Serious Police Brutality in the U.S.

Do you believe the U.S. has a problem with police brutality?

  • Yes, especially towards black men

    Votes: 187 53.3%
  • Yes, but not specifically biased against black men

    Votes: 101 28.8%
  • No

    Votes: 63 17.9%

  • Total voters
    351
if u ascribe innocence as the arbiter of a person's life, as if that indicator is a way to encapsulate a person's livelihood, a person's context, a person's humanity, that's just wrong to me.

as soon as we create value-judgments based on 'innocence', we accept the state's power. i reject this.
 
Last edited:
i will never re-post an article that uses the word "unarmed," assuming the victim deserved to be murdered otherwise.

While I (obviously) agree that anybody who uses "Unarmed" to mean "More innocent" is a fucking garbage fire, I do have to disagree with never using it at all; I think that seeing it in every headline really emphasises just how murder-happy and unaccountable the cops are.
 
Last edited:

tcr

sage of six tabs
is a Tutor Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Blame the racists for being dumb and close minded. Don't blame a good system being abused by bad people. There are these people out there, you know...that are just bad apples. They come from all over and aren't race specific, they are just selfish and bad. Free speech is fundamental to a free society. Attacking the system will not miraculously change the path of those bad apples, unfortunately.
Replying in a different thread that is more on topic. Feel free to respond here, or don't i don't really care.

Man you can't honestly be advocating that institutionalized racism or police brutality across the country is somehow just the result of "a few bad apples?" 730 United States citizens have died in 2017 alone. 2016's numbers bordered 1000. Many of these deaths were from "non-lethal" weapons, such as Tasers. This happens to be a list of 100 different cases from all different states of documented, on video police brutality. Still think its just "a couple of bad apples?" What about the partners, who weren't necessarily complicit in violating constitutional rights, engaging in racist behavior, but were simply bystanders that allowed it to happen, such as the 3 or 4 officers who didn't even bother to question the ethics involved in this case of police overreach? You realize that under title 18 subsection 4 of United States Code(18 U.S.C. § 4) it is considered illegal for civilians to not report felonious actions if given prior knowledge right? You gonna defend the cop who blatantly said "We only kill black people"? I suppose you also don't really care that police officers fired for misconduct are routinely put back on the force because "they're good people" despite charges of pedophilia and assault? The FBI warned a long time ago that white supremacy was a growing movement in law enforcement but who cares because its just a couple of bad apples right? I guess during the riots in St. Louis the police chanting "Whose streets? Our streets" is just them enforcing the constitution right? Despite the entire police force being owned and paid for by public tax dollars, thus belonging to the people. Oh yeah, who would have guessed it that "whose streets? our streets" was among one of the popular chants by neo-nazis in the infamous Charlottesville rally where white supremacists and neo-nazis were protected by the police that resulted in the death of an innocent civilian via car. What about less violent crimes like drug planting on innocent civilians that resulted in over 300 cases being dropped for misconduct? Or the officers that didn't necessarily commit a crime but watched their partner teach them how to incriminate a suspect. Are you aware that law enforcement routinely lies to uninformed civilians about laws in order to access illegal search and seizures, a violation of our Fourth Amendment rights? That that is part of their training? That people with access to weapons and the ability to use them have a training period of six months before they're put out on the streets? Fucking hairdressers have to go to beauty school for a year or two to cut hair yet somehow law enforcement is given six months to be properly trained in dealing with and de-escalating violent scenarios.

Look man, my brother in law is a police officer. I visit him all the time, and absolutely adore my niece and nephew. The man is a good father. However whether or not he is a good father, plays with his kids, visits church all the time, never makes racist comments, whatever excuse you want to give, does not mean that he is necessarily right for the job. Coincidentally he is a good police officer, or as you would say "a good apple." As far as I know he is fair in his actions, is outspoken against police brutality and refuses to turn a blind eye, and attempts to keep law and order best he can. I'm not saying every single individual in law enforcement is a crooked cop, but that the justice system and law enforcement are so closely entwined that police officers are routinely not held accountable for any of their actions is a bad sign. Grand juries refuse to indict executions on the street because "the cop feared for his life." Even if they have to face charges they are often just put back on the force because whenever shit happens the brotherhood of blue and other police unions circle the wagons around that officer in order to protect their image. It's absolutely disgusting that people still happen to lick the boots of law enforcement when there are countless videos of the contrary. Law enforcement operates within the law not above it.
 
