Would have celebrated if it was a child molester. He still believes they have the right to kill anyone they don't see as fit to live in their world.

But I'm going with something along the lines of take no prisoners.

But yeah, nothing like a trip to one of the cop forums to get a taste of what they think of us.

So really hard to know if that was a warning to the rotten cops or the good ones or the XYZ ones.

would be "stay cool," except they won't say that because that's what their vics say.

They say "stay frosty" because it's a way of differentiating themselves. After all, you know, it's "them" and "us."


Cher

The video doesn't look good but it's premature to throw a rope over a tree and hang the guy because the video didn't show the whole story. Let this go through the judicial system and make sure jurors hear the whole story. It's not a foolproof system, but it's the best we've got to work with.

I didn't like what I saw, either. In fact, I was impressed more by his callousness after he shot the guy even more than the shooting, itself.

I was disgusted by that.

And therefore used deadly force to defend himself. There are already guys in that thread making this argument.

And really, it's the only defense he has.

But, here's the stickler. Going back and picking up the taser and bringing it back to the body shows tampering with evidence.

He might have thought that guy did get the taser, he may have legitimately thought that, but no jury in their right mind is going to sympathize with that "mistake." The prosecution will make it very clear that he was tampering with the scene and willfully murdered a man without cause.

We don't know what those were.

And don't bother demanding that I speculate on any of it. I won't.

We know he got tased, the best quality versions of the video show the taser wire, etc. We know the taser got knocked down (or something else on his belt). And we know he ran and got shot in the back several times.

What we don't know is what the officer was thinking, what his mindset was, and why he chose to shoot. He deserves to tell jury what he was thinking.

Unfortunately for him, his tampering with the scene after the fact, and his outright lie to the dispatchers means that he's very likely toast.

One thing is for sure, that guy is going to talk on the stand and tell his version of events.

shot him in the back.

In the 'Wild West' he would have been hung because the guy was unarmed or shot in the back.

So much for the lawless west.

Back in the day they called it bush whacking.

I don't think the jury will give two shits about how he felt and his line of thinking. The video is damn unambiguous.

But I'm with Warpy in that he does deserve at minimum to tell his side of the story.

Even if it's complete bullshit.

That excuses what is in it. Nothing at all. And you know it.

Let's say, as a hypothetical exercise, that the most favorable possible circumstances to the cop's defense occurred before the video.

What might those circumstances actually be?

Could any such circumstances justify gunning a man down from behind while he's running away?

What could possibly have happened that would make this anything other than a murder case?

You try OH SO HARD to sound reasonable, but you are practically the poster child for a police apologist. It's performance art at it's finest.

in which everybody gets a fair hearing.

Shame on you.

maliciously putting someone in a grave? Fair hearing. I don't think so.

But law enforcement officers? They mostly get a free ride even when there's video. And with no video? We probably wouldn't even know about it.

LOL


...LOL

Funny stuff dood.

Got some more silly things to say?

But I don't think that any informed person could honestly believe that in the US system of justice, everyone gets a fair hearing.

The numbers show unequivocally that minorities do not get a fair hearing.

And anyone who has ever entered a traffic court can see that not everyone gets a fair hearing. That whole system is corrupt up to its gills.

The numbers also show that officers get the opposite end of not having a fair hearing. Where minorities are given less credence, they are given nearly unlimited credence.

so they must be delicious.

I feel a tiny bit more sympathy when one of them die.

get. They get no sympathy from me due to the fact that they show no sympathy to those they are supposed to serve and protect.

all I think about when a cop gets killed, on-duty or off, is what he did to deserve it

I remember a day when I had blind faith that cops in general, if not in every specific case, were doing the right thing. It feels much longer ago than it actually was.

When I see cops revolting against the injustices they are charged with carrying out, and arresting the bad cops who break the law under color of law, my opinion will begin to head back the other way. I've been waiting quite some time and have seen no sign of either one happening.

murderer.

Fuck man, I was really hoping to be wrong this time.

Time to admit that's what police forces really are in 2015 America.

They are trained to regard US citizens as subjects of an occupation, plain and simple.

eom

I don't think that this is much of a surprise.

