Law Enforcement or a Bully with a Gun?
Comments
-
No truth to PC Roberts. This is putting it mildly. CM
-
The same can be said about you.
-
@C Mc Law Enforcement or a Bully with a Gun?
Remember the death of Amadou Diallo back in 1999? (I do! it occurred one year before I left the states). Four policemen fired 41 shots 19 of the bullets hit an unarmed and innocent Amadou Diallo. For what reason or charge was his death warranted? Why was it necessary for four police officers to deal with one man? Was Amadou really so powerful that one officer could not deal with him and 41 shots had to be used to stop him for something the police somehow believed was worthy of death? I know everyone makes mistakes however it is really unfortunate that when law enforcement makes mistakes innocent people can end up dead regardless of their ethnicity or nationality.
Yes, I think the label bully might fit better than law Enforcement!
-
I would hate to have you and PC Roberts on a jury. CM
-
@C Mc I would hate to have you and PC Roberts on a jury. CM
Of course, neither he nor I would ever be able to come to a consensus and we would probably bicker and fight till the bitter end.
-
Minneapolis police officers have been charged with Floyd’s murder.
Yet all the evidence points to the fact that Floyd had taken a drug overdose so strong that his imminent death could hardly have been prevented. In all likelihood, the police were neither an intentional nor accidental cause of his death. These crucial facts have been completely ignored in the uproar.
-
Wolfgang,
Please! You know that's not so. If what is said is remotely true the Cop had a bad lawyer. Lastly, that's all the more the cop shouldn't have his knee on the man's neck. At least, the cop should've removed his knee when the man said he couldn't breathe.
Wolfgang, your last post shows your underbelly of a disregard for certain people's lives. Handcuffed, on the ground, knee on the neck, and as you claimed, the man "had taken a drug overdose". What harm was he to the cop or anyone? Check yourself and your thinking on the matter. CM
-
Please! You know that's not so. If what is said is remotely true the Cop had a bad lawyer. Lastly, that's all the more the cop shouldn't have his knee on the man's neck. At least, the cop should've removed his knee when the man said he couldn't breathe.
Did you look closer at the picture(s) and not notice that the knee wasn't even hard on the neck ? The culprit already complained about "can't breathe" prior to the scene on the ground ?? The particular drug is known for causing heavy breathing problems??
Wolfgang, your last post shows your underbelly of a disregard for certain people's lives.
Ah ... really?
Handcuffed, on the ground, knee on the neck, and as you claimed, the man "had taken a drug overdose". What harm was he to the cop or anyone?
what harm ? I've been attacked by someone on drugs who wasn't control of their doings as normal person would be ... all nice talk trying to quiet and calm the person down to back off did not fruit a lousy thing, and only after some friends were able "to jump him" and rather forcefully "nailed him on the ground", did the situation change to he could no longer do harm.
Check yourself and your thinking on the matter. CM
Thanks for the advise ...
Seems to me you have some very colored glasses and blinders on which block you from clear sight
-
Evidence came out in the trial that his knee was on his shoulder at least some of the time...hmmm.... George Floyd is dead because of George Floyd. Period.
-
@reformed posted:
Evidence came out in the trial that his knee was on his shoulder at least some of the time...hmmm.... George Floyd is dead because of George Floyd. Period.
So say you, but a 12-person jury of former officer Chauvin's peers unanimously decided that George Floyd died because of former officer Chauvin.
You and I are welcome to our opinions about such verdicts, but in our judicial system, unless overturned by higher courts, juries have the last and only word that matters as to a defendant's guilt or innocence. Period.
-
I haven't resided in the States in well over 20 years so I am sure I am no longer in touch with US Law. So I am curious:
(1) What was the crime that Mary Hawkes committed that warranted the death penalty?
(2) What was the crime that Amadou Diallo committed that warranted the death penalty?
(3) What was the crime that Andre Maurice Hill committed that warranted the death penalty?
Looks to me like one regardless of skin pigment has the freedom to be judge and die by the hands of the police (link). Maybe it is time that the Police force is revised or reformed. In order to protect the peace and executing people on the spot.
Post edited by Mitchell on -
Right in a jury that was intimidated. This was not a fair trial. You know it, I know it, the whole world knows it.
-
So say you, but a 12-person jury of former officer Chauvin's peers unanimously decided that George Floyd died because of former officer Chauvin.
How can a jury of police force peers be chosen for a trial against a police officer? What kind of justice system is that ??
Otoh, anyone looking at the situation from outside with no political (liberal, conservative) or other interest, pretty much could tell already months ago what the outcome of this "trial" had to be and would be due to the "politically correct public and mainstream" verdict that was "expected" (or was it "pressure demanded"?) ...
-
It sounds like the fox and the sour grapes. Let it go
-
Let justice go? No. It will be appealed and the judge already said the appeal would have a good chance of overturning the case.
-
Do accidents happen? Yes. Are they tragic? Equally yes. Should they create policies that make the whole less safe? No.
-
@reformed posted:
Let justice go? No. It will be appealed and the judge already said the appeal would have a good chance of overturning the case.
No. The judge in the Chauvin case did NOT say an appeal would have "a good chance of overturning the case." Rather, Judge Peter Cahill called Congresswoman Maxine Waters' comments about what she viewed as the needed response from policing reform advocates were the jury to acquit former officer Chauvin "something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned." In context, the judge was simply identifying an appellate victory as a possible outcome, NOT a likely one. How do we know? ALSO in his denial of a defense motion for a mistrial based on Waters' comments and other publicity, the judge said that while he wished "elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function," and that their failure to do so was "abhorrent," he did NOT "think it's prejudiced us with additional material that would prejudice this jury." He also contended that "a congresswoman's opinion really doesn't matter a whole lot."
Bottom line: Judge Cahill criticized Congresswoman Waters' comments while denying a motion for a mistrial that in large measure had been prompted by those comments. Had the judge thought an appeal had a "good chance of overturning the case," he would have granted the mistrial motion.
-
@Wolfgang posted:
How can a jury of police force peers be chosen for a trial against a police officer? What kind of justice system is that ??
In the U.S. judicial system, a jury of one's "peers" does NOT refer to people of the same profession, but rather to people of equal and representative status in the community. Law.com defines the term as,
"a guaranteed right of criminal defendants, in which "peer" means an "equal." This has been interpreted by courts to mean that the available jurors include a broad spectrum of the population, particularly of race, national origin and gender. Jury selection may include no process which excludes those of a particular race or intentionally narrows the spectrum of possible jurors. It does not mean that women are to be tried by women, Asians by Asians, or African Americans by African Americans."
Obviously, the term "peer" ALSO does not mean that police officers are to be tried by police officers.
Otoh, anyone looking at the situation from outside with no political (liberal, conservative) or other interest, pretty much could tell already months ago what the outcome of this "trial" had to be and would be due to the "politically correct public and mainstream" verdict that was "expected" (or was it "pressure demanded"?) ...
The LAST thing I would EVER think about your posts in these forums, Wolfgang, is that they display ANY hint of "political" interest.
-
Reformed,
No, let your foolish view on the matter go. Do you believe in the America Justice System? Cops are not unfallen angels. CM
-
Yes, but what we saw was a Kangaroo court not American justice.
-
What is not "American Justice" is the Attorney General of the US (Bill Barr) lied to a federal Judge about the Muller Report. His "so-called" summary was misleading. He behaved as President Trump's personal Lawyer. Now, Barr is headed for legal problems. CM
-
What are you on about?
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