Last edited:
today i'm thinking abt tamir rice. it's been three years since he was murdered by the state. disposable. expendable.

and i'm thinking: when will it be enough?

it wasn't enough when michael brown was murdered in cold blood and left to rot. it wasn't enough when a 12 year old boy was shot and killed in seconds, deemed fearsome and criminal because of his melanin. it wasn't enough when deborah danner prophesied her death by the state and then proceeded to die at its helm. it wasn't enough when they disappeared sandra bland. or raped abner louima.

when?

and what about the victims who aren't perfect? the ones we ignore. as if humanity is rooted in our colonial imagination of citizenship - as if people only deserve our sympathies if they perform their role to what we deem satisfactory as we navel gaze from our luxury.

how far will we go to justify the carcercal logics that we enact? who's next to be dehumanized?

when?

economic exploitation and social marginalization go hand in hand: we can deem people inferior to further extract more surplus value from their labor. the police are inextricably driven within the systems of capitalism: bodies meant to protect and serve the state. to continue the process of primitive accumulation - to denigrate and exploit ppl of color for economic benefits. today i'm thinking abt thanksgiving. abt how, tomorrow, we are celebrating the genocide of native ppls and theft of their land. today i'm thinking abt how folks' break from capitalist production check is a celebration of supremacy. how can we better cater to folks who face the brunt of state violence? how can we ameliorate their tensions, accommodate to their anxieties?

how can we, simultaneously, curb the anxieties of those integrated within the systems? those who deem black bodies dangerous - prisons necessary - capitalism supreme.

today i'm thinking abt how abolition isn't just a society without prison - but a society that doesn't need prison.

today i'm exhausted, and sad.
 
Last edited:

kilometerman

Banned deucer.
Tamir Rice was in possession of an airsoft gun that had the orange safety tip scratched off. He was shot because the police were responding to a call reporting a young black man "pulling a gun out of his pants and pointing it at people". When the police arrived they asked him to show them his hands, and he didn't, instead he appeared to start drawing his gun. It is the first and foremost responsibility of police officers to stop dangerous people from hurting innocents. They don't get to contemplate whether they should show mercy on the person drawing a gun on them because he's young. What should the officers responding to the call have done? Should they have done nothing and drove away, potentially endangering the civilians in the area? Or should they have layed down their weapons and surrendered? It sounds stupid but I'm trying to understand your argument. What else should they have done?

Michael Brown was shot in self defense. All the forensic evidence supports that Brown tried to grab Officer Wilson's gun while coming towards him, only then did Wilson use his firearm. The witness testimonies claiming that Brown "had his hands up" when he was shot are not credible since they directly contradict the physical evidence.

The officer who killed Deborah Danner was charged with second-degree murder, therefore you cannot use him as an argument for why "the state" promotes this kind of violence. If it did, he wouldn't have been arrested.

Sandra Bland committed suicide. The only part you could argue that the government had anything to do with would be the fact that the prison she was in lacked proper cell check times.

Since when is Thanksgiving a holiday about "celebrating the genocide of native peoples"??? I've lived in multiple places in the US of varying cultural and economic backgrounds and I've always been taught that Thanksgiving is a celebration of the harvest, on top of that a lot of my schools taught that it was a celebration of friendship between the pilgrims and the Indians who aided them with the harvest. I'd like to see your source on this.



Mod Edit: No revisionist history pretending that native american genocide wasn't a thing please. Either you're really stupid or a racist. Please look into obtaining at least a middle school level of understanding on this issue.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Asek

Banned deucer.
i looked up the lyircs and although it may go on to deliver a 'message' its still pretty bad. the first 'half' of the song shouldnt be given any legitimacy at all through a platform like that. see ya
 

kilometerman

Banned deucer.
I think the last verse was pretty powerful and is something to think about as we dismiss the video because at first glance you might think it's "racist".

Can't erase the scars with a bandage
I'm hopin' maybe we can come to an understandin'
Agree to disagree, we could have an understandin'

I truly think that both sides of the current conflict want to heal and have a discussion, but the fearmongering on both sides (left and right) makes it easier for us to pick the opposing sides instead.

