Should Cops be Charged with Murder-2 in Cases of Unarmed Shootings Like the Rest of Us U.S. Citizens (salary, suspect)

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by ryanms3030

I'm not saying there are no cases in history where someone completely complied and still got killed by police but I would guess it's less then 1% of the cases. The problem is that certain members of society have no respect for the police which starts at home where they have no respect for parents, elders, teachers or authority in general. Those people don't want to be told what to do and if their parents did a better job they'd probably still be alive and probably wouldn't be in the situations in the first place. Most Americans with common sense understand that you comply with police even if you did nothing wrong and you live to tell your story in court and put faith in the justice system if needed

You do know we don't have a justice system, right? We have a legal system. Justice isn't a part of the equation. If you'd seen what I'd seen, you'd laugh at putting faith in a "justice" system.

[craigiri]

Originally Posted by timberline742

You do know we don't have a justice system, right? We have a legal system. Justice isn't a part of the equation. If you'd seen what I'd seen, you'd laugh at putting faith in a "justice" system.

I've seen some myself.

I just read a news story by RT (granted - Russian Television) and they interview folks in Charlotte - and the crux of the deal is that we are somewhat of a failed empire and state. The ideas of freedom and diversity are great but without an educated populace and with a system that rewards only the wealthiest and most connected, it didn't pan out.

Back when you had SOME people angry - maybe the irish, coal miners or, eventually, black folks.

Now you have ALL the underclass white folks angry in addition to the black folks and others (Native Americans and more).

They know they are all being screwed but they can't quite figure out who is doing it.

The cops aren't at fault in this stuff. They are there to protect the empire (property and the perceived safety of the top dogs). They play their part.

If we didn't have hundreds of million of guns on the street cops wouldn't have to be so paranoid. But that's water over the dam.

I don't think full-out revolution is gonna happen but the end result will likely be the same. A failed state.

[mkpunk]

Originally Posted by LINative

Who would want to be police officer???

Imagine EVERYDAY on your job, there is a chance God forbid, you make a horrible mistake, you could go to jail or at the very least vilified in public. Would you still want that job?

Police officers sometimes have to make split second decisions that may cost someone their lives - or their own. The rest of us normally do not have to deal with that. It is easy for the rest of us to sit back and say "well the cop should have done that", but we ourselves were not there and were not in their shoes.

Police officers were always something most people didn't want to be. The Irish were cops because they were open jobs. As for "walking in their shoes" I have an ex-friend who is NYPD. I knew him from Boy Scouts. The reason we are ex-friends is because he took the cop side in the Florida group home worker case. The worker got shot with his hands and legs up on the pavement but got shot from an overzealous officer. The officer replied "I don't know" when asked by the victim. That officer should be stripped of his badge and in jail like the criminal he is and yet my ex-friend didn't think sometimes you have to call it for what it is.

[mkpunk]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Why should people respect people that work for them, theoretically, the citizens of the community and why should people respect those that will shoot them in the back? Respect is earned, it isn't given automatically, and it isn't or shouldn't be given just because someone has a gun.

Especially when in the case of the Florida group home worker the victim is indeed a victim. Worst yet, the officer was allgedly aiming for the autistic kid according to a police union rep. Union head: Officer who shot mental health worker was aiming for disabled man I have no respect for those... well I'm not gonna say it but yet police I work with on half the fall weekends, I do. Not these ones that will shoot innocent civilians.

[craigiri]

I got an uber ride recently with a big dude who said he was starting the Police Academy in a couple weeks.

The man was scared stiff. You could tell he was scared of anything and everything. There is absolutely no way this behavior can or could be changed.

He wasn't a bad guy. But life only presents so many choices (I had to tip him well because he needed the tuition)....

But, no doubt, he and thousands like him should not have guns in dangerous situations.
Of course, the same could probably be said about 3/4 of the owners of the 200 million guns on the street.

A sad state of affairs. You can bet that cops think and say "better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6"....not their fault. If we wanted to disarm Americans (in general, and have firearms for sport, hunting and various other things), we could then have a situation where the cops wouldn't have to face down firearms as much.

But we don't want that. So we will continue doing what we are doing.

[Listener2307]

Originally Posted by mkpunk

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.

You should not watch any more TV. In most states there is no such thing as "murder - 2".

[YourWakeUpCall]

Originally Posted by Army_Guy

I'll tell you one big difference between the two cities: Tulsa is very conservative. Being where Tulsa is, looting and rioting wouldn't go very far as the good guys are armed quite well there.



Not sure why that's such a difficult concept for people to grasp. As if strength, aggressiveness and fighting experience have nothing to do with it. Like a gun is the only threat there is. But it seems the only people who think that way are those who are used to being disarmed.

Agreed.

I cringe every time I see a headline about the police shooting an unarmed person. The use of the word "unarmed" is just click bait for the uneducated masses. Being unarmed has absolutely nothing to do with whether the shooting is justified or not.

I think every citizen should be required to serve as a police officer somewhere like Chicago or Baltimore when they turn 21. I guarantee all of this whining about the police shooting unarmed people would cease rapidly. The average person has no idea what it's like to be a police officer and would probably go home crying after 1 shift in a high-crime urban environment.

[YourWakeUpCall]

Originally Posted by craigiri

I got an uber ride recently with a big dude who said he was starting the Police Academy in a couple weeks.

He wasn't a bad guy. But life only presents so many choices (I had to tip him well because he needed the tuition)....
.

Just out of curiosity, where was this? Every police academy I've ever heard of is run by a government agency and the attendees have already been hired by a police agency. The hiring department pays the cost of training - there is no tuition. At least that's how it works in my area and for all federal agencies.

[LiaLia]

I don't know what they should be charged with, have no education in that. But let's see...

armed and licensed to kill
sanctioned by the state
possibly inadequately trained, possibly inadequately experienced
tasked to roam the streets unsupervised and look for (and respond to) trouble

I'd say our police officers need to be held to a very high standard and that standard should be applied in any situation where they have to stand before the justice system.

[jetgraphics]

Too many Americans are ignorant of American law. They think that being unarmed is innocence.
If one is "under arrest" and resists arrest, they are committing a FELONY, armed or not.

Resisting Arrest: Laws, Penalties, and Defense | Criminal Law
Felony Resisting Arrest: What Does the Prosecutor Have to Prove?

In order to secure a conviction for resisting arrest, the prosecutor must produce evidence on the following issues, called the “elements” of the offense, and the judge or jury must decide that the prosecutor has proved each one of them beyond a reasonable doubt. While the elements of the crime may vary from state to state, usually all of the following must be true:

● The defendant intentionally resisted or obstructed a law enforcement officer. This means the defendant intentionally acted in a way to hinder the arrest. However, the person need not have intended the result or harm that his actions caused.
● The defendant acted violently toward the law enforcement officer or threatened to act violently. For example, striking or pushing the officer would satisfy this requirement. Similarly, a defendant’s threat to strike an officer with an object in the defendant’s hand would also satisfy this requirement.
● The law enforcement officer was lawfully discharging his official duties. This means the law enforcement officer was properly engaged in the performance of official duties, such as investigating a crime or making a traffic stop. A law enforcement officer can be acting lawfully even when arresting the wrong person and even if the charges are dropped or the defendant secures an acquittal at trial.