Canada Kicks Ass
USA Police Misconduct Reports

REPLY

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 ... 160  Next



Regina @ Fri Oct 31, 2014 7:17 am

Xort Xort:
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
^^ That. It's part of the court record now. There is no option but to release it.

In this case that's likely true, however our courts do enact blackouts for little or no published reason.

Only when it affects privacy of the victim or child.

   



PublicAnimalNo9 @ Fri Oct 31, 2014 7:42 am

BartSimpson BartSimpson:
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
Justify? How can that possibly be justified? The man was give one second to produce a second empty hand?

Holy shit that's outrageous.


If he'd been shot in the back eighty times it still would have been 'justified'.

See, if the police decide to kill you for any reason then their department, their city, and too many members of the public will instantly call the murder 'justifiable'.

Like I've said all too many times before, police are civilians and they should be held to the same standard as a civilian. Meaning that if the shoot was done by a civilian and it would result in charges then it should be the same with a supposedly 'highly trained' law enforcement officer.

You mean like the private citizen goof a few of weeks ago who shot another man in the back after a mild confrontation because he "thought the other guy was going to his car to grab a gun".

So here we have a civilian shooting an un-armed civilian in the back using the "stand your ground" law as his defense and was acquitted.

Looks like the standards are being applied equally, as disturbing a thought as that is.

   



BartSimpson @ Fri Oct 31, 2014 8:12 am

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
You mean like the private citizen goof a few of weeks ago who shot another man in the back after a mild confrontation because he "thought the other guy was going to his car to grab a gun".

So here we have a civilian shooting an un-armed civilian in the back using the "stand your ground" law as his defense and was acquitted.

Looks like the standards are being applied equally, as disturbing a thought as that is.


Yes, EXACTLY!!!

In your example it sounds like a questionable shoot and charges were brought, a trial took place, and a jury rendered a decision based on evidence and testimony.

That almost NEVER happens with questionable police shootings.

   



PublicAnimalNo9 @ Fri Oct 31, 2014 8:44 am

BartSimpson BartSimpson:
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
You mean like the private citizen goof a few of weeks ago who shot another man in the back after a mild confrontation because he "thought the other guy was going to his car to grab a gun".

So here we have a civilian shooting an un-armed civilian in the back using the "stand your ground" law as his defense and was acquitted.

Looks like the standards are being applied equally, as disturbing a thought as that is.


Yes, EXACTLY!!!

In your example it sounds like a questionable shoot and charges were brought, a trial took place, and a jury rendered a decision based on evidence and testimony.

That almost NEVER happens with questionable police shootings.

Considering you can shoot an unarmed person in the back on the street who is walking AWAY from you and cite "stand your ground" laws as your defense AND be acquitted, I'm almost tempted to ask, "Why even bother"?
Especially when it comes to jury trials, considering the jury in my example had no goddam clue what stand your ground means.

   



Regina @ Fri Oct 31, 2014 8:50 am

So in the US a Redneck can shoot someone in the back and get a "mulligan" but a cop can't?

   



BartSimpson @ Fri Oct 31, 2014 8:56 am

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
Considering you can shoot an unarmed person in the back on the street who is walking AWAY from you and cite "stand your ground" laws as your defense AND be acquitted, I'm almost tempted to ask, "Why even bother"?
Especially when it comes to jury trials, considering the jury in my example had no goddam clue what stand your ground means.


The case was heard and the jury ruled. I'd have to see the particulars of the case you're citing before I'd be willing to say anymore.

But at least a jury got to hear the case. With so many police shootings (that are far more egregious) then charges are never even brought and all we get is that the shoot 'was thoroughly investigated' and the finding in over 98% of these shootings is that the cops were 'justifed'.

   



OnTheIce @ Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:05 am

BartSimpson BartSimpson:
With so many police shootings (that are far more egregious) then charges are never even brought and all we get is that the shoot 'was thoroughly investigated' and the finding in over 98% of these shootings is that the cops were 'justifed'.


Maybe it's because they actually are.

   



BartSimpson @ Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:15 am

OnTheIce OnTheIce:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
With so many police shootings (that are far more egregious) then charges are never even brought and all we get is that the shoot 'was thoroughly investigated' and the finding in over 98% of these shootings is that the cops were 'justifed'.


Maybe it's because they actually are.


Probably not. If they really were all so 'justifiable' then law enforcement wouldn't be going all out to suppress statistical data on their actions.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how ... each-year/

   



OnTheIce @ Fri Oct 31, 2014 11:10 am

BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Probably not. If they really were all so 'justifiable' then law enforcement wouldn't be going all out to suppress statistical data on their actions.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how ... each-year/


Might be because of the millions upon millions of police interactions that only a minuscule percentage end in this fashion....and most often, the use of force is justified.

   



Xort @ Fri Oct 31, 2014 11:16 am

Regina Regina:
Only when it affects privacy of the victim or child.

That's one aspect but hardly the only reason.

Gomery Inquiry banned publication of 3 witness's testimony which has nothing to do with children or the victim.

Hidden justice is not justice.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:
Maybe it's because they actually are.



Image

   



BartSimpson @ Fri Oct 31, 2014 11:21 am

OnTheIce OnTheIce:
...and most often, the use of force is justified.


Prove it.


You can't. That's because there's no complete data set to support or deny your assertion. :idea:

   



OnTheIce @ Fri Oct 31, 2014 12:35 pm

BartSimpson BartSimpson:
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
...and most often, the use of force is justified.


Prove it.


You can't. That's because there's no complete data set to support or deny your assertion. :idea:


And yet, there's no clear data to support your claim either....police shootings are far from the epidemic you'd like us to beleive.

Let's use 2008 as an example, shall we?

40 million police interactions with the public in your Country.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpp08.pdf

Some sources peg the number of police shootings around 400, such as:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post ... one-knows/

$1:
Several independent trackers, primarily journalists and academics who study criminal justice, insist the accurate number of people shot and killed by police officers each year is consistently upwards of 1,000 each year.


Others have that number between 500-1000 per year. So let's take that number from above (400) and double it to 800 police shootings per year.

If we use 800 as an example, shootings occur in 0.002% of police interactions with 98+% of them being justified. Hardly an epidemic.

   



BartSimpson @ Fri Oct 31, 2014 1:12 pm

OnTheIce OnTheIce:
And yet, there's no clear data to support your claim either


What "claim"? I've made no such claim at all. All I do is post these stories and one of them had the word 'epidemic' in the title. That's not my claim, it's the author's.

Go argue with him.

   



Xort @ Fri Oct 31, 2014 1:54 pm

OnTheIce OnTheIce:
*snip*


Only about 8500 firearm homicides in the US each year.
About 200 non police uses of firearms for justified homicide.

Police shootings are about 10% of non self inflected firearm deaths. Although we don't know because the reporting isn't constant.

Leaving out non firearm related police killings, and non fatal police violence. Which are as critical for investigation into police abuse as acts that do not cause deaths.

I don't trust the police when they claim that shooting are justified. The last video I posted and it was said to be justified it's very clearly not.

   



OnTheIce @ Fri Oct 31, 2014 3:11 pm

BartSimpson BartSimpson:
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
And yet, there's no clear data to support your claim either


What "claim"? I've made no such claim at all. All I do is post these stories and one of them had the word 'epidemic' in the title. That's not my claim, it's the author's.

Go argue with him.


Don't trip backing up. :lol:

You posted this article. You support this point of view. You've made that clear over and over again.

Keep posting your sensational, anti-cop bullshit....because that's all it is.

   



REPLY

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 ... 160  Next