Both men clearly ARE "racist", spouting off despicable comments and accusations. They both represent the stereotype--a fat patriotic white man with a MAGA hat and a black inner city anti-american. The stereotypes fight, using the ammo that their politicians and media give them. But deep down they don't want to fight, as seen when they hug as a symbol of brotherhood.

It's easy to accept the "us vs them" mentality. And it's even easier to see yourself as the good guy and the other side as the bad guy.
 
That kind of false equivalence pisses me off. On one side you have a white dude trying to explain the black guy's problems to him as if he doesn't experience them, on the other you have someone forced to justify themselves in a world where they shouldn't have to (because people look at his skin color and see someone who is "lazy" and "anti-american"). And these are supposed to be two "sides", two extremes where any moderate might be in the middle of racist and not racist.

Having the conversation in a civil manner is fine if both people actually want to cooperate. Agreeing to disagree clears that low bar, it's better than you usually get from people nowadays. But the reason protests happen in the first place is because the status quo isn't good enough.
 

kilometerman

Banned deucer.
That kind of false equivalence pisses me off. On one side you have a white dude trying to explain the black guy's problems to him as if he doesn't experience them, on the other you have someone forced to justify themselves in a world where they shouldn't have to (because people look at his skin color and see someone who is "lazy" and "anti-american"). And these are supposed to be two "sides", two extremes where any moderate might be in the middle of racist and not racist.

Having the conversation in a civil manner is fine if both people actually want to cooperate. Agreeing to disagree clears that low bar, it's better than you usually get from people nowadays. But the reason protests happen in the first place is because the status quo isn't good enough.
You should watch the video again. You're falling for the very thing the video is trying to fight--picking sides. Seeing the other side as the bad guy.
 

vonFiedler

I Like Chopin
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
You should watch the video again. You're falling for the very thing the video is trying to fight--picking sides. Seeing the other side as the bad guy.
But the other side is a bad guy. I don't like tribalism or othering but there will always be behavior in this world that shouldn't be accepted and racism is one of them. If the first person represented NAMBLA, you wouldn't be making the same argument.
 
that video is awful. there are not equal sides. black people shouldn’t have to explain their humanity.
 

kilometerman

Banned deucer.
But the other side is a bad guy. I don't like tribalism or othering but there will always be behavior in this world that shouldn't be accepted and racism is one of them. If the first person represented NAMBLA, you wouldn't be making the same argument.
They're both being racist, that's the whole point of the video. I urge you to watch it again and try to understand the message

that video is awful. there are not equal sides. black people shouldn’t have to explain their humanity.
Whites and blacks aren't equal? And you're calling the video racist???
 
no, black and white people aren’t equal. that’s why the movement for black lives exists. that’s why we’re still reeling from the ramifications of primitive accumulation. that’s why chattel slavery and jim crow existed. that’s why black people are killed and disappeared by the state disproportionately. that’s why they are imprisoned at obscene rates to continue being the backbone of our capitalist interests. that’s why this video and your post are so obtuse. there is no credence behind any white sentiment similar to what was posited in the video.
 

kilometerman

Banned deucer.
no, black and white people aren’t equal.
You really need to clarify here because I'm not sure if you're trying to say that "whites =/= blacks", or "whites and blacks aren't equal under the law in the United States".

that’s why the movement for black lives exists.
I feel as if this is being manipulative. By implying that there needs to be a movement specifically for black lives implies that the govt (or most of the population) believes that black lives don't need protection--and that's a huge claim that you need to clarify and give sources on.

that’s why we’re still reeling from the ramifications of primitive accumulation.
All races participated and participate in subjugation of other races. Take Imperial Japan in the 20th century. Or China purchasing Jewish slaves.

that’s why chattel slavery and jim crow existed.
Again these aren't things exclusive to white people and suggesting that they are is pretty ignorant. Slavery has existed across all cultures and societies since the dawn of man. Europeans, Native Americans, Africans, Asians, they all participated in slavery (and many still do). It's incredibly dangerous to mend history so that a certain group of people (especially a certain racial group of people) are the bad guys and oppressors. That's the kind of ideology that fueled things such as the holocaust.

that’s why black people are killed and disappeared by the state disproportionately.
This is something else that you really need to elaborate and give some sources on.

