Can’t exactly cite either of those. What I can cite is a case where a woman was almost put to death exclusively on the word of a cop that was known to lie. And I can point you to the head of the Portland police union complaining about a judge not trusting the word of the police officers on the scene over a cell phone video. Which is kind of disturbing.
Which of those steps failed in the murder of Philando Castile? Which one failed in the murder of Tamir Rice? Which one failed in the murder of Terence Crutcher? Which of these steps keeps failing?
Put yourself in any one of those three shootings. You, a civilian, not an officer of the law. You pull that trigger. Do you think you’re gonna be let go? Put on paid leave? Nah. Nah, best-case scenario, you’re getting cuffed and thrown in jail, pending a hearing for your court date for murder charges.
I just had an interesting conversation with a close friend who has worked in a major city both as a criminal defense attorney for many years, and now for the civil rights division of the DA’s office (investigating complaints against cops, for the most part). He says that the system is rigged against “little guy” defendants in almost all cases unless they’re cops. He says cops are actually treated pretty fairly in general, in the sense that guilt really must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and every opportunity is provided for a way to dismiss charges. He says that ideally this should be the standard for every defendant, not just cops – it should be hard to put away even petty criminals, when right now it’s pretty damn easy. So it seems like cops coast through the justice system when complaints are made, but in his opinion they’re actually treated reasonably fairly, and it seems like they coast because of how shittily the justice system treats everyone else (except rich and upper middle class whites).
Neither of your anecdotes support your point, the second in particular.
Regards,
Shodan
Why not? The first case shows a court taking an officer at his word in a life-and-death scenario, despite his word being as good as mud. The second shows that it’s apparently worth commenting on and denouncing when a judge refuses to trust police officer testimony over actual video evidence. It’s not exactly hard evidence, but it shows quite clearly that something is foul here.
Which of the steps do you believe should have been bypassed? Should cops not be entitled to the presumption of innocence, or should there be a lower standard of evidence than “beyond a reasonable doubt”?
Also, could you provide the statistics that the system “keeps failing”, in the sense of not convicting police in cases where you apparently believe they should? Because in the overwhelmingly large majority of cases, police shootings are justified, and no crime or misconduct has been committed. Do you think police who are accused of crimes should not be tried before a jury of their peers?
Regards,
Shodan
The first has multiple issues, starting with the fact that the cop still had his job after he after all of his previous incidents of lying and other misconduct. There was also the factor that prosecutors knew of this history and did not disclose it to the defense attorney although they had a duty to. And it isn’t even clear whether the alleged confession was admissible if it in fact happened, because the cop did not document reading Milke her rights in any way. The appeals court decided that these issues meant that Milke was denied a fair trial. But here’s the thing- if Milke was entitled to a fair trial and due process, so is every other accused, even an accused cop. You can’t say that Milke’s rights were violated because the judge took the word of a cop whose questionable relationship with the truth was hidden by the prosecutors and then say essentially that cops should be arrested without waiting for the results of an investigation.
As for the second- a union leader denouncing a judge who doesn’t believe one of his members doesn’t mean anything. The union is going to say that even if the leaders think the cop belongs in jail. That’s the purpose of a union - to protect its members. The police union doesn’t exist to fight crime, the teacher’s union doesn’t exist to educate children… They all exist to protect the interests of their members.
You mean “a jury”. The judges are the ones who overturned the conviction. So again, the statement that judges believe that cops never lie is not at all substantiated by this anecdote.
No, it doesn’t show anything - except that again, the idea that judges think that cops never lie is simply not true.
You do know, do you not, that asking if a juror will automatically believe a police officer just because he or she is a police officer is part of the standard voir dire?
Regards,
Shodan
Maybe not arrested, although the way cops will make up laws it may happen, but they are threatened with arrest. And judges may not state out loud they believe cops never lie but they do. Not quite the same thing but a judge told me that I must be guilty because a cop wouldn’t write a ticket if I weren’t guilty.
And you know this how, exactly? The two anecdotes mentioned above indicate otherwise.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m not sure traffic court is the best exemplar of the ideals of the American justice system. They basically exist just to generate revenue for the city / county.
ETA: and your taking the judge’s time to dispute the ticket gums up the works.
None of them were murdered. In two cases there were trials that determined that, and in the case of Rice there was not enough evidence to go to trial.
I saw that too. Frankly, I’m surprised and happy that the officer didn’t get gutted like a fish.
Indeed, he sounds a very dangerous young man. He had a toy pistol.
Nice job of MMQB’ing.
Are you willing to bet your life in half a second you can determine that a kid firing what looks like a real gun is actually a toy?
Actually yes.
Since he was 12, and was nowhere near them and they drove up in a car to shoot him, and shot him from 10 feet away whilst he was sitting down — too far to identify any toy weapon; and he did nothing threatening or abusive, and the shooter had been previously deemed ‘unfit for duty’ as a police officer, and they then hung around gaping for 4 minutes before other police helped him, and his 14 year-old sister was handcuffed for approaching her brother I’m gonna think they could have negotiated with him first, if necessary from 100 feet away still in the car with a bull-horn.
Or they could have called in helicopters to protect their rush.
And he fired nothing.
Buddy, just because we failed to convict the killer does not mean they weren’t murdered. OJ’s wife did not spontaneously drop dead.
Cops shot and killed unarmed civilians for bullshit reasons. They freaked out, and decided that shooting first was the way to go. Because a child might have been reaching for a gun. Because a man turned around with his hands behind his head and started walking away. Because a man warned them about owning a gun, then tried to comply with instructions. They did not act in justified self-defense. A jury or judge or grand jury disagreed, but with all due respect, that’s insane, and based more on the irrational and ridiculous standard of evidence needed to convict a cop of murder than anything else. We have direct video of cops shooting suspects without good reason to do so. I call that murder.
“He did nothing threatening” - except pull a gun (that had been modified to look real) from his waistband. Does that sound threatening to you? It does to me.
Maybe you’re right, though - if the police had approached him from a hundred feet away
[ul][li]The further away they are, the better the chances (if you do have to shoot) of missing him and hitting someone/something else[/li][li]Also the better chance of him escaping and continuing to threaten people[/li][li]Also it is a lot harder to arrest someone from 100 feet away - a foot chase of an armed suspect is not usually the police’s idea of fun[/ul][/li]
The standard for convicting a cop is the same as for everyone else - proof beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of his peers. Do you believe this standard should not apply? Should we have a different standard, for cops only or for everyone, and does it matter if the cop is black, white, or Asian?
Regards,
Shodan
I will maintain they could have dealt with him whilst not leaving the vehicle — just as other cops in Minneapolis recently shot dead from within the car an Australian woman who had come out in her pyjamas to complain about a sexual assault happening nearby.
The nerve of some people.
That’s a different situation. The doubt there is whether she was murdered by OJ, not whether she was murdered.
In the three cases I mentioned, there is no doubt who the killers were, but in each case a jury has determined that the killings were not murder.
Not every killing is illegal, and not every illegal killing is murder. To claim they are, in defiance of the evidence and the decision of juries who’ve analysed that evidence, is ridiculous.
You are, in every point you make here, wrong. The standard of evidence needed to convict a cop is the same as to convict everyone else, and a video of a cop shooting someone without good reason would meet that standard. What we actually have are videos of cops shooting people with good reason, as decided by the only authority that matters, the legal system.
That you would call a legal killing murder just shows you don’t know what that word means.