Cops can kill you with impunity...

[thexjib]

This story makes me so fucking mad i could riot.

A cop on new years day shoots a restrained man while he is face down and flat, the whole thing is caught on video. The cop claims it was an accident and gets two years... hopefully while he is locked up he will be executed by a prisoner with nothing to loose.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKy-WSZMklc


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZTbJH6BNaU

[Zelda]

That's fucked up. It didn't look like an accident to me. You can see the chain of events leading up to the shooting quite clearly in the second video.

[Alfredo]

Mmm mmm, just taste that justice.

[Delilah]

I wish I was a cop.



nothing to loose.

And it's lose, not loose. You're welcome.

[cripple]

I'm pretty sure these guys have small penises

[cripple]

Guys(or gals) behaving like this(cops) are seriously unattractive.

It's a real turn off with men in flock. Points to insecurity issues.

Bad marriage material imo.

I like men who show independence and fairness. Wow-balanced, mentally strong and reliable.

I also find it attractive if they don't compensate for small penises with behaviour like this, but instead uses their brains.

There is no shame in using strap-on or even their head.



!GUILTY, may you rot in hell for eternity!

[giegs]

Nothing surprising there. Lethal force has become a bit too trivialized in the law enforcement world in the United States.

[atheistsunite]

Cops are fucking pigs, I'd know from experience.
Example: My friend got busted with weed, while walking to a restuarant. While he was walking a cop tackled him and searched him, with no warrent, or probable cause. He never even read him his miranda rights, and yes, the kid is black.

[D33P7HR047]

That cop beside him should have felt entitled to handcuff that prick officer; he was clearly a murderer.

[Neville]

eh, people see what they want to. The situation could easily be viewed either way.

[D33P7HR047]

It seems evident that the victim had no arms and only provoked the officer in some way. Clearly the Justice system wasn't put in it's place and that fucker was probably some reject from the police academy.

[giegs]

eh, people see what they want to. The situation could easily be viewed either way.

What other way are you positing?

[Stigmata]

That's a pretty shitty situation, but time has proven again and again that rioting does nothing but gives cops more justification for their actions. There's plenty of people that became cops for the simple fact of having that power that encompasses being an officer, and will look for any given opportunity to exert that power. I'm not really shocked, and this won't be the last of this type of scenario.

[MacGuffin]

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?33227-accidental-shootings

[Wise Fool]

[Judge] Perry threw out a gun enhancement that could have added as much as 10 years in prison and said there was overwhelming evidence that it was an accidental shooting.
[...]
Mehserle testified during the trial that he thought Grant had a weapon and decided to shock him with his stun gun but instead pulled his .40-caliber handgun. Grant was unarmed and face down when he was shot.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/06/national/main7029257.shtml

It's funny that the stun gun became standard issue as an effective non-lethal way to detain perceived threats. and now its being used as a way to justify lethal "accidents".


I don't like the title of the thread. it seems resigned to me.

COPS CAN'T KILL PERCEIVED THREATS WITH IMPUNITY!

[Melody]

this is one of the cases that the Justice Department was seeing if it could press further action on. (something to do with how the federal level is independent in some way from the state/local level, or perhaps different kinds of charges). my hope is they can find something, but at the very least they are trying

0j84CQ_I4Vs

this is a different case:
tl0jWhWIDks

new orleans in general:
R8F8QaDmV9U

[Roger Mexico]

Well, look, 2 years isn't exactly impunity. I'll be really outraged if this guy ever gets a job as a cop again anywhere.

We had a case here not that long ago where the police killed an unarmed guy who was in the process of surrendering (after barricading himself in an apartment building) basically because he was agitated and the cop got a bad vibe. Something like this seems to happen about once a year in Portland. The typical response from the department is to rule these "in-policy shootings" based on not much more than the shooter's testimony that s/he "felt threatened," while the typical response from higher-level city authorities is a refusal to disclose information, on the stated grounds that any information they release might be used as evidence in a lawsuit against the city.

Honestly, if riots or the threat of riots had any effect of putting pressure on the authorities to go harder on Mehserle than they otherwise would have, then I say "good." There you have a (minor, perhaps problematic) example of the general public carrying out its role as a check on government. "Accidental" police homicides seldom provoke the same kind of response here, and --look at that! Murdering asshole cops generally get a free pass! Imagine!