that’s why they are imprisoned at obscene rates to continue being the backbone of our capitalist interests.
I need a source on the claim that blacks are disproportionately imprisoned for reasons other than committing the vast majority of crime in the US.

that’s why this video and your post are so obtuse. there is no credence behind any white sentiment similar to what was posited in the video.
Are you really saying that nothing the white guy said in that video was true? Yeah, his character was supposed to be a racist white guy, but so was the black guy. They both brought up legitimate points of view amidst their politician/media-infused hatred. That's the whole point of the song, if you truly believed that everything the white guy said was incorrect while everything the black guy said was correct--you're manifesting everything that Joyner Lucas is trying to fight with his video.

https://thediplomat.com/2015/07/japanese-company-apologizes-for-forced-labor-during-world-war-ii/
Hirschman, Elizabeth Caldwell; Yates, Donald N. The Early Jews and Muslims of England and Wales: A Genetic and Genealogical History
"Historical survey: Slave-owning societies". Encyclopædia Britannica. Archived from the original on 2007-02-23.
Slavery, Slave Trade. ed. Strayer, Joseph R. Dictionary of the Middle Ages. Volume 11. New York: Scribner, 1982. ISBN978-0684190730
Seybert, Tony (4 Aug 2004). "Slavery and Native Americans in British North America and the United States: 1600 to 1865". Slavery in America. Archived from the original on 4 August 2004. Retrieved 14 June 2011
Alexander, J. (2001). "Islam, Archaeology and Slavery in Africa". World Archaeology. 33 (1): 44–60.
Junius P. Rodriguez, "The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery", ABC-CLIO, 1997, pp146
 

Soul Fly

IMMA TEACH YOU WHAT SPLASHIN' MEANS
is a Contributor Alumnus
I need a source on the claim that blacks are disproportionately imprisoned for reasons other than committing the vast majority of crime in the US.
http://www.naacp.org/criminal-justice-fact-sheet/
  • African Americans are incarcerated at more than 5 times the rate of whites.
  • Though African Americans and Hispanics make up approximately 32% of the US population, they comprised 56% of all incarcerated people in 2015.
  • Crime/drug arrest rates: African Americans represent 12% of monthly drug users, but comprise 32% of persons arrested for drug possession
  • In 2002, blacks constituted more than 80% of the people sentenced under the federal crack cocaine laws and served substantially more time in prison for drug offenses than did whites, despite that fact that more than 2/3 of crack cocaine users in the U.S. are white or Hispanic


http://www.sentencingproject.org/pu...racial-and-ethnic-disparity-in-state-prisons/
The rise in incarceration that has come to be known as mass imprisonment began in 1973 and can be attributed to three major eras of policymaking, all of which had a disparate impact on people of color, especially African Americans. Until 1986, a series of policies was enacted to expand the use of imprisonment for a variety of felonies. After this point, the focus moved to greater levels of imprisonment for drug and sex offenses. There was a particularly sharp growth in state imprisonment for drug offenses between 1987 and 1991. In the final stage, beginning around 1995, the emphasis was on increasing both prison likelihood and significantly lengthening prison sentences.28)​

Harsh drug laws are clearly an important factor in the persistent racial and ethnic disparities observed in state prisons. For drug crimes disparities are especially severe, due largely to the fact that blacks are nearly four times as likely as whites to be arrested for drug offenses and 2.5 times as likely to be arrested for drug possession.29) This is despite the evidence that whites and blacks use drugs at roughly the same rate.

Disparities are evident at the initial point of contact with police, especially through policies that target specific areas and/or people. A popular example of this is “stop, question, and frisk.” Broad discretion allowed to law enforcement can aggravate disparities. Though police stops alone are unlikely to result in a conviction that would lead to a prison sentence, the presence of a criminal record is associated with the decision to incarcerate for subsequent offenses, a sequence of events that disadvantages African Americans.​

some more to satisfy your pretend source fetish

https://www.vox.com/2015/7/13/8913297/mass-incarceration-maps-charts
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ack-americans-higher-rates-disparities-report
http://people.umass.edu/~kastor/ceml_articles/continuing.html


you could have googled "black imprisonment" on google and you would have gotten first page results from highly reputable and well researched sources. you could have browsed a few pages back on this very thread where various posters have already argued for/presented statistics on that matter. It's not anyone's responsibility to justify their existence or prove they are just as human. Your casual, superficial assertion of blacks committing "a vast majority of crimes" is dangerously close to David Duke levels of cray cray.

