so forth - they only have to prove it wasn’t justified self defence.
In a genuine no-witnesses murder, no-one pleading not guilty is going to admit to being a killer unless they believe it wasn’t murder. You should probably look at how these laws actually work, not falsely claim they let a large amount of people get away with murder.
But then, you’re probably another one of the fuckwits who ignores the evidence and claims that Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown were murdered.
Actually, a trial, by definition, indicates a lack of presumption. The status of the accused is uncertain: this is why principalities are allowed to hold a person against bond (require bail), demand that the accused-on-bond remain in the jurisdiction until the trial is completed (and pursue/recapture that person of they violate the terms of the bond) and proceed with a retrial if the jury cannot reach a verdict.
“Burden of proof” is not exactly the same thing as “presumed innocent”. I accuse Steophan of being a dogmatic fuckwit – the jury will now consider the evidence.
I’ve no idea what’s lead you to believe that, but it’s clear you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of a modern trial. Presumption of innocence is fundamental to justice.
Then why does a jury have to return a unanimous verdict of “not guilty”? If innocence were presumed, a hung jury should be the same result.
An unethical remnant of the bad old days, in my opinion. Not that it should be possible for a jury to be hung, really, as I said earlier. If one person, having carefully considered all the evidence, doubts guilt then everyone should recognise that there’s reason to doubt guilt.
yes, exactly! I work in a nursing home so the people I am interacting with are, by definition, vulnerable adults. I see that they are neglected sometimes and I would love to pin the blame on whoever is responsible.
YES I would be willing to be recorded all the time. because when I am stressed and people are annoying? I still treat them with respect.
and I never shoot them.
I don’t recall you ever before Michael Dunn was convicted of murder holding the belief that there should be no retrials for 11-1 hung juries.
Can you point us to any posts where you’ve expressed such sentiments or recount conversation you’ve had in real life or on other websites where you’ve expresses such feelings.
Thanks in advance.
New York Metro police arrest two men for “manspreading” (officially, for occupying two seats) at 12:11 a.m. – As the arraignment judge noted, the subway would not likely be crowded at this hour.
Of greater interest, this article links to a document “That’s How They Get You”: New Yorker’s Encounters With ‘Broken Windows’ Policing (PDF, 24 pages), a compendium of vignettes of such incidents of frivolous and even outrightly bogus arrests under New York’s “Broken Windows” allegedly quota-driven policing system. The report is by Police Reform Organizing Project (PROP), which sends volunteers to interview arrestees and lawyers, and also sends observers to sit in at arraignment proceedings.