I don’t understand either. He got the benefit of the doubt because he is a cop, is all I can think. Not even going to trial. What a corrupt police/DA system.
I suspect there will be civil trials related to him wildly firing ten shots in a crowded store. Holy shit, unbelievable.
Wait, there’s an answer other than ‘shoot the guy in the back’?
CMC fnord!
Shoot him REPEATEDLY in the back??? I wish I was joking.
Again wait, ‘shooting him *once * was an option?’
CMC fnord!
Yes-Try to taze him, threaten to send an attack dog after him, then shoot the guy in the back multiple times.
Try to guess the penalty for riding on the wrong side of the road.
Apparently it is (or was) (?).
Finally, some good news…
Former officer convicted of murder in wrong-apartment killing of innocent man
A Texas jury rejected former Dallas police officer Amber Guyger’s self-defense claims and convicted her on Tuesday of murder in the fatal 2018 shooting of an innocent man eating ice cream in his own home after mistaking his apartment for her own. The 12-member jury reached its verdict deliberating for less than two days. …
he 31-year-old Guyger, who was fired from the Dallas Police Department days after the shooting, faces a prison sentence of five to 99 years. …
he jury’s thoughtful verdict sets a powerful precedent for future cases, telling law enforcement officers that they cannot hide behind the badge but instead will face justice for their wrongful actions.” …
The jury came to its decision after asking for clarification on the definition of manslaughter and a clearer explanation of the Castle Doctrine, a legal protection for a homeowner who uses deadly force inside their home against an intruder.
Guyger’s defense team attempted to use the Castle Doctrine, which is similar to Florida’s “stand your ground” law, as a defense, arguing that while she was in the wrong apartment, in her mind she believed she was in her own unit, which was a floor below Jean’s. The prosecution countered that the Castle Doctrine did not apply in the case. …
In his closing argument on Monday, Dallas County Assistant District Attorney Jason Fine stood before jurors and asked them to reject Guyer’s “crazy” contention that she shot the 26-year-old Jean in self-defense because she believed she was in her own apartment and that the victim, who was sitting on his couch eating ice cream, was going to kill her. …
“He’s eating ice cream on his couch. So, if you’re sitting and eating ice cream you get shot in the heart? Is that what we’re saying?” Fine said. …
Yeah. She and her lawyers were trying to use some twisted up fucked up mutation of “castle doctrine” and “stand your ground” to justify murdering some guy sittin in his own apartment eating ice cream.
Awesome. Still can’t believe they tried “self-defense”
“I went into another apartment, and the occupant of the apartment attacked me, so I had to shoot him in self-defense!”
What’s really crazy is, they thought it would work.
I am somewhat heartened by this decision. 
Wow, color me surprised, pleasantly surprised. I thought she would be acquitted. Or at least have a hung jury. I guess the jurors could easily put themselves in the place of the person sitting in his own living room.
And the judge actually directed the jury to consider the castle doctrine in their deliberations. Apparently white people own the world.
Why dont these things happen to the family’s of the DA’s and police union presidents that let these goons keep a badge?
Since the guy murdered had a disability (protected class) can the Feds get involved for a civil right violation?
One theory I read is that the judge did may have done that to remove grounds for an appeal.
Cheesesteak said “Young black men in this country are killed by the police so often that “killed by police” shows up on their “leading cause of death” statistics. here” So, I clicked on the link and, interestingly, while the article says that this rate is 2.5 x the rate for whites it doesn’t address the other 10 categories in a comparative way. According to that chart, the mortality rate from police use of force is 3.4 (I’m not quite sure how that relates to the “1 in 1000” in the text above the chart.) Anyway, the mortality rate with assault as the cause is 30x higher. I’d be interested to know what the rate is for whites with same cause. I’ll speculate that is is much lower.
In any case, where there is such a high rate of deaths from assault, does it not follow that there is a higher police presence in in the neighborhoods where these deaths take place? Leading to more police contacts, leading to more people being non-compliant to the point of the police using force leading to more deaths? I’ve heard people offer the argument that the reason there are such high crime rates in poor neighborhoods is because there are more police there arresting people, thereby artificially inflating the numbers. As weak as that argument is, it can’t account for the higher rates of violent crimes. More police does not lead to higher assault rates and higher “death from assault rates”.
kayaker said "Remember Stephon Clark, the black guy who, unarmed, was shot and killed while in his grandmother’s backyard by police who were scairt of his cellphone?
Well, the Feds have decided to not pursue civil rights charges against the police. Sacramento police also announced Thursday their internal investigation did not find any policy or training violations."
So, what exactly is the problem here? Does it matter whose back yard he was in? If so, why? The police weren’t “scairt of his cellphone”. That’s your own biased opinion and completely unsupported by the facts. Are you alleging a conspiracy between the Feds and the locals to cover something up? Or are they just incompetent in their ability to conduct investigations? It seems you have a much clearer understanding of what actually happened. Please enlighten us. (With facts, please)
Uhhh…that the police shot and killed an unarmed man?
So, who is supposed to de-escelate the situation, individial people who are encoutnering the police, or the police, who actually are supposed to be orgnaized and repsonsible.
They weren’t? I thought that that was the excuse that they used to justify shooting him. If you have information that the police lied about this, you should probably make this information public.
It doesn’t require a conspiracy when two entities both want the same thing.
I’ll go this round, but I will mention that this does not obligate me to play an indefinite number of rounds of your explanatory regression game.
I suppose it depends on what the reason for an anti littering law is. If the purpose of the law is to keep trash off the streets, then the cop could pick up the trash and deposit it in a proper receptacle. Make a note of the litterbug, and pester him about it in future encounters. If the cop is using his body cam properly, the litterer may even be able to be positively identified, and subpoenaed to court to stand trial for his crimes. One thing that the local PD does often is to put such things on social media, I’m of mixed minds about that, but it’s still better than initiating a violent confrontation on the street that could wind up with someone injured or killed, all over a piece of trash (or a nonworking headlight.)
If the purpose of anti-littering laws is to give a cop a reason to harass people on the street, then of course, you would expect the cop to use any and all means of force and violence to enforce immediate and complete compliance.
Note, I also said "This is not a bash the police statistic, our whole structure of law enforcement, incarceration and, widespread gun ownership, has created a toxic environment where death is normalized and excused. "
Your entire post is about normalizing and excusing deaths. It’s about explaining to us all why these deaths are a perfectly normal result of policing, and we shouldn’t be outraged by it. We shouldn’t be outraged by the police shooting a man dead when he had no weapon because he ran from police and had a phone in his hand. We should accept that as a normal outcome, just another day in policing.