I think the sheer volume of shootings by police would preclude that.
Death by police shootings in 2012: America 458, Germany 8, Britain 0, Japan 0
And, as we know from reading this thread, the pace of police shootings has greatly accelerated in the last year.
I think this is a magnificent idea.
While I think the officer in the Ferguson case was justified, from what the video shows this SC case is simply straight-up murder.
So when this guy goes to prison is he pretty much a dead man?
Or do they have special units for former police officers?
Or what?
I don’t believe that; I think it’s just a matter of more exposure combined with someone having a video to analyze.
If there were 458 of them in 2012 and over 100 in the month of March alone this year, I would guess that the pace has accelerated.
Given most law enforcement agencies do not report (or accurately) police-involved shootings that resulted in a suspect being killed or injured, I wouldn’t say figures any given agency comes up with are even remotely reliable. (I seem to recall hearing that the FBI in particular is frustrated about that, and yet I suppose they keep releasing what data they have.) I also think people are going out of their way to keep on top of acquisition of information, given the trend over the last few years.
The cunt handcuffed a dead man.
I lived in Florida some 30 years ago. When my West Indian friends planned a road trip to New York the planning was all about having enough jerry cans filled with gas to get through the Carolinas - they were afraid to stop for gas. They had certain laybys or supermarket parking lots planned out for topping up their tanks. I remember saying bloody hell guys, it can’t be that bad.
Given that word you used is a derogatory term generally applicable to women, even if the few nasty words applicable to men (that don’t involve insulting a woman, including but not limited to the man’s mother) are unsatisfactory (e.g., prick), maybe you could devote a little brain power to coming up with a new satisfactory term?
I’m not defending him here, but he hardly could have known the man was dead.
It’s just a flesh wound… eight times.
True, and still is for some. I think complacency dictated that this measure wasn’t necessary. I’m sure it will make a comeback. All they’ve had to do is make up a story that didn’t involve the victim bringing his/her own weapon but instead trying to take the officer’s (or allegedly succeeding, however badly that reflects on the officer).[1] These days, one presumes this tactic will only work where the officer is confident that possibility of video is remote (I’m sure there are plenty of murders that were captured on security videos, but no one ever was interested in retrieval, or became interested too late).
Hopefully, technology will catch up to the point where folks will be their own roaming wifi hot spot such that videos can be continuously uploaded to a cloud, etc.
[1] Never mind that the human psychology is such that exceedingly few people would ever attempt to take an officer’s gun knowing it’s an almost certain immediate death sentence (and this assumes an officer is inept or easily overpowered, since protocol dictates certain measures be taken to ensure that doesn’t happen). And yet the stories would have us believe “he tried to take” or “he took” happens quite a lot.
They should, for the reason that it would make it less likely that jurors would avoid convicting a cop because they don’t want him or her subjected to extralegal punishment in prison.
You seem to have an unnatural obsession for Smaptis’ sex life. Get help.
Fuck no. That cop is a cunt.
I might have missed this in this thread, but the other police officers who responded seem to have also made false statements that they attempted CPR, when there is no evidence that they did. So it’s not so much one bad apple as one really bad apple among a pretty rotten barrel of apples.
I was wondering will any of the other cops face charges for assisting the killer in a coverup?
Is this a question or a statement? Obviously, we cannot know unless and until a prosecutor or grand jury decides that someone else behaved unlawfully …
There are 2 crimes to consider. Police violence and police lying. They prop each other. Police perjury is widespread. Almost 90% of prosecutors know this.
“90%? Cite?” Here ya go: [INDENT] In a classic 1996 article for the Colorado Law Review, Vanderbilt Law professor Christopher Slobogin demonstrated that both “reportilying” (falsifying police reports) and “testilying” are pervasive in many American jurisdictions.
Police perjury, Slobogin argues, occurs because “police think they can get away with it. Police are seldom made to pay for their lying.” Not just prosecutors but even many judges see themselves as sharing a common set of goals with the police of making sure the guilty get punished. Working in a shared enterprise, they are loath to challenge police perjury. “Prosecutors put up with perjury because they need a good working relationship with the police to make their cases,” Slobogin notes.
Slobogin documented his case by citing a compelling 1992 study by Myron Orfield of the Chicago criminal justice system showing that a large percentage of judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys acknowledge the reality of police perjury: “In his survey of these three groups (which together comprised 27 to 41 individuals, depending on the question), 52 percent believed that at least ‘half of the time’ the prosecutor ‘knows or has reason to know’ that police fabricate evidence at suppression hearings, and 93 percent, including 89 percent of the prosecutors, stated that prosecutors had such knowledge of perjury ‘at least some of the time.’” [/INDENT] The fact that the study dates from 1996 is also eye-opening. The public (myself included) has willfully turned away from this reality.
Interesting, but probably not. Politically, we need a couple of blue states to pass these sorts of laws. When the Feds prosecute they face a high bar - civil rights violations are more demanding in terms of evidence than murder. Now that law could be changed, but then we get into politics again. We first need a couple of states to demonstrate how this would work.
NYT says about 15-20 feet.
No, probably not.
Yeah, that was my take. It can’t be that bad I thought, or rather didn’t think. I mostly shrugged it all away, IIRC. Pretty hazy.
Just FTR, c— isn’t as inflammatory in Australia and, I think, Britain.
One of the vids shows the cop checking the guys pulse after an extended period of time (after he finished planting evidence IIRC). The cop appeared to me to be shouting and cuffing for show after he shot the guy 8 times. The corpse wasn’t moving.
Proper respect for the cell phone cameraman. Given what he knew and what he witnessed, his life and liberty can be reasonably thought to have been at risk (the latter more than the former).
madmonk28: Not a bad apple or even a bad barrel I might guess. Except for the murder it’s all SOP: see my above cite. (Yes I’m saying police murders are not uncommon, but they aren’t standard operating procedure. Sheesh.)
North Charleston, SC has a long history of allegations of abuse. I think you could probably get away with some pretty horrific behavior on the force there without expecting any consequences. If it wasn’t for the video, this would have been another case of justifiable shooting by police.
Understood, but whatever lax standards may apply elsewhere, this isn’t an Australia- or UK-based board AFAIK. If folks want to come off as remotely intelligent, surely their vocabulary can be expanded beyond use of a nasty word that denigrates the female gender when referring to a criminal with a badge. If they think “prick” or the like isn’t strong enough, then they’re free to use the noodle to come up with a different word. If they’re comfy with someone calling their mom (or mum) or whichever other females in their sphere a cunt, then I suppose ensuring they mention it will somehow take off the edge for me. 