Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's a great question... but I definitely believe they would because it's a police officer killing an unarmed black male.
Which makes me wonder... how many times does a black officer fire his weapon? How many times has a black officer killed a an unarmed suspect?
I don't remember too many high profile cases of black officers emptying a full clip.
FELT: I found this study/article . . . I have only skimmed it but the information is very interesting. Although it does not specifically answer your question about the frequency of black officers shooting an unarmed suspect, it does provide some good information about reaction times and racial bias.
That's a great question... but I definitely believe they would because it's a police officer killing an unarmed black male.
Which makes me wonder... how many times does a black officer fire his weapon? How many times has a black officer killed a an unarmed suspect?
I don't remember too many high profile cases of black officers emptying a full clip.
Both very valid questions. I can take a stab at the first. Statistically, only a very small percentage of officers of any race, ever deploy their weapons.
Off the top of my head, I can't recall a case of a black officer killing an unarmed suspect.
We're all hung up on the fact that Kerrick shot 12 times, but honestly, how does that 1 fact affect this particular case? Suppose instead of 12 shots he had fired 6; if Ferrell is still dead, is the number of shots relevant?
There are racial connotations to this case. You know it, I know it; everyone who knows anything about this case knows it. In my mind however, I can't reconcile how anyone can assume that Kerrick's actions were racially motivated, given that the entire encounter lasted less than 15 seconds. That's a lot of information to process in such a short time.
One other question- given the press this case has received, and given the already high tensions, do you think Kerrick could receive a fair trial in Mecklenburg County?
Absolutely, I think there is grandstanding here. And as others have mentioned, the case is now politicized.
Because of that, there needs to be no room for doubt as to whether or not Kerrick was examined fairly and without prejudice and whether or not the facts of the case as they pertain to both Kerrick and Farrell see the light of day.
Good citizens on a jury deserve to hear what the public has not heard: the facts of the case. The public has to trust that the Grand Jury members went into the process with an open mind and without prejudice against either an officer of the law or a citizen who lost his life. However, with all the innuendo, speculation and, yes, political ambition that is inherent in this high profile case, when the facts of the case are only revealed behind closed doors, there is going to be doubt about the process.
We don't trust each other. Now, that is a sad fact.
Once a situation becomes racially charged, good citizens quit trusting one another.
Most of us are not so naive to think that facts cannot be presented in a biased way.
We don't trust each other and it appears we don't trust the system, either.
I certainly don't trust that a racially charged and politically sensitive case is going to be handled in an unbiased way. I haven't forgotten what happened to those LaCrosse players at Duke/Durham. A racially charged situation requires that the facts of the case see the light of day, as too many people use bias, prejudice and deep-seated hostilities to political advantage.
I would hope that most of us have learned that when cases are examined from a racial standpoint and through the lens of political ambition -- rather than staying focused on the rights of human beings . . . then justice is poorly served.
Two human beings met one night and one of them died in that encounter. That is a fact. Once that fact morphs into something insidious -- the charge that one man's life was valued differently than the other's -- and that this occurred because one man was white and one man was black . . . can we say that Justice is blind? Or more pertinently, that Justice is Color Blind?
Because of these things, it is best that this case go to trial.
To do that, the DA has to come up with appropriate charges against Kerrick. As an officer of the law, IS there an appropriate charge for a man acting in the line of duty? I would hope so, as another human being is dead.
All that can be meted out is what a court of law decides is the legal and appropriate way for Kerrick to take responsibility for his actions, within the scope of his duties as a law enforcement officer.
There are no easy answers here, but I stand on the belief that justice is not vengeance. And it is my hope that we can all separate those two things and stay focused on the law and the facts of the case, while honoring and respecting that a young man lost his life that night -- and a law enforcement officer's life has been forever changed.
Back in 2005 I was selected to be a member of a circuit court jury, in Mecklenburg County, VA. I have never taken more care in my life, to eliminate personal biases from my mind. No, not racial bias- just the basic assumptions that we, as humans, tend to make about other humans. I recognized the sanctity of the duty I was entrusted with, and I could not bear the thought of imprisoning someone without examining every possible contingency.
I remember one case in particular. It involved a drug deal gone bad, in a seedy hotel room. The defendant shot the plaintiff in the head, at close range. By the grace of God, he wasn't killed. The felony assault charge could have yielded up to 25 years in prison. I know I pissed off my fellow jurors, because while they saw it as cut and dry, I had questions. I asked for court records, and twice we returned to the court room for further testimony. Ultimately, we convicted the defendant. I slept well that night, because the suspicion had been removed from my mind.
Im not trying to toot my own horn; jury duty is a civic duty, and it requires the utmost care, to ensure the right verdict is handed down. My hope and my prayer is that when this case goes to trial that the jurors approach it with the thoughtfulness and consideration it deserves. As you've said previously, both of the men involved deserve justice to be served.
