Again you think one law is more important than many laws. If that law was scrapped, which was already allowed to be diluted for people who need to support themselves by working, then we could enforce all the other laws far more effectively.
So basically you expect us all to just play along and agree that the Bill of Rights is just a law so why is that more important than all these other laws?
What evidence do you have that the shooting was justified? Isn’t your question completely backwards? Someone was shot and killed. Why the fuck would we assume that the perpetrators had a good reason for doing so?!
The focus of this thread seems to be the police abiding by the laws they are supposed to enforce, primarily not killing people with impunity. So, I assume people being killed is something that is of some import that you are willing to throw out those bill of rights depending on what that person’s activity is?
But bodycams are not violating the bill of rights so your post is nonsense. Recording your work activity can certainly be distasteful but that doesn’t equal unconstitutional.
Police are given great power. With that power comes responsibility. Even without the BoR it isn’t exactly outrageous for society to want a unblinking eye making sure those responsibilities are being maintained.
I have the same amount of evidence that it was justified as you have that it wasn’t. And that is exactly my point. You’re already convicting the officers before the investigation as barely begun, and hardly any information has been released to the media. Yet you’re already convicting them??
-
A perpetrator is someone who has committed a crime. You have no evidence that the officers have done so.
-
So assumption of innocence only applies to certain people? I must have missed that part of the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments…
You act like this means something important. Someone decided it is not unconstitutional to be recorded at work. Someone can decide that people must wear bodycams.
And I’d like to be able walk across the road knowing that the approaching driver isn’t reading their phone in the car approaching me. That driver has been given great responsibility when they got their driver’s license, so they should be paying attention to that activity, not what is being posted on the SD. Continuous monitoring would help prevent them from doing that activity while driving.
Yup.
No one has a ‘right’ to be a police officer. We as a society, however, have a right (and now, the increasing ability) to ensure that they are behaving lawfully and in accordance with a code of conduct while on the job.
If any do not wish to comply, then they should seek alternate employment.
So, police officers give up their rights in order to serve the public. So, why not give up your rights when you drive a car? Or when you walk out your door? Or any other activity that could end up with you breaking a law that could hurt someone else.
Not sure where that ‘right’ is laid out.
Your comment has nothing at all to do with what I actually said. Why don’t you try reading what I wrote and responding to that instead of making shit up to respond to?
I’m not convicting anyone. Look, if I get into an altercation with someone, and they end up dead because I shot them, what do you think will happen to me? Will it be assumed that I acted in justifiable self-defense just because I say so, or will it generally be assumed that a murder took place? (I’m honestly not sure - I don’t live in the US, I live in a country where the law is considerably saner.)
Well, we have a body, a smoking gun, and an admission that the officer fired the shot. I’d count that as evidence that someone committed a crime. In fact, in almost any other case, that would be an open-and-shut murder conviction. I would not presume that no crime took place simply based on the fact that the shooter was an on-duty cop. That’s how we get to a society where this is seen as justified legal force. But my apologies, my wording was sloppy. I should have said “the shooter”.
I’m rather astounded that we continue to presume someone’s innocence when we know that they shot and killed someone. That we will assume that it was self-defense once we know that a homicide took place.
Yes, I think the 4th Amendment is more important than a great many laws.
Yes, in this case, that would be 2/3 of the House and Senate and 3/4 of the states. If you convince them, you’ll have won the argument. I’m confident that’s not going to happen.
It’s going to depend pretty heavily on the jurisdiction you’re in and the circumstances of the homicide. In places like California and New York, your claim of self-defense will probably be met with a good bit more skepticism than places like Arizona or Florida.
To paint two extreme examples, if you’re in your own home, with some cuts and stab wounds, and the perpetrator is found dead in your living room, with a knife near his body and your blood on the blade, you’re probably home free.
Conversely, if you were found in the victim’s home, and he was shot while lying in bed, in his pajamas, your claim of self-defense probably won’t avail you much.
Except for those times when you don’t think it is more important. eg. the police, people who have to work to avoid starving, etc.
They didn’t decide collectively that police must wear body cams, someone else did. Someone else said that it isn’t unconstitutional for them to have to wear them.
The 4th Amendment has nothing to do with this.
I didn’t bring it up in the first place.
I agree that it’s not relevant to the issue of police wearing body cams. It IS relevant to the wacky proposal Uzi made in post #82, and apparently continues to defend.
Yes, their employer decided that. The 4th Amendment isn’t a restriction on employers. For example, I work in IT. At any moment, my employer could search my email, browsing history, computer’s hard drive, network logs, etc. The 4th Amendment doesn’t provide me any protection from this type of search. It DOES provide me protection from the police barging into my home and rifling through my things without a warrant or one of the warrant exceptions.
Nothing would be assumed. The totality of the evidence would be what determines whether it was a case of self-defense. Homicide cases (at least in the US) are never built on he said/she said. Juries expect a lot more.
Now that we know that you’re not an American your ignorance of our laws makes more sense. You’re correct to say that this is a homicide. But the investigation will determine if this was a case of justifiable homicide (defending oneself and/or other from death or serious injury).
If you say we must prevent police from abusing their powers, I have to ask why? Is it because they are abusing power or because they are actually doing something that violates the law? I’m assuming the latter because the former makes no sense if there is no law being violated.
Thus we are left with trying to prevent laws from being violated. If cams on police will help do this, then it would assuredly work for everyone else as well with a far greater impact to society.