Does not presumption of innocence apply? For their leave to be unpaid would presume their guilt, wouldn’t it?
Why would it apply? They weren’t charged with a crime and the event no doubt happened.
It looks like two to me, as well. I just don’t understand that video at all.
I understand why Smapti’s position is that police, upon arriving at the scene, should pre-emptively shoot every person there, since any of them could be armed and any of them could go from slowly walking to lethally charging instantly and indeed since any of them could have Special Forces training giving them mad instant-kill skillz, police should fire dozens of rounds.
Anyone who argues otherwise obvious wants cops to die and society to fall.
The paid leave is somewhat analogous to putting someone in jail: the person in jail (pending bond/recognizance) is not (by most) called a “criminal”, they are a “suspect”. The press/media are usually very circumspect about this kind of language, not using “criminal” unless/until a person has been convicted of a crime.
Meanwhile, business managers kill, maim and injure employees from time to time, making callous profit-based decisions that have problematic effects. Sometimes even their customers suffer, yet these executives are not always charged for their sociopathic behavior and may well receive bonuses for saving the company money, at least in the short term. So, there is a parallel there.
“Strawman Alert” - “Strawman Alert”.
Warning Will Robinson. Dr. Smith is creating a strawman. 
I understand why you think you’re funny.
It’s because you’re stupid.
Hahahaha. You still created a strawman. It’s OK, you can admit it.
Psych evaluations may be required for all police hires in Colorado. the most shocking part of this story to me is that psych evaluations weren’t required already.
Jury reports they are deadlocked in the Officer William Porter on trial in the death of Freddy Gray in Baltimore. The judge has ordered them to continue.
The city is on edge, and significant police forces are present, but staying out of sight.
Interesting article on using data to identify bad cops. Not surprisingly, police departments are reluctant to provide this kind of data (on complaints received for individual cops).
Some of the article’s conclusions:
“the number of complaints an officer receives in a certain year predicts whether and how many complaints he or she will have in the following year”
The 22% of cops who receive the most complaints amount to over 50% of all the complaints the Chicago PD received.
So if just a small number of bad cops were removed, a huge chunk of the complaints would go away. Police Departments have the tools to remove at least some of their worst cops – the cops most likely to cost Departments money, respect, and trust, by themselves.
The Washington Post had an opinion piece on the Freddie Gray mistrial:
Why no one should be truly shocked by the mistrial in the Freddie Gray case
First two paragraphs:
It also had this link (which I think was posted a while ago):
Thousands dead, few prosecuted
Because they are all good shootings, right?
(Check out the accompanying photo at the top of the page)
Good Lord. Look at the caption!
One cop fired 49 times? He would have had to reload twice and keep firing!
Clearly he felt he was still in danger, right Smapti?
It gets worse. He was aquitted.
He fired 34 times, then climbed up on the hood of the car (if he was in fear for his life, this seems like a strange tactic) and fired 15 more times through the windshield at an unarmed couple. This officer was responsible for only 49 of the 137 bullets the police fired at the car.
So, we need to ask ourselves:
Do cops no longer utter the phrase 'Come out with your hands up?
Should we be happy that the other 12 officers fired only 7 shots each (on average)
Was Smapti on this particular jury?
Did the prosecutor throw the case?
Is there simply no justice?
The guy shot by the police officer has died. And newly released video reveals the surprised reaction of the commander when the cop mentions–11 minutes after the fact–that he had an “accidental discharge”.
That wasn’t no accidental discharge.
I learned about this story on Reddit. Normally when a story like this comes out, Redditors seem to be evenly split on whether the accused cop should be charged (there are a lot of Smapti types on Reddit, apparently). But in this case, it’s unanimous. Anyone with two eyes can see that the guy didn’t accidentally do anything.
So it was what, then? He saw a flipped car in the middle of the road and just decided to shoot the first person he saw, but only once?
Even on the theory that it was a single accidental discharge, he saw the guy go down, heard the guy say he’d been shot, and said nothing to anyone about this. There is, even on this theory, a negligence charge to be brought against the guy.
He shot him only once because he only needed to shoot him once. One shot was all it took. I’m guessing he gets a lot of practice playing video games.
Are you asking why he would possibly shoot the guy? Well, I can imagine in his little pea brain, he saw the guy trying to scramble out of the vehicle and immediately thought, “The little fucker’s trying to run away from the accident he just caused! Let me put a stop to that!” But the problem with pea brains is that they can only consider one scenario at a time. Perhaps the guy was trying to get out of the car because he’s like most people. He didn’t want to be stuck in a rolled-over vehicle that, if movies are to be believed, could explode at any moment. And then there was the fact that his poor wife was strewn out on the road. Who’d want to stay in the car, knowing a loved one was dying on the other side of the door?
Let’s say it was an accident. Why the fuck should the cop still have a job? Is it considered competent policing to approach the scene of a car accident with one’s weapon drawn like that? Would you want a police officer to approach you like that, and then after having shot you, pretend that you’re resisting when you don’t respond to your commands, and then allow 11 minutes to elapse before informing someone that you made an oopsie with your weapon? Is that what good policing looks like in Smaptiland?
It’s entirely possible that he fired the shot, knew he fired the shot, but didn’t realize he shot the man. Which would make him an idiot who shouldn’t be allowed to handle firearms, but it doesn’t make him a murderer, and it sure makes a lot more sense than “he decided to shoot him but not shoot to kill so that he could go on to tell others he’d been shot by the cop, and then lie about it knowing that the video and the ballistics would finger him anyway”.