A good prosecutor will use preemptive juror strikes to get rid of any white juror over 30.

I don't know about all white, but I rather expect him to walk. Police aren't accountable to such as us, and their word in court is as the word of the lord almighty.

I think there is a brand of cop that not only has complete disregard for the law, but disdain for the people in that community.

The myth that there are only a few bad apples & all the others are honorable that don't break the rules. "Unconstitutional policing" is a widespread problem precisely because the rules get in the way of their 6th sense so they bend the rules & it snowballs from there.

What Is Noble Cause Corruption?
Noble cause corruption in policing is defined as "corruption committed in the name of good ends, corruption that happens when police officers care too much about their work. It is corruption committed in order to get the bad guys off the streets…the corruption of police power, when officers do bad things because they believe that the outcomes will be good."2 Examples of noble cause corruption are, planting or fabricating evidence, lying on reports or in court, and generally abusing police authority to make a charge stick.

The policing profession attracts, among others, a certain type of individual: authoritative and responsible, one with leadership skills, who acts on behalf of others, with a high disregard for his or her own well being. Some academics suggest police applicants have a preconception of the profession-the noble cause-that makes them stand out as promising prospects. This preconceived notion is a profound moral commitment to make the world safer.3

Police corruption, traditionally, has been defined as the following:

"a misuse of authority by a police officer for personal gain,"4

"accepting money or money's worth to provide a service they are duty bound to provide,"5 or

"physical, psychological or legal abuse used by police."6

A recent survey demonstrated that officers felt corruption for personal gain was a much more serious charge than engaging in corrupt behavior that appears "to benefit society at large."7 This sub cultural value system rationalizes constitutional rights violations.

Officers do not normally define "a bending of the rules for a greater good" as misconduct or as corruption; rather, they rationalize that such behavior is part of the job description, in a utilitarian sense, to get the criminals off the streets, regardless of the means.8

When this passion for a safer society goes unchecked, it often leads to police crime and civil rights violation. This passion-laudable in itself-can cause good officers to overzealously execute their duties, ignore the basic constitutional guidelines their profession legally demands, and expose their agency to legal liability.

Officers rationalize this misconduct because cynicism has built up, the department lacks morale and leadership, and the individual lacks faith in the criminal justice system. In their attempts to make charges stick, officers may resort to "massaging" facts in order to get a felony warrant. For example, a department's sub cultural values may dictate always arresting "the driver" in a possession of stolen motor vehicle case, with anything less considered poor police work.

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&article_id=1025&issue_id=102006


The bold part cites a study. Police Chief Magazine, hardly a cop hating source, has several articles from a Detroit Law Professor on "noble cause corruption". More on that

Supervisory Cowardice Contributes to Corruption
Along with arrogance, police supervisory cowardice reinforces organizational tolerance of noble cause corruption. Cowardice in this sense is the inability of supervisors to make the difficult administrative decisions that relate to subordinate misconduct.12 Police administrators must struggle with misconduct cases and weigh the pros and cons of the appropriate disciplinary actions. Chiefs must openly investigate allegations of scandal or politically motivated police actions and disregard their own occupational survival in this role.

Favoritism, nepotism, political concerns, or image preservation must not prevent the chief from thoroughly investigating and disciplining officers for policy violations. Impossible conflicts of interest arise in policing every day, and professional police administrators must adhere to a predetermined set of guidelines and decision-making processes to best serve their community and their agencies. Allegations of departmental cover-ups are immediately followed with calls for external investigations, removal of the chief, and massive reform.

A supervisory philosophy of discipline based on due process, fairness, and equity, combined with intelligent, informed, and comprehensive decision making, is best for the department, employees, and community. It is difficult to challenge this philosophy in a court of law by plaintiff's lawyers arguing a lack of professional integrity. Such a supervisory philosophy demonstrates the moral commitment employees look for in their leaders as well as establishes the high standard of professionalism expected in police service. It also demonstrates to the citizenry that even though officers make mistakes in executing their duties, these mistakes are acknowledged and are appropriately addressed. Policing the police reinforces the public's trust in an agency.

------------

This is far from rare. The Mollen Commission documented this. They found the unwillingness to police the corruption more troubling than the corruption itself "testilying" was a