Doesn’t the circumstances around the act point towards motivations? Mens Rea, and all that, if he didn’t have a guilty mind, if he didn’t realize that what he did was not justifiable, then why would he have then acted to cover it up? If he had not planted evidence, then it would not be shown that he knew that he was guilty of murder.
They say the cover-up is worse than the crime, but in this case I disagree with that, killing is a worse action than planting evidence. In this instance, IMHO, the cover-up proves the crime.
Budget Player Cadet, you are a fool who prefers vengeance to justice and is too stupid to tell the difference. You are also too stupid to tell the difference between what the law is and what you want it to be, as your replies to Bricker make clear.
You also don’t give a single shit for the necessity of the legal system to protect the innocent as its first priority, as is shown by your incredulity that a jury must give its verdict based on the totality of the evidence, not merely on that small fraction of it you happen to have seen.
You are as bad as anti-vaxxers or climate change deniers, who look at one tiny piece of evidence and assume that, despite the enormity of the counter-evidence, the one that suits their prejudices must be true. You reject the idea that someone could have a different opinion from you when they, factually, know more than you. That is literally what has happened with these jury trials where you reject the verdict. They know more than you, vastly more by all appearances, about both the facts of the cases and the relevant laws. You admit you don’t even know what murder is, yet throw accusations of it around like confetti.
To address the title of the thread. of course I’m a fucking statist. I doubt there’s more than a handful of people who aren’t. Even many of those who call themselves anarchist have statist views, usually wanting small states (both in terms of physical size and population). I don’t for a second believe that you don’t actually want government or police to exist, and to have a large say in people’s lives. I seem to remember you being strongly left wing on many issues, which would absolutely require a strong state.
Or is “statist” just another one of those words for which you are using a special, “colloquial” definition that you’ll conveniently refuse to provide? Presumably, you consider that “everyone” will know what you “really” mean, despite the fact that “statist” (like “murder”) is a term with a specific, clearly defined meaning, and one that comes from a specific discipline? In the case of “statist”, it comes from political theory, and “murder” from legal theory. Your addled miscomprehension of what “murder” is, despite having it explained to you, makes your arguments laughable.
Your whole argument (to stretch the meaning of that term) is that I, and various police officers, are nasty people who have acted in nasty ways, and dammit why can’t you just be nasty back to make you feel better?! Your complaints about the legal system, and your pathetic anger against those who explain it to you, are about as mature and sensible as the tantrums of a toddler upon being told that he can’t live solely on ice cream. You have no interest whatsoever in the larger picture, no interest in how the treatment of those accused of crimes - be they cops, career criminals, or unfortunate innocents like yourself - actually matters, and must necessarily be the same no matter who the accused is. You simply see behaviour that you think is nasty, and with no regard to the context of the actions at the time they happen, let alone any comprehension of the damage acting on your naive desire for vengeance would cause to society, call for the nasty man to suffer. Despite the fact that the “nasty man” is all that stands between you and the solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short life you would lead were it not for the government and the law.
No, the system is not perfect. But fuckwits like you standing around screaming incoherently for change, with no idea what change you would actually like to see or what effects that change would have, are one of the nasty and brutish things we need society to protect us from. You are the problem, and until you abandon your immature mentality that you know better than those who know more you will continue to be so.
I’m pretty sure no-one ever lynched someone in self defence, so no, my arguments could not have applied.
Not to mention that a killing with full force of law and due process is an execution not a lynching, those are by definition extra-judicial.
And thirdly, lynching is a form of murder. I have been exclusively and explicitly talking about cases that were not murder, so again my arguments can’t apply.
Apart from that, a worthwhile contribution to the debate, thankyou.
enormity
ɪˈnɔːmɪti
noun
1.
the great or extreme scale, seriousness, or extent of something perceived as bad or morally wrong.
“a thorough search disclosed the full enormity of the crime”
2.
a grave crime or sin.
“the enormities of war”
The cover-up is certainly evidence of a guilty mind.
But it’s not unambiguous proof. The officer could say that he tried to cover up the circumstances of the shooting after he realized he’d made a terrible mistake, for example. The jury is entitled to infer that the cover-up shows consciousness of guilt, bu they are not obligated to reach that conclusion. Was he trying to cover a crime or simply avoid a reprimand?
Hundreds of white men charged with homicide crimes for lynching black people were acquitted by juries despite sometimes overwhelming evidence. That is what your argument applies to.