Both very valid questions. I can take a stab at the first. Statistically, only a very small percentage of officers of any race, ever deploy their weapons.
Off the top of my head, I can't recall a case of a black officer killing an unarmed suspect.
We're all hung up on the fact that Kerrick shot 12 times, but honestly, how does that 1 fact affect this particular case? Suppose instead of 12 shots he had fired 6; if Ferrell is still dead, is the number of shots relevant?
There are racial connotations to this case. You know it, I know it; everyone who knows anything about this case knows it. In my mind however, I can't reconcile how anyone can assume that Kerrick's actions were racially motivated, given that the entire encounter lasted less than 15 seconds. That's a lot of information to process in such a short time.
One other question- given the press this case has received, and given the already high tensions, do you think Kerrick could receive a fair trial in Mecklenburg County?
This person is/was a cop and the job demands the highest of morals/ethics and restraint since this person is lawfully granted the rights to use deadly force at anytime. Upon sight of a patrol car while traveling down the highway people start slowing down and applying brakes even if not speeding. The sight of a police officer yields immediate respect and is instant regardless of wealth, background, etc., they are the authority figure in any scenario and authorized to carry an unconcealed weapon. If a cop is shot or killed, the amount of resources and commitment to track and detain the perp is a full scale blitz.
The "liberal" media continues to erroneously define the physical description of a common criminal - a young black male. It resonates throughout the sphere of the American society and to state otherwise is a flat out lie. It is becomes fixated within the mindset of LEOs so a black figure approaching in the dark becomes a threat, the officer reacts and murders an unarmed citizen (extremely common). Therefore, the onus is on the authoritative figure to show uncommon restraint and to react, not initiate the action until fired upon or in imminent danger.
It is a dangerous job, police officers die in action all the time. Their job is to protect the citizens which gives any citizen the upper hand in this type of a scenario. These scenarios are commonplace and the reason they go unannounced is because the officer is willing to take a chance but ready to react. That's why cop killers are tracked with such vengeance and rightfully so.
Was or is this cop a racist? I don't know and don't care but no doubt has been preconditioned through society to visually depict what a "real" criminal looks like - a young black male. He failed to do and uphold the highest responsibility of his job (protect the citizens) and murdered an innocent person. In this case, there were other officers on the scene that didn't react in a similar manner and the reason a trial is warranted. Any reasonable citizen should want to determine why this particular LEO breached his oath to protect the citizens at all cost. It is important to remove criminals from the street and equally important to remove bad or cops bad at their job from the street...both are a danger to society.
Was or is this cop a racist? I don't know and don't care but no doubt has been preconditioned through society to visually depict what a "real" criminal looks like - a young black male. He failed to do and uphold the highest responsibility of his job (protect the citizens) and murdered an innocent person. In this case, there were other officers on the scene that didn't react in a similar manner and the reason a trial is warranted. Any reasonable citizen should want to determine why this particular LEO breached his oath to protect the citizens at all cost. It is important to remove criminals from the street and equally important to remove bad or cops bad at their job from the street...both are a danger to society.
This person is/was a cop and the job demands the highest of morals/ethics and restraint since this person is lawfully granted the rights to use deadly force at anytime. Upon sight of a patrol car while traveling down the highway people start slowing down and applying brakes even if not speeding. The sight of a police officer yields immediate respect and is instant regardless of wealth, background, etc., they are the authority figure in any scenario and authorized to carry an unconcealed weapon. If a cop is shot or killed, the amount of resources and commitment to track and detain the perp is a full scale blitz.
The "liberal" media continues to erroneously define the physical description of a common criminal - a young black male. It resonates throughout the sphere of the American society and to state otherwise is a flat out lie. It is becomes fixated within the mindset of LEOs so a black figure approaching in the dark becomes a threat, the officer reacts and murders an unarmed citizen (extremely common). Therefore, the onus is on the authoritative figure to show uncommon restraint and to react, not initiate the action until fired upon or in imminent danger.
It is a dangerous job, police officers die in action all the time. Their job is to protect the citizens which gives any citizen the upper hand in this type of a scenario. These scenarios are commonplace and the reason they go unannounced is because the officer is willing to take a chance but ready to react. That's why cop killers are tracked with such vengeance and rightfully so.
Was or is this cop a racist? I don't know and don't care but no doubt has been preconditioned through society to visually depict what a "real" criminal looks like - a young black male. He failed to do and uphold the highest responsibility of his job (protect the citizens) and murdered an innocent person. In this case, there were other officers on the scene that didn't react in a similar manner and the reason a trial is warranted. Any reasonable citizen should want to determine why this particular LEO breached his oath to protect the citizens at all cost. It is important to remove criminals from the street and equally important to remove bad or cops bad at their job from the street...both are a danger to society.
Excellent post
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
