1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Ferguson / Staten Island Decisions -- No Indictments

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Boom_70, Nov 16, 2014.

  1. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    This is so backward ass. That cop should be facing a local manslaughter charge. Instead, the Feds are going now going to waste time investigating a ridiculous "civil rights" charge.

    Our laws don't have actual meaning. They are just things to be wielded against people in a nonsystematic way depending on the agenda of the entity with the ability to prosecute.
     
  2. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    Just World fallacy drives a lot of opinions.
     
  3. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    For not pulling over right away instead of eight miles and not putting their lives and many others in danger.

    These cases remind me of that scene from "The Fugitive", when Gerrard is on the phone with the mayor or some official after he had shot and killed the guy who had escaped with Dr. Kimble. "Well, he wasn't a very nice man, and he was going to kill one of my kids," before Gerrard hangs up.

    Maybe if King, and Garner, and Brown, weren't commiting crimes, and maybe, if they would obey the officers' commands, they'd be alive today, or in King's case, he wouldn't have been beaten.
     
  4. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    They needed to beat him to prevent what, exactly?
     
  5. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    I'll be interested in how the South Carolina case comes out. You would think there would be no way the cop avoids prison, but I think "sudden movement" and "feared for my life" are going to play big.
     
  6. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    I think you're right in that almost no one was "on the cops' side" w.r.t. King. But I don't think it's because the majority have turned against big black men. It's because there was very clear and compelling evidence that the police had long gone 'round the bend on the authority with which they'd been entrusted. Most of us believe the police should have the authority and wherewithal to subdue someone behaving as King had up to his being stopped. Almost none of us believe that, a potential defendant having been subdued, police should have unfettered authority beyond that.

    We don't see it in these latest stories because these things either happen very quickly (as in the Wilson-Brown case) or they're simply murkier (as in this Garner case, as I understand it).
     
  7. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    They have the authority to subdue, but that doesn't mean they have (or should have) the authority to do any act toward the goal of subdueing.
     
  8. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    A fair point ...
     
  9. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    From having a drunken guy on drugs who had just led them on an eight-mile high-speed chase attack one of them outside the vehicle.
     
  10. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    OK Baron. This is worse than a business thread with you.
     
  11. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    Imagine if King had killed someone that night. Quite frankly, beating aside, he should have spent 10 years in prison for what he did.
     
  12. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    [​IMG]
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page