Running gun violence thread

I have a death grip on my pearls as a result of a plaintiff's lawyer offering a theory of the case that serves his paid client.

 

"Bring it, you fucking animals. I don't give a fuck. Bring it."

 

So, cops in riot gear offend everyone's sensibilities, and are universally seen as raising tensions, which resulted in violence.

But, this is perfectly acceptable because -- well, lawyers.

 

It's hard not to notice your repeated disrespect to the position of police officer by refusing to acknowledge the higher standards that come with being entrusted with a legal monopoly on force.

 

You're going to have to be more clear.

I don't think I've said anything to suggest that.

I firmly believe that cops need to be held to higher standards. Absolutely.

Fuck, in the Occupy demonstrations, we say saw cops get spit on and not respond. Demonstrators often try to provoke the police. It's to their credit that they take this kind of provocation and do not respond.

I do think it's interesting that folks want to look into the what causes the mistrust of the police in the community, and explain the anger, and justify the violence and looting.

But, very few are interested in the other side of the equation. What leads to the anger in the cops? Do accusations of cold blooded murder help build trust between the community and the police? When Molotov cocktails are hurled at you, might you become angry, and use inappropriate language?

If the goal is to reduce tensions, and seek the truth, then Benjamin Crupp and Christopher Hayes did not serve that goal.

We've gotten to the point where it's a self-fulfilling prophesy. If only violent protests will lead to charges, then there will be violent protests until there are charges. And, Crupp and Hayes have encouraged this prophesy.

 

The very best way to refute the accusation that this was "cold-blooded murder" is for the police to release their incident report and evidence showing it was justified.

They haven't done so. Too fucking bad.

 

No one wants to look at "the other side" because it's disgusting blame-the-victim mentality.

 

Not the officer in question's decision.

Accuse the cops of not releasing information.

Don't accuse a cop of execution.

 

He's in private practice, bought and paid for by the deceased's family. I have very little expectation that he will present a theory of what happened that does anything except present his client in the best possible light, and the officer in the worst possible light. If you want to start a thread about what's wrong with the American legal system, have a field day. I'll be a frequent contributor. We can start by eliminating peer jury trials, and go from there.

The police are financed by public tax money, and are supposed to represent the interests of the people.

My expectations of the two parties could not be more diverged.

 

Why not?

We have witnesses who say it was an execution.

We have the people in charge of the investigation that could disprove that theory acting as if they are covering something up.

That's more than enough to justify an accusation.

 

Maybe in the first two or three days afterward.

The police have had nine days to get their shit together and clear Wilson's name.

They've chosen to not do so. Too fucking bad.

 

We have witnesses, and an autopsy report, that dispute the witnesses who claim this was an execution. I guess you don't agree with the whole burden of proof thing? If you are going to accuse the officer of a crime, be prepared to prove he committed a crime...not just point to the claims made by the pals of the strong-arm robber's friends.