. . . and bring down the shooter’s hubby’s helicopter.
Them whities sure shell-be afraid of black power.
I believe this verdict should adequately answer your question.
Not following you. Somebody shoots at the police, shoots at and hits a police dog, and is arrested without being injured himself. Are you saying he was justified in shooting the dog, or justified in shooting at the police, or that he shouldn’t have gotten 19 years for shooting at the police and shooting the dog?
Regards,
Shodan
That says it all! Cop KILLS man; nothing happens. Man WOUNDS dog; gets 19yrs.
WTF!
mc
I’m saying that while “shooting at the police” is and should be a crime or demonstrates the mens rea of a crime if you prefer ; the results matter too. That’s why if I shoot at you and miss that’s “attempted manslaughter” rather than murder one (or what have you).
So, yeah, 19 years over a wounded goddamn dog, with no priors and after a guilty plea no less, does seem a *tad *excessive. Especially since the article doesn’t actually indicate whether or not he took shots at the police officers themselves, just the dog.
(oh, and the guy was shot by the police during the course of the arrest, so yes, he was himself injured, though that’s to be expected when you point weapons at armed people)
To be fair, the headline of article is misleading. The man confessed to 7 felonies, only 1 was for shooting the dog.
While shooting at the other cops as well.
Fortunately, this was in springfield, where we have relatively well trained and paid cops, and the guy got to survive the encounter with just a flesh wound.
I’m not sure that I think that 19 years is too harsh for actually shooting at the cops, that sort of thing really ought to be discouraged. Much as I have issues with police mistreatment of their charges, I don’t know that I can really get behind getting outraged over this one. Chances are, he will not be serving all of it anyway.
Well, the 7 felonies are all stemming from the same incident - sounds like the prosecutor just threw a bunch of charges at him and they all stuck.
Although I think this was a fair verdict (don’t drive drunk, if you do, don’t run away, if you do, don’t shoot at the chasing officers) and the initial stop was presumptively good also, the practice of charging multiple offenses for a single incident has always struck me as dancing on the line of ‘double jeopardy’. I know that legally it isn’t, but it feels a little off.
you and Shodan and Typo and others are missing the point. While 19yrs may be an appropriate punishment for shooting at a police dog, in your opinion, it further highlights the disparity in punishment. Civilian ATTEMPTS to harm police; throw the book at them. Police ACTUALLY kills civilian; do nothing. there is no way to spin this to something positive for society,
mc
The 19 years isn’t just for shooting at a police dog, it is for shooting at police officers. I think that this should be discouraged, as the more often that people shoot at cops, the more justified cops are to shoot at civilians under the fear of being shot at themselves.
The fewer people shooting at cops, the less justified cops are for shooting civilians.
As far as when police kill civilians, well, to be honest, I do believe that the majority, and probably vast majority of those situations are actually because someone put themselves in a situation where they needed to be killed by the police. Sad, but that’s the way some people are.
There have been plenty of examples in this thread, and in the news, of cops who acted incorrectly, whether out of anything between racial animus and just poor training, and I will be happy to join you in outrage at those, and the many that we will inevitable encounter in the future. This one, though does not clear the bar on my outragometer.
Are purposefully being dense? If the correct penalty for shooting AT someone (even the police )is 19 yrs, how is it remotely fair that the penalty for shooting at, AND KILLING, an unarmed someone, is NOTHING? No jail time, no fine, no loss of shooting privileges, NOTHING!
The reason this thread is some 200 pages long, is because civilian life is treated by the police and courts as expendable and not worthy of consideration. And if you think the police need justification to shoot unarmed civilians, then you haven’t be paying attention.
mc
Maybe there were relevant differences between the two cases - for instance in one, the person confessed in open court, and in the other, the person was acquitted by a jury of her peers.
I have been paying attention. They do. Sometimes, very rarely, they’re wrong. But the idea that they just gun down people, even black people, willy-nilly is pretty silly.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s getting less and less silly everyday!
mc
Wow. Me and Shodan, lumped together! A good liberal like me! First time for everything, I guess.
mikecurtis, the point here is that there is actually a lot of instances where the police have acted badly, incompetently, cowardly, even criminally.
This ain’t one of them.
If you are looking for incident to illustrate your belief, there’s a lot of others in this thread and I’m sure more to come.
The idea that criminals shoot at the police willy-nilly is at least as ridiculous. The majority of on-duty police deaths these days do not involve getting shot by bad guys – most of them are accidental.
Well, since your going to start using irrelevant facts, the leading cause of death for black males between 15 and 35 is homicide. Most of their killers are also black males. Statistically speaking, the chance of a white cop being killed by a black male is greater than the reverse. So what?
CNN continues to report (and people believe) that Crutcher had his “hands over his head” when he was shot. Its clear from the video that he did not. But why let facts get in the way of the narrative? While actually pretty rare, there are enough bad police shootings at which to direct your rage. Citing justified shootings does nothing to help your credibility. This officer should never have been charged in the first place. I believe she was made the sacrificial lamb on order to quell any potential unrest. I said from the outset that she would be acquitted. This was a no-brainer case for the defense.
14 May 2017 - Las Vegas: [
](Officer shocked Las Vegas man 7 times before using choke hold | Crime)“And McMahill said Brown would not have faced any criminal charges had he survived.” I wonder tho: would the officer have faced any criminal charges had he (Mr. Brown) survived? :dubious:
Sorry, not believing you.
So there are statistics to back up your claim? Please post them ASAP. I know I would, and I assume many others, would like to see these numbers.
Why bother with silly little things like charges, and trials, and sentences, when you can skip straight to execution?