Cite?
**You **are still the one making extraordinary claims - that law enforcement officers routinely assault and kill people in their custody, without justification and suffering no legal repercussions. Therefore, it’s still up to you to back up your claims with cites.
Regarding the Fullerton case, a jury of 12 men and women heard the evidence for three weeks, and acquitted the two officers on trial. The potential remains for federal and civil trials for all three officers accused of improper behavior, but the two who were tried have been found not guilty of murder, manslaughter, or use of excessive force. Your opinion nor mine counts because we weren’t on the jury, and we aren’t privy to all of the evidence presented to those who were on the jury.
And, of course, the investigation is still ongoing in the Vidal case. We still don’t know the facts, we haven’t seen the evidence, and I, for one, am unwilling to pass judgement based on a few short news articles and the public statements of a grieving parent.
And your point is what? I’m not counting the one at the top of your head, I’m asking if you seriously have some reason for blaring out numbers like this as if they had some special meaning or value.
Police work is dangerous and quite often involves the use of deadly force. When one human being kills another, the legal term for it is “homicide”. The word that is missing from all your statistics is “justifiable”. Take out the number of justifiable homicides and rant about the rest, if you want. That would be much more realistic.
Nobody is an LEO ass-kisser here.
We just refuse to kiss yours.
I do kiss the ass of rationality (logic, science, proof, etc., whatever form it takes).
You kiss the ass of your emotions and biases instead. And that’s why you’re here flailing desperately.
You’re one lousy and lazy liar. Let me explain something to you–no doubt this will also be an exercise in futility, but here goes anyway: You asserted that no LEO on duty was convicted of murder. It took me less than ten seconds to prove that assertion false. It really doesn’t matter if there were only one or even a million LEOs convicted of murder on duty. What matters is that your assertion–which you just made up: meaning you lied–is proven false.
There is nothing extraordinary whatsoever about my claim. LEO’s do indeed murder innocent civilians with alarming frequency, and they routinely get away with it. Frankly, I’m not so much upset about the former than I am the latter – because if our society actually grew a pair and routinely PUNISHED these donut-chomping psychopaths (aside from rare & unusual cases) then it would set a precedent that policemen should, y’know, actually uphold the law and protect their citizens instead of wantonly beating and/or killing them.
Oh, okay. I’m sorry, but in my blue-sky world when a uniformed officer says, “Ain’t Nobody Got Time Fo’ Dat” and shoots a skinny teenager who’s already been tazed and subdued, that’s first-degree murder. If you say that’s “justifiable,” well, don’t invite me to any of your toga parties. Don’t invite any of your friends and family to your toga parties, either.
Let me ask you – if the same happened to one your children, how would you feel? Would you shrug like you are and say we should wait for all the facts? Because we already have the facts of this case, the testimony of eyewitnesses including the parents and the police. That’s unlikely to change, ever.
He said with sass?
“Allegedly” said with sass.
So far, you seem to have cited three cases that indicate to you that LEOs assault and kill with impugnity: Fullerton (jury disagrees with you,) Rodney King (jury disagreed with you,) and Vidal (investigation pending.) I’d like to see more examples of this phenomenon, which shouldn’t be so difficult to cite if it’s so common.
There you go again, automatically assuming all juries are accurate & unbiased. The media must love gullible consumers like you. :rolleyes:
Do you believe O.J. Simpson is innocent as well? Or Fatty Arbuckle?
Or are you too afraid to admit the truth, that SOME cops actually DO get away with murder?
I’m merely calling attention to one specific incident (which has since grown to two) where justice has failed, but you are claiming there’s no injustice to begin with. You are the one who is not making sense here.
You assume a lot about what I assume.
My assumption isn’t that juries are always fair or unbiased. My assumption is that I don’t know all of the facts.
My assumption isn’t that LEOs are always angels with badges. My assumption is that questionable actions taken under the authority of those badges should be thoroughly investigated, and prosecuted if that is the appropriate course of action.
I haven’t claimed injustice never takes place. I’ve asked you to point out to me situations in which you believe that justice has been perverted in favor of LEOs.
No one here has denied that. Yes, we all know that some cops have gotten away with murder.
You’re failing miserably to establish that either of these cases are actual miscarriages of justice. No one here has said that they cannot be. We’re just noting that you haven’t given us sufficient evidence to support your claims.
You’re also committing a shit load of logical fallacies, excluded middle, hasty generalization, argument from ignorance, and appeal to emotion. If this is to be considered a trial by public opinion, you’re doing a real crappy job as prosecutor.
I’m sorry, did you just say three cops beating an unarmed homeless man to death, or shooting a disabled teenager in cold blood should be described as merely “questionable”? Too bad ya’ll ain’t from Nawth Kaw’lyna, the defense attorney would love to have ya’ll in the jury pool.
I’m sorry, did you just say three cops beating an unarmed homeless man to death, or shooting a disabled teenager in cold blood doesn’t count as a miscarriage of justice? Too bad ya’ll ain’t from Nawth Kaw’lyna, the defense attorney would love to have ya’ll in the jury pool.
This isn’t a Great Debate, trilobite-breath. And if you genuinely feel unemotional after reading these stories in the press, do the world a favor and [consults Pitt Rules] go check yourself into a mental hospital or a halfway house or maybe spend a few nights sleeping on the sidewalk and see how well life treats you.
It might be…and it might not be. Show us the evidence. If the cops claim that the use of force was necessary, and you can’t dredge up jack shit to counter that claim, then you’re just pissing around.
It sure as hell ain’t a debate, arsenose, because you haven’t brought anything factual to the table. You have nothing other than emotions. Emotions, wah wah, but not a fucking ounce of facts. If this is the way you make judgements regarding issues of public policy, maybe you ought to take heavy doses of tranquilizers, because your endorphins aren’t doing a very good job.
Sounds like conservapedia. A oft repeated mantra there is that some things are just so obvious that evidence isn’t required. Anyone asking for evidence is labeled liberal scum and often banned without ceremony.
So any time an unctuous pig says “That boy needed killin’,” you merely acquit on faith and keep voting Republican? (Oops, I forgot, liberals are just as guilty of ignoring this travesty.)
Fact #1: Police are summoned by the parents to have their teenaged kid hospitalized, which they have stated they have done several times before without incident.
Fact #2: Police manage to disable the teen with a tazer.
Fact #3: One policeman decides he doesn’t his coffee & fresh donuts to get cold, so he shoots the kid dead with a snide remark, knowing that Internal Affairs and a jury of his peers will fully acquit him. (Meanwhile, he’s sitting at home on leave WITH PAY, instead of being locked up in prison where any average civilian would definitely be held without bail.)
If these do not count as FACTS in your tiny ostrich brain-sized world, kindly do tell me what would count as a “fact” in your opinion. Stop hiding behind your “blah blah fallacy blah blah emotion” psychobabble and endear me with your brilliant acumen, I can’t wait to hear it.
buddha_david, you might want to step back for a minute, you’re embarrasing yourself.
I don’t think the word “fact” means what you think it means.
From Merriam-Webster:
Since this is the same as my definition, you must be thinking that the parents are wrong about what the cops did to their son. Considering your profession IRL, that comes as no surprise.
Good day to you sir, and have a bear claw on me. 
I knew it was just a matter of time… why can’t we have some good old fashioned emotional outrage without somebody dragging Fatty Arbuckle into it?
Well, now the kid gloves are off. You, sir, are a dunderheaded dipstick.