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.
No they should not be charged and this is why. Police are paid to protect us, and they are forced to make quick judgements of life and death. Most of the people police shoot are armed and they do end up being criminals. Very few end up being unarmed and totally innocent, at the least they are often defiant and non compliant. Defiant suspects put the lawman on edge and this can lead to a shooting.
I am not saying all these shootings are right but it's a mistake to lock up every cop that makes a bad split second decision. First it obviously deters good people from going into law enforcement, who among the posters in here will go to jail for an error made a work. Doctors screw up all the time leading to death but no one is locking them up. Police officers who shoot when they should not will lose their career and possibly be sued. Their employer will defiinately be sued so it's not like there is no consequence for them.
Another thing to consider is who the BLM and rioters are. Many of these people are not good citizens and they live in high crime areas. We should not be giving these people the time of day. What they need is a heavier law enforcement presence in their area not a free reign to badmouth the police. These people dont represent the vast majority of law abiding black citizens, but they are treated as if they do by the media. Watch the riot videos from CHarolotte, Ferguson and Milwaukee and you will see they are just criminals, not victims. IT is time to get tough with these people and restore order.
So innocent people she be killed so that more people will go into law enforcement. Will you volunteer to be one of those killed so more will go to the police academy? Perhaps your wife? Or son? Or daughter? O mother? Or father? Or brother? Or sister? Step right up, because you're awfully eager to sacrafice American citizens.
Almost no police officers "who shoot when they should not" have gotten fired.
Whether you or I like them or not, members of the BLM and demonstrates (I watched it for quite a while last night...I saw protesting, not rioting) are still American citizens and were created by the same God who created you. They have all the constitutional rights you do.And, a ctually, through freedom of speech, they do have the right to "badmouth" the police.
Grand Juries are in the DA's pocket, and DA's back cops- so that solution won't work. The reality is that power corrupts, and absolute power (no accountability- which is the case for police) corrupts absolutely. It's part of human nature.
Fine. Then we need to have a panel similar to a grand jury. As I said previously, the cases automatically go to this panel of citizens, not dependent upon whether the DA wants it to or not.
You have to be a little creative to solve problems.
Fine. Then we need to have a panel similar to a grand jury. As I said previously, the cases automatically go to this panel of citizens, not dependent upon whether the DA wants it to or not.
You have to be a little creative to solve problems.
If it will truly bring some real accountability, fine. If it becomes a political football in order to help politicians "look good", then- no.
All of which has absolutely nothing to do with the standards that enable a law enforcement officer to use deadly force.
Exactly deadly force means the cops feel their lives are threatened. The problem is like in the end of the movie Crash, a black DA's hood brother is shot for taking out a dashboard Jesus while hitch-hiking in LA with the non-racist white cop in the movie. What a cop feels is a threat on duty may be nothing and instead they made a very rash, hasty decision leaving blood on their hands. It's a fine line but sometimes it is exactly what it is. The Miami incident and now Tulsa are two of these cases.
I have routinely seen some people, including cops, being totally effed up with no weapon involved.
I don't think being a cop should mean putting up with or being subjected to physical violence.
Because cops put themselves in the line of fire everyday and always have to consider that the person who they are interacting with could become violent. Private citizens don't have to deal with the same reality. Of course, if one truly commits cold blooded murder, he should get the hot needle too.
Absolutely. I watched Narcos-2 and the way the honest Cop Carillo was killed shook me ( even though it was a fiction) ..And in real life any bad guy could do it any Police Officer.
I have been thinking this since we have seen a few more potentially unarmed suspect shootings by cops that perhaps we need to charge cops who do this with Murder-2 automatically. The reason why I say this is because of separate but equal being illegal in accordance to the 14th Amendment and cases like Brown V. Board. If the general public can be charged almost instantly, why cannot cops? Isn't that unconstitutional and unfair to non-blue lives.
FYI, I do typically side with cops, but there are a few too many cases of late where suspects are shot and/or killed by cops who just get a free pass after going to desk duty.
IF IT CAN BE PROVEN THAT IT WAS WITH MALICE AND INTENTIONAL. MAYBE.
Manslaughter in a various degree or not guilty otherwise. The standard to convict a LEO must be very high. However if a LEO is found guilty of ABUSING his position he should be prosecuted to the MAXIMUM. POLITICIANS, PUBLIC OFFICIALS and LEO'S should be as clean as Caesar's wife.
I don't get it. The charge or suspicion of a felony does not entitle police to gun people down in cold blood - or does it?
Unarmed may not be innocent. BUT everyone is innocent until proven guilty, right?
Based on your post I almost get the idea you think otherwise.
In a court of law, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Whereas, when an officer is attempting to take one into custody, there is no presumption of innocence once he RESISTS ARREST.
Resisting arrest makes one into a fugitive from justice.
Article IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States;...
- - - Articles of Confederation, 1777 (incorporated by reference into the USCON, Art. 6)
FUGITIVE - Running away or fleeing, as from the law.
Once one becomes a FUGITIVE, he is excepted from the privileges and immunities of the free citizens, as well as the endowed rights and powers of the free inhabitants.
MORAL: Do not "seek justice" on the streets. Do not resist arrest. Do not disobey orders. Seek redress of grievance in the court.
All of which has absolutely nothing to do with the standards that enable a law enforcement officer to use deadly force.
- - - "Halt or I'll Shoot!" - - -
Prior to 1984, it was common for the police to be authorized to use deadly force on fugitives from justice (or resisting arrest).
... According to a Tennessee state statute and official Memphis Police Department policy authorizing deadly force against a fleeing suspect. The statute provided that "if, after notice of the intention to arrest the defendant, he either flee or forcibly resist, the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest."
. . .
At common law, it was perfectly legitimate for law enforcement personnel to kill a fleeing felon.
. . .
Garner's father then brought suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... The Court of Appeals held that the killing of a fleeing suspect is a "seizure" for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, and is therefore constitutional only when it is reasonable. The court then found that based on the facts in this case, the Tennessee statute failed to properly limit the use of deadly force by reference to the seriousness of the felony.
. . .
. . .
Ironically, the "seizure" via constitutional warrant has no mention of "resisting arrest" or "becoming a fugitive" to escape justice.
Methinks that the court bent the law (and old common law) to pander to a privileged minority who has since convinced itself that it is above all law.
My Question for the Pro cop people in this Thread.
Do you think that the outcome would have been different if the suspect were white?
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.
