Yes. That’s why we decry when law enforcement officers mete out mob justice.
I got the impression he doesn’t want to go to prison. He *really *doesn’t want to go to prison.
Yep, and I can understand his perspective. I would not go to prison.
Law enforcement is only a small part of our justice system. The people shot or beaten by police, even if they have committed a crime, do not deserve to get beaten or shot as the police do not get to decide guilt, choose the punishment, and dispense it. Yet your reprehensible opinion all through this thread is that it was OK because these people deserve it by being criminals and because the guys dispensing the “justice” wear a blue suit and had to take a test to get to wear it and might of even had a couple hours of training on how to hold a gun.
No, asshole, there is no real difference between law enforcement beating or shooting somebody and the mob doing it. In both cases justice is not being served. Justice, according to the Constitution, involves a jury of your peers and due process of law. But according to what you have said in this thread over and over again people like Tamir Rice deserved to get shot because he was a “criminal” (your words, not mine) who did not obey a police instruction. The police are not the judge, jury, and executioner in our society but you seem to think it is OK for them to take on all these roles. You are an asshole.
And I have no doubt that if some prosecutor or judge said that the punishment for a crime is rape you would support it 100% and defend it on these boards saying that the person deserved it. This is the kind of asshole you are.
I’m fine with the police doing their job in a lawful manner, and I condemn them when they break the law.
I do not condone the cops planting evidence to frame people. That is not happening in the majority of “controversial” cases people are harping on about here.
Justice is served when the law is upheld. The laws of every jurisdiction in this country permit the police to use deadly force in order to protect the public and their own lives. Absolutely nothing in the Constitution contradicts this.
The police have the exact same right to defend themselves from an armed stranger that any other member of the public has.
I want to bring up again a pet idea of mine: There needs to be special prisons for cops, so that juries are more likely to convict them given that they will be segregated.
Ah, I catch you.
And they can always say 'He’s coming right for me!!" and blast away. Because they are Law Enforcement and they get to write up the reports and their version become the* official *version unless it was caught on video.
I will repeat the case cited upthread where Houston Police Officer shoots suspect in the back multiple times while he was trying to flee. He then went to the corpse, dropped his taser next to him (in full view of another officer) and wrote in his report that he shot the suspect when he grabbed his taser. He was in fear for his life, dontchaknow! Had it not been for the fact that someone had recorded the entire incident on their cell phone, this would have been the official story, the indisputable fact. He would have been a respected hero, instead of being tried for murder.
This goes to the point where we seem to differ. In a story about confrontation with citizens and Lew Enforcement, you seem to assume that the citizen was a criminal thug and the cop was good guy bravely doing his job. Unless there is actual video, you will not question this assumption. Sometimes WITH video, you will not question this.
On this page, we have an officer convicted 18 counts of sexual assault. He used his authority as a police officer to commit heinous acts. It would be nice if it was an isolated case, but its far from that. The story links to another story about 1000 officers across the country losing their jobs due to acts of sexual assault. Disturbing enough on it’s own, but then we read that the data does not include California or New York, home to some of the largest police forces in the country. And that some departments did provide stats, but lied. “Some reported no officers removed for sexual misdeeds even though cases were identified via news stories or court records.”
Your seemingly unshakable faith in the goodness of police officers is unwarranted. There has been far, far too much evidence to the contrary. And these are only the ones we know about. There are many we do not know about. Convicting cops of crimes is very difficult for the following reasons.
-
Cops are the ones doing the investigations. They get to say what the evidence is and their word stands unless, ya know, they are caught on video.
-
Even cops who do not commit crimes are reluctant AT BEST to report or present evidence against those who do.
-
People are reluctant to report on and testify against cops because they are armed and have badges and have lots of friends who are armed and have badges
-
People who have criminal records are doubly reluctant. They now prosecutors and juries WANT to disbelieve them. Cops who commit crimes count on this. If you want a cite, we have the story of the cop just convicted on 18 counts.
-
Prosecutors do not like prosecuting cops for a number of reasons. They may share your unwavering faith in their goodness, may fear being seen as anti-cop by the public and may fear the police unions. Hard to get elected if they go against you. Plus, they gotta keep working with these guys.
I’m fully for body cams on all officers.
Well, yes, the existence of evidence does make a difference. If no evidence of police wrongdoing exists, then you cannot reasonably conclude that it is occurring.
This is the logical default.
You speak of “1000 officers” as if it were a big number. There are about 1.1 million police in service across the entire country. 1000 officers is less than 1% of the total cadre. You seek to condemn the other 99% on the basis of the misbehavior of that 1%, and that is misguided and anarchistic.
The state has placed its faith in them. The state is more qualified to assess them than I am.
It’s really not. Not anymore.
It never was, because of what we know about human nature and because of the five listed items in your previous post.
Nowadays it’s of course an even less logical assumption.
my alteration
And yet we have unconvicted criminals in society, because maybe they didn’t leave any evidence behind.
And in the absence of evidence, you cannot in good conscience convict.
Or do you propose that we simply start throwing people in jail because you have a really good feeling that they probably done did it?
The orderly function of our society demands that it be so. To insist otherwise is to invite anarchy.
This is possibly the most important thing Smapti has said in this conversation.
I don’t have a response right now, I’m just flagging that fact. 
[Moderating]
dasmoocher, altering another poster’s quotes inside the quote box is a violation of the board rules. Please avoid this in the future.
No warning issued.
[/Moderating]
Anarchy ain’t so bad. You’d mellow out some, living in Freetown Christiania. 'Course that’d probably be a side effect of the smoke haze, but still.
Or do you propose that [del]we[/del] the police simply start [del]throwing[/del] shooting people [del]in jail[/del] because [del]you[/del] they have a really good feeling that they probably done did it?
My bad, Miller.
And in the absence of [del]evidence[/del] a physical threat, you cannot in good conscience [del]convict[/del] shoot.
But in the absence of evidence of a threat, police are free to shoot, tase, or beat people up and you will always give them a pass.
I don’t know why I engage you; your ideology is repugnant and I realize you will never see the world differently. In you world, might makes right and authority is to be deferred to. Slaves should obey their masters and have no right to rebel or try to free themselves. Police are always right even when they are beating you or shooting you for no logical reason. Unjust laws or the unjust application of laws are to be obeyed, no matter what they are. On the bright side, you agree that unjust laws should be changed, I give that to you, but you just don’t realize that sometimes laws will not be changed without standing up to authority.
Another cell phone video of the Mario Woods shooting has emerged. Like the first one, it was shot from the stopped bus, and as with the first one the passenger apparently ducks for cover as the gunfire begins, but this one lingers on the scene a little longer after the first shot. This one makes it even more clear that the SFPD lied about the shooting being provoked by Woods raising his arms. His hands are at his sides right up until the first shot hits him.