Oh? I’m sorry, please, enlighten me. What “totality of the evidence” am I missing in the Slager case that excuses what the video shows? Go on. Tell me what negates or ameliorates video evidence. If I watch a video of someone shooting a fleeing subject in the back, what other possible evidence could there fucking be? “I was terrified of the subject because he was running away from me, so I felt the need to shoot him before he turned around and did absolutely nothing with the nothing he was holding.”
See, you talk about the legal system protecting the innocent. But the legal system is only a smaller part of the overall justice system. And when you think about it in that context, this is a farce. The justice system murdered an innocent man, and refuses to provide justice for his killing. Because the person who performed the killing was hiding behind a badge.
I sincerely hope that at some point, you will understand what god knows how many others have figured out: the cops are not your friend. Until then, I sincerely hope you, and anyone who thinks like you, continues to act under that bizarre and faulty assumption, because the longer you do, the more likely it is that the police fuck you over, and at this point I think I’d point and laugh at that quite heartily.
Treat cops who shoot civilians the same way you treat civilians who shoot civilians.
Ensure that the grand jury system doesn’t unnecessarily favor cops, and if it does, find a way to fix it that doesn’t. (Right now it does.)
Stop hiring insane maniacs who think the most important thing you can teach the police is that the world outside is a dangerous hellhole.
Reform laws that make it so that “I was afraid for no good reason” is a good enough reason to shoot someone. Yes, this is an exaggeration of the law, but it’s nowhere near enough of an exaggeration.
Stop disciplining cops for not killing people. Fucking really.
Just a few concrete changes. Things to make the system a little less nightmarish. I’m sure someone who isn’t drunk and who isn’t responding to a craven little shitbag who made Smapti look good!
“Treat cops who shoot civilians the same way you treat civilians who shoot civilians.” You can’t, really. Cops have no obligation to retreat when faced with resistance or a use of force. The law specifically allows them to employ force to do their job. That is not the case for the general citizenry.
Which should only mean that they should be held to a higher standard.
If I see a guy start to pull something out of his pocket, and I don’t know what it is, can I shoot him for scaring me? If not, then a cop should not be allowed to either. They are better equipped, better trained, and supposedly better screened to be able to discern and appropriately respond to threats than a civilian is. They also accepted a job that comes with certain risks.
Why do I as a civilian, have to put myself into more danger before I may respond with lethal force than a cop who has voluntarily signed up for a job that puts him in danger?
In the abstract, the answer is…you shouldn’t have to. My biggest beef with some of these preventable police killings is that they go from talking/arresting/whatever with a suspect straight to executioner by gunfire, when they also have tasers, pepper spray and batons at their disposal. It seems we are skipping steps in the elevation of use of force.
Look at the trial, it’s public record. The fact is, the totality of the evidence caused the jury to doubt his guilt. That you don’t understand that, or can’t imagine it, is a failure on your part, not anyone else’s.
Repeating that won’t make it true. The killing was investigated, the case tried, and a verdict based on the evidence given. That, whether you like it or not, is justice. It’s pretty much the definition of justice - the cop got what he deserved. Which, as someone not guilty of any crime, was nothing. There is no more just reason for punishing him for it than for punishing you, or me, or OJ Simpson, or anyone else.
You have, over and over, shown that you care nothing for justice, and want it ignoreed if it doesn’t fit the limits of your pathetic imagination.
I don’t want them to be my friend. I couldn’t care in the slightest how they feel about me, or anyone else. I care about what they do, which is to keep me, you, and the vast majority of innocent people safe. And, for that matter, the vast majority of guilty people, by preventing such things as lynchings.
More proof that you are a malicious, vengeful arsehole. Not only do you wish harm on those you falsely believe to be guilty of crimes, you wish it on those who’s only fault is to disagree with you.
Absolutely, the presumption of innocence should be extended to everybody. I’m sure you argued that point strongly in the George Zimmerman threads, as I did…
You have that backwards, as I’ve already explained, but apart from that yes, they should be treated equally.
I’ll just wave my magic wand to fix the unspecified problems you refer to. How does it favour cops, and what would you do to change it? And how would you ensure those changes don’t harm innocent people?
You obviously have no idea what the actual issues are, or how to fix them, you just want to lock up cops you don’t agree with.
Whilst I see where you’re coming from with this, it’s only due to cops and the rest of the legal system that the world is not a dangerous hellhole. You want to destroy something necessary in an attempt to fix what is, on balance, a minor problem. But hey, go ahead. Make America('s police force) Great Again!