You can't really tell from a video how premeditated an act like this was, or what the perpetrator's intentions were. Now, I'm by no means a lawyer, but the standard I personally use in these cases is "what would a non-police officer who did the exact same thing be charged with?" I think if I shot somebody while they handcuffed and lying on the ground, a DA and a jury probably wouldn't be inclined to give me much benefit of the doubt--I think I would have a hard time beating a 2nd-degree murder rap.

[Yuengling]

time has proven again and again that rioting does nothing but...

U sure?

What about the riots for MLK and Rodney King? The Watts riots for civil rights? or riots in the 60s-70s to protests the vietnam war, or in NY to express anger against the draft. Rioting tearing down the Berlin wall, Replacing entire Governments in Korea and in Panama. There is something so powerful and inspiring to me about the unheard and oppressed finally making a stand for what they believe in, when pushed to the brink, when left no other choice. We did pass more civil rights and eliminate the draft didn't we? The way I see it, riots start revolution.

[Roger Mexico]

U sure?

What about the riots for MLK and Rodney King? The Watts riots for civil rights? or riots in the 60s-70s to protests the vietnam war, or in NY to express anger against the draft. Rioting tearing down the Berlin wall, Replacing entire Governments in Korea and in Panama. There is something so powerful and inspiring to me about the unheard and oppressed finally making a stand for what they believe in, when pushed to the brink, when left no other choice. We did pass more civil rights and eliminate the draft didn't we? The way I see it, riots start revolution.

I'd say they can function as a way for a population that is typically marginalized by authorities to refuse to be ignored.

In my view, it's not that you directly accomplish anything by rioting, it's that when you do, you're reminding the authorities how much of their authority depends on some level of consent from the public at large. When most people are obeying the laws, it's easy for the state to bring overwhelming force against a few individual deviants. This can lead to a situation where those in power believe that no one can challenge them because they have a monopoly on effective force. (This works as long as most of the general public can be persuaded to believe this as well.) If a large enough mass of people decide to simultaneously disregard the laws, however, frequently it becomes obvious how unable the state is to back up its previously implicit threats of force against an entire population at once. It can be a needed reminder of how things really work when those in power do something that a subject population regards as unacceptable. It's reminiscent of the thinking behind the 2nd Amendment, but with force of numbers rather than force of arms being the operative form of leverage.

[jyng1]

I'd say they can function as a way for a population that is typically marginalized by authorities to refuse to be ignored.

In my view, it's not that you directly accomplish anything by rioting, it's that when you do, you're reminding the authorities how much of their authority depends on some level of consent from the public at large. When most people are obeying the laws, it's easy for the state to bring overwhelming force against a few individual deviants. This can lead to a situation where those in power believe that no one can challenge them because they have a monopoly on effective force. (This works as long as most of the general public can be persuaded to believe this as well.) If a large enough mass of people decide to simultaneously disregard the laws, however, frequently it becomes obvious how unable the state is to back up its previously implicit threats of force against an entire population at once. It can be a needed reminder of how things really work when those in power do something that a subject population regards as unacceptable. It's reminiscent of the thinking behind the 2nd Amendment, but with force of numbers rather than force of arms being the operative form of leverage.

The co-operation of the population is critical for any situation in society. You imagine trying to control a classroom of students who all decide that they no longer fear the consequences and want to do something different to what the teacher wants them to do. Even in the States, there is only a couple of million in the Armed Service... there is no way they could impose their will on a seriously unwilling populace. Even if they did there is nowhere they could incarcerate them.

The only reason the State can impose any sort of control is that the general populace generally agrees with their goals and aims and if they don't, they can't get their shit together sufficiently to successfully voice their opposition.

[Yuengling]

In my view, it's not that you directly accomplish anything by rioting, it's that when you do, you're reminding the authorities how much of their authority depends on some level of consent from the public at large.

This is very well said! Although, I disagree with the first part whole heatedly, about directly accomplishing nothing? Release of anger, pressure and tension is human and quite necessary. Also, I believe that the ultimate ends to every conflict is physical violence or death, just a matter of how or by what method you arrive there... But that is a whole different subject.

"It's that when you do, you're reminding the authorities how much of their authority depends on some level of consent from the public at large." This speaks volumes. It is so simple, yet so many are not aware. A weapon is not a weapon without the ones who are willing to pull the trigger.