To anger you.
She’s lucky she wasn’t shot.
Now an NC state trooper shoots and kills an unarmed deaf mute man. Seriously, WTF? Did the cop think he was being dissed in sign language? Was he so stupid that he didn’t recognize a guy attempting to communicate? Why is shooting to kill the first option?
That is nothing, compared to that Civil Asset Forfeiture crap. If the police find out you have lots of cash, they will seize it, on the premise that it is probably ill-gotten gains (because honest folk do not carry large amounts of cash), and you have to prove that it is clean in order to get it back (and hope your lawyer does not take 90% of it as his fee).
There is a legitimate premise behind forfeiture (criminals ought not be able to use their dirty profits to hire good legal defense), but the mechanism has come to be grossly abused. The police take innocent people’s money, do not file any charges against those persons, and force them to jump through hoops to get it back.
The lesson is, if you have more than $500 on you, do not ever admit it to the police. Keep your cash on your person (not in your vehicle or luggage) and make them arrest and charge you in order for them to discover it.
Officer cleared by U.S. Attorney’s Office in shooting of unarmed man. Good.
Here’s the story No criminal charges for police in Jerame Reid shooting
'Mistake, fear, (perception) or even poor judgement (do) not constitute willful conduct prosecutable under the statute,” the agency said.
The clear implication is that Days was wrong but not criminally wrong. What a crock. Days knew who Reid was. He knew that Reid had been convicted of shooting at police and done state prison time for the crime . He knew there was at least one gun in the car. He knew that Reid was forcing his way out of the car and not showing his hands in spite of being at gunpoint and multiple commands to not do so. Days had every reason to fear (otherwise known as “reasonable fear”) for his life and did the right thing. There was no mistake or poor judgement here, except on the part of Reid.
In the interest of political correctness, the U.S. Attorney’s Office doesn’t have the backbone to say “The shooting was justified under the law.” Instead they say, “insufficient evidence to pursue charges”. While technically correct, the spin seems to be “The cop did wrong, we just couldn’t win in court”. What BS.
When this shooting first made the news the local rag (same as in the link) had a very large, color photo of a single frame taken from the dashcam plastered on the front page. Of course, that frame shows the suspect with his hands raised just as or before he was shot. Completely misleading as to what actually happened. But, hey, why let accurate reporting get in the way of selling a few more copies of a bush-league newspaper? The media has no agenda, right?
He got cleared of criminal conduct, and you are complaining there was no “attaboy, good job”?
Yes. This was a justified shooting. The officer did his job correctly even at the risk of his own life.
In return, he ought to satisfied because he isn’t going to prison for it. :rolleyes:
Regards,
Shodan
No; he was not “cleared”. Why would you start your post with a lie?
That may be your opinion but it certainly isn’t shared by the legal system.
Yes, he was cleared of any charges.
Because you are an idiot who does not wish to read for comprehension.
If it is certain, then you can certainly provide a cite that the legal findings were that the shooting was unjustified.
Regards,
Shodan
He was not “cleared of any charges”. There was no finding of innocence. You are wrong. You are so wrong you appear to have little to no understanding of our justice system or what was written about this case.
No, you made the original claim so you can provide a cite that the shooting was ruled a justified shooting.
You won’t tho, because there is no such ruling or determination. Most likely you’ll either try and move the goalposts, hurl insults at me and/or others in this thread and eventually slink away after futilely trying to claim some sort of victory; you know: like you usually do when you’re wrong.
“Confusing him for the suspect”… :dubious:
Shoot the black man first, investigate later.
My point is that the U.S. Attorney’s Office could have said “Based on our investigation it appears the use of deadly force was justified under the law in this case”. But, god forbid, you somehow back the cops in this climate. Better to say, “insufficient evidence to charge or convict” or something similar. I have seen many D.A.s, when announcing a No Bill or even a decision to not present the case to a GJ, say something to the effect that deadly force was found to be justified in a particular case. While not a legal ruling per se, it leaves little doubt that the officer did the right thing. As was the case in Bridgeton, New Jersey.
An “Atta boy” isn’t necessary but “The officer acted in accordance the law” wouldn’t hurt.
P.S. - An “Atta boy” wouldn’t hurt either. Not a “Good job for killing him” but a “Good job for protecting yourself, your partner and the public under very difficult circumstances. You did what you had to do.” But that’s a politically dangerous thing to do so, never mind.
BTW, do any of the posters in this thread have the opinion that this was not a justified shooting?
As I’m sure you well know, no-one is “found innocent”, innocence is presumed. And, as the investigation found insufficient evidence to prove him guilty, that presumption stands. He is as innocent of murder as you or me.
Your idiotic semantic argument about the distinction between “charges dropped” and “cleared of any charges” shows that you either don’t understand how the justice system works, or - more likely - you want to cast doubt on his innocence despite the lack of evidence.
So everybody who thinks that not being prosecuted is the same as innocent, raise your hand.
Now, how many of you will keep them up when I say I’m talking about Hillary Clinton?
Not been convicted means someone is innocent in the vast majority of cases. It can happen that someone is found not guilty but subsequently their guilt is proven, but it’s rare. Examples would be OJ Simpson and the killers of Emmett Till.
She’s neither been convicted, nor has there been evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt presented to the public that she’s committed a crime. She’s therefore innocent, and unless and until that changes she should be considered eligible to stand for president and, if elected, serve.
This is extremely easy, common, and justifiable.
Confronted by law enforcement for infraction like burned out tail light.
Citizen gets huge attitude, refuses to produce ID, refuses to sign ticket, in many states that rates arrest and or impound of your vehicle.
Officer pulls out his cuffs and you run or make any effort to resist being handcuffed you are now “resisting arrest”. The rest of the charges are almost beneath notice at that point. Cop could care less about the taillight now because you are trying to avoid the process of a simple fairly painless infraction, and turn it into a huge drama scene.
Utter crap. Once the handcuffs are out, he has already decided to arrest you. Then, and only then, can you resist arrest.
In you example, someone can be arrested for refusing to sign the ticket, then an additional charge of resisting. If you are only charged for resisting, it’s pretty much an admission that they have no cause for the arrest. No valid, stand up in court cause, anyway. “Being black and giving me lip”, now known as refusing to ‘Respect my Authoritah!!!’, doesn’t cut it anymore.
While I applaud you for the racial virtue-signaling, you’re completely wrong here. If you don’t want to get arrested, don’t “give lip” to the cop who’s pulled you over. So simple even a liberal can understand it.