The laws say nothing like that, they say very clearly that you have to have good reason to be afraid of death or serious injury. That’s a standard I’m very happy with, and one I wish was adopted everywhere. If not, innocent people not only go through the horror of having their life threatened, nor only the horror of having to kill another human being, but also potentially life in prison. For trying not to be killed.
Yeah, cops should put their colleagues in danger. I thought you wanted cops that protect you from violence? Yet, here you are saying a cop is right not to act to protect people. You are, at best, confused.
I actually don’t think you are, though. I think you think of cops as subhuman. I think you are a bigot, and - as I said earlier and will stand by - worse than someone bigoted due to race, as race is a neutral factor. Cops are risking their lives to make yours better, and you hate them for it.
Holy cow, is that a wild accusation. I’m afraid you’ve just discredited your entire argument in my eyes. (Not that it was too solid to start with, mind you - your cavalier dismissal of the idea that the grand jury system unnecessarily favors cops is suggestive of a dissociation with reality, as is the apparent belief that all killings by cops are automatically justified.)
Our entire justice system is built on the notion that a jury of unbiased citizens is the best possible check against state overreach and protecting the rights of the accused. Sometimes people who “everyone knows” are guilty will be acquitted in such a system. That’s not a bug - it’s a feature, because we generally agree it’s better for a guilty person to go unpunished than for an innocent person to be punished wrongly.
If you’re saying that juries can’t be trusted to judge police, then you need to have a better system to offer up than just “we all saw the video, we know he’s guilty, let’s just take him round back and hang him”.
Yeah. Just like all those lynch mob members where the juries found good reason to doubt their guilt. Juries necessarily get everything right. Your theory of jury infallibility is noted and completely fucking insane.
Translation: “if the law agrees on it according to our current legal system, it’s impossible that there was a miscarriage of justice.”
It’s the only thing that might teach you a lesson. Say what you will about Smapti’s previous bootlicking, but at least he’s not defending Slager or Shelby.
But pay careful attention to the applicable jury instruction in Slager’s case. The defendant does not have to show that he was actually in danger. It is enough if the defendant believed he was in imminent danger and a reasonably prudent person of ordinary firmness and courage would have had the same belief. The defendant has the right to act on appearances even though the defendant’s beliefs may have been mistaken. It is for you to decide whether the defendant’s fear of immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury was reasonable and would have been felt by an ordinary person in the same situation. [Emphasis added.] Legally, it’s not enough for an officer to show that he was actually afraid for his life. He has to show that “a reasonably prudent person” would also have the same fear. Clever defense lawyers twist this standard into a line of argument that goes something like this: The officer was afraid, and he can explain to you the reasons why he was afraid. Therefore, it was reasonable that he was afraid.
The law requires that the cops believe they are legitimately in danger, and that that belief be reasonable. And if you trust the jury to be able to consistently tell when that fear isn’t reasonable, you have not been paying attention.
Mader counters that he did make a decision – that he decided, based on Williams’ body language and apparent mental state, that he did not present a threat and that de-escalation was the best way to proceed.
Mader had a degree of familiarity with life-and-death situations. A former US marine who saw service in Afghanistan, he said he brought some of that mettle to his job as an officer.
“He wasn’t angry,” he said of Williams, “he wasn’t aggressive, he didn’t seem in position to want to use a gun against anybody. He never pointed it at me. I didn’t perceive him as an imminent threat.”
The man read from Williams’s body language that he was not trying to hurt anyone, but instead was aiming for a suicide by cop. And you know what? If someone had gotten hurt, if Williams had shot someone, then maybe you could argue that Mader made the wrong decision.
But the gun wasn’t loaded. Mader’s decision was, in this case, objectively correct. Williams couldn’t have hurt anyone. He wasn’t trying to. He only wanted to hurt himself. Mission accomplished, I guess? But here’s the thing. Had his colleagues not decided that rolling up and opening fire was the best possible option, Williams might be alive today, because Mader made an objectively correct call. And as a result, because a cop was willing to risk his life to protect a suicidal man, he got fired. That’s insane.
(I’m reminded of a case in Britain where the cops had to deal with a seemingly deranged man with a hunting rifle. They didn’t just roll up and open fire. Instead, they cleared the area, tried to communicate, didn’t run into firefights, and in the end, nobody died. It’s almost like if you don’t convince the cops that everyone is out to get them and the world is a dangerous hellscape, and instead train them in crisis resolution and how to handle situations like this, it’s a lot more likely that nobody gets killed.)