PS: I need a source behind your bullshit assumption that black people are somehow inherently more criminal
 
Last edited:

TheValkyries

proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
"pretend source fetish" is very good. A man arrives to a discussion: "I've done none of the reading I know very little on the topic in any real depth, please explain to me why my conclusions are wrong and give me verified sources so that I may best judge the soundness of the discussion amongst you all."
 

kilometerman

Banned deucer.
http://www.naacp.org/criminal-justice-fact-sheet/
  • African Americans are incarcerated at more than 5 times the rate of whites.
  • Though African Americans and Hispanics make up approximately 32% of the US population, they comprised 56% of all incarcerated people in 2015.
  • Crime/drug arrest rates: African Americans represent 12% of monthly drug users, but comprise 32% of persons arrested for drug possession
  • In 2002, blacks constituted more than 80% of the people sentenced under the federal crack cocaine laws and served substantially more time in prison for drug offenses than did whites, despite that fact that more than 2/3 of crack cocaine users in the U.S. are white or Hispanic
The first two have no relevance to this discussion--If African Americans commit more crimes than whites, than they're going to be incarcerated more. Of course there are factors such as economic status and education etc that definitely affect this but race? You're going to have to cite specific examples/proof to back up that claim. The first drug point is interesting but wouldn't that be because cops naturally patrol areas with a higher crime density more, and areas high in crime are usually majority black? If you were to find something that proves that cops arrest more blacks than whites in the same areas, that would be a legitimate argument. I've heard the crack cocaine argument before, but it doesn't hold up when you consider the aforementioned point about cops patrolling high-crime density areas more. You should also look into methamphetamine. Laws vary by state but as of recent, crystal meth (a drug primarily used by whites and hispanics) carries a similar sentence to that of crack cocaine. If the justice system was truly biased for whites and against blacks, than wouldn't crystal meth sentencing be significantly less harsh than crack cocaine sentencing?

http://www.sentencingproject.org/pu...racial-and-ethnic-disparity-in-state-prisons/
The rise in incarceration that has come to be known as mass imprisonment began in 1973 and can be attributed to three major eras of policymaking, all of which had a disparate impact on people of color, especially African Americans. Until 1986, a series of policies was enacted to expand the use of imprisonment for a variety of felonies. After this point, the focus moved to greater levels of imprisonment for drug and sex offenses. There was a particularly sharp growth in state imprisonment for drug offenses between 1987 and 1991. In the final stage, beginning around 1995, the emphasis was on increasing both prison likelihood and significantly lengthening prison sentences.28)​

Harsh drug laws are clearly an important factor in the persistent racial and ethnic disparities observed in state prisons. For drug crimes disparities are especially severe, due largely to the fact that blacks are nearly four times as likely as whites to be arrested for drug offenses and 2.5 times as likely to be arrested for drug possession.29) This is despite the evidence that whites and blacks use drugs at roughly the same rate.

Disparities are evident at the initial point of contact with police, especially through policies that target specific areas and/or people. A popular example of this is “stop, question, and frisk.” Broad discretion allowed to law enforcement can aggravate disparities. Though police stops alone are unlikely to result in a conviction that would lead to a prison sentence, the presence of a criminal record is associated with the decision to incarcerate for subsequent offenses, a sequence of events that disadvantages African Americans.​
Again, just because African Americans are incarcerated at a rate higher than whites, it doesn't mean that the justice system is biased against them. You have to prove that the outcomes of our system is specifically because of racism rather than blacks committing more crimes on average than whites.
some more to satisfy your pretend source fetish


you could have googled "black imprisonment" on google and you would have gotten first page results from highly reputable and well researched sources. you could have browsed a few pages back on this very thread where various posters have already argued for/presented statistics on that matter. It's not anyone's responsibility to justify their existence or prove they are just as human. Your casual, superficial assertion of blacks committing "a vast majority of crimes" is dangerously close to David Duke levels of cray cray.
When someone in a discussion/debate makes a statement, they need to back it up with evidence. I do not need to go out of my way to make sure your statements are based on fact, YOU made the statement so the burden of proof is on YOU. It isn't your responsibility to "prove that they are human" (nice attempt at making yourself be the victim, but that's not at all what I said), but it is your responsibility to back up your claims with proof. And please refrain from equating me to David Duke, I disavow the KKK (and racism in general) and I ask that you don't strawman me just as I'm not strawmanning you.