I think this kinda speaks for itself. You’re an asshole.
Unfortunately, we don’t live in such a society that operates by those rules. You can blame the gun lobby and the NRA for telling people that their sidearm is the only thing protecting them from gay Muslim Commie atheist anarchist international bankers and that they have to be ready at any time to use deadly force to defend themselves against THE MAN for that.
Then what is your solution? Shall cops not be entitled to trial by jury? Are we to do away with presumption of innocence? How many of the fundamental rights of man do you expect police to surrender as a condition of their employment?
The charge in the jury trial was murder. I am not sure whether it was first degree/aggravated or second degree/simple.
In the subsequent return to the courtroom in which Slager pled guilty to other charges, more attention was paid to the other circumstances that you claim did not matter.
Part one: get over this fucking complex that bootlickers like Hocus Pocus and Steophan (and to a lesser degree you, although it may well have gotten better, I haven’t seen as many absurd defenses of police misconduct from you) have with regards to the police. This unwillingness to distrust the cops from the average person, much less the justice system. Maybe take steps to make it more clear what constitutes a “reasonable” fear - and that “has a gun with a permit and is obeying police commands” is not it.
I’m sure there’s more that can be done. I’m not an expert on criminology. Maybe something ensuring a more balanced grand jury. But this fucking boot-licking from the likes of Steophan and Hocus Pocus. “The extra credibility that officers are given isn’t just given. It was earned.” Oh go spend a few hours with Officer McTwitchyFingers from the Cleveland Police Department (formerly Independence Police Department) and see how well that goes for you. This needs to stop.
Well, it looks like you can read for comprehension after all. The law defines what justice is.
Slater has been convicted, after pleading guilty to the crimes he committed. Those crimes did not include murder. Stating facts isn’t defending him, it’s observing what actually happened.
All I know about Shelby is, again, she factually did not commit murder.
I will note that your view that those who are accused, but not found guilty, of a crime should not be defended is pretty fucking disturbing
Yes, that’s what I said. Well done.
What the fuck makes you think that you, a random person who thinks they can judge based on a couple of snippets of video, can tell better than a group of people who have seen all the evidence, and been instructed carefully on the law?
As well, if it’s not clear whether or not the fear is reasonable, the accused is innocent. At least anywhere that accepts that you have to prove someone guilty before conviction, which sadly is not everywhere.
You have three options. One, trust the jury to determine whether the fear is reasonable. Two, don’t trust them, and take someone’s word that it was, and necessarily acquit them. Or three, which is utterly unacceptable, don’t trust the jury or the accused, and assume it was not reasonable, and do away with the right to self defence.
The third is what you are arguing for. Do you genuinely not believe in the right to defend yourself?
It is not objectively correct that no-one could be in reasonable fear of someone who’s gun is, unknown to them, unloaded. That’s the objective standard, not whether the danger is actual.
He has the right to put, or keep, himself in perceived danger, obviously. He also has the legal right to, by inaction, put or keep others in danger from someone else (I think, it’s possible there’s health and safety objections to this as he was working at the time).
But, he broke the terms of his employment by putting his colleagues in a situation that a reasonable person would perceive as dangerous. That’s something that would get you sacked from most jobs, and rightly so.
Wow, people in a different situation, in a different country with different culture and laws act differently!
I must say, your posts are doing an extremely poor job of showing that people aren’t out to get the police. You are trying to get them locked up, by showing a bunch of times where they were threatened by people who were, or appeared to be, armed. You, inexplicably, want the police to be at more risk and have less they can do about it, whilst also worrying less about being at risk. That makes even less sense than the rest of your ranting.
Yep, I’m a dick for pointing out what you’re doing. That’s fair enough, I could’ve been nice and let you go on in blissful ignorance. But my being a nasty fellow for pointing it out doesn’t make it wrong.
And that, really, sums up your whole attitude in this. You see something you think is nasty, something you don’t like or that makes you feel uncomfortable, and you leap to thinking it must be wrong, and that people who disagree with you are bad people. That is exactly what the Republican party does, what Trump does, what those who oppose homosexuality or mixed-race relationships do. And, you ignore any correction about what is actually happening, what the law actually is, and so on. Like a climate change denier or anti-vaxxer.