PS: I need a source behind your bullshit assumption that black people are somehow inherently more criminal
Well I didn't make that statement so I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I said that blacks commit the vast majority of crimes in the US, which they do, I'll put a link down below.

"pretend source fetish" is very good. A man arrives to a discussion: "I've done none of the reading I know very little on the topic in any real depth, please explain to me why my conclusions are wrong and give me verified sources so that I may best judge the soundness of the discussion amongst you all."
I do know quite about this topic, that's a pretty poor way of deflecting my argument so you don't have to give a legitimate response. I'm asking for evidence a lot with this topic because I know how much of it is based on fact and how much of it is conjecture. I don't think conjecture has any place in a political discussion.

By the way, if you're legitimately bothered by someone asking you to back up your argument with proof, you should reconsider your argument.

 

Soul Fly

IMMA TEACH YOU WHAT SPLASHIN' MEANS
is a Contributor Alumnus
you can't call directly relevant information irrelevant and demand more citation. blacks represent 12% of monthly drug users, but comprise 32% of persons arrested for drug possession. blacks serve more prison time and get less parole than whites for the same crime. stop-and-frisk as a tactic is disproportionately used on black citizens yadda yadda go read. its all there meticulously presented.


You should also know your "argument" is tautological.

Stmnt 1: "blacks get monitored and arrested more because they commit more crimes."
Stmnt 2: "blacks commit more crimes and hence no wonder they get monitored and arrested more"

both statements reinforce each other. there is like zero analysis in that mini-pamphlet you wrote. all that is really there is an assumption of criminality. "Blacks commit a vast majority of crimes".... because they just somehow do? Really now? Why?

as you said: burden of proof is on you... expecting an amazing answer
 
Last edited by a moderator:

vonFiedler

I Like Chopin
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
This thread has been off topic for a while now... unless certain people think that blacks deserve to be brutalized because they are inherently more criminal, but I'm sure nobody here thinks that. Burden of proof is all well and good but nobody is fooled when you're constantly feigning ignorance about a subject to try and make the other side look dumb. I don't think that's an inviting sort of way to discuss anything and it, as we've clearly seen, can only be replied to with frustration (which also should be avoided). So knock it off.
 

GatoDelFuego

The Antimonymph of the Internet
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
http://thehill.com/opinion/civil-ri...n-execute-an-innocent-man-on-video-none-of-us

I'm having a hard time finding an excuse for the officers here. Only possible answer is he reached towards his pants, except he was only put in that situation because the officers ordered him to crawl towards him after demanding he keep his legs crossed and arms in the air. Important thing to note: this body camera footage is of the officer that shot the man, not the one giving the orders.

Maybe, MAYBE you can claim that the officer shooting thought that the man was reaching for a gun. But the question is why this situation occurred at all. This wasn't a traffic stop, this wasn't a lone officer panicking. This was a coordinated, SWAT-style clearing of rooms where a suspect is on the ground with rifles trained on them. Why did the officer giving the orders have the man lie down, sit up, raise his arms, drop his arms, interlock his fingers, lie down, crawl towards him? This created a situation where there wasn't one. You can make some kind of argument for the officer that shot the man, but it is beyond me that the officer giving the orders was not the one being charged here.


Moving on from this specific incident: we thought that body cameras on cops would make people accountable. But clearly, body camera footage is not enough to convince the people of the jury that something wrong happened. This is indicating something is wrong at all levels of the system here. First, the jury is not saying the officer is guilty of execution when there's ample and blatant evidence. Make the argument that the officer "followed the procedure" and didn't stray from police tactics. That means that second, the department itself is failing at its job to protect the people they serve. Third, the officers in question individually are overreacting and creating dangerous situations rather than defusing them. And even IF you convict an officer of the charges, only 36% of them face jail time. So FOURTH, the judge is not sentencing with as much scrutiny as the general public.

What the hell is going on here? How can this problem be approached in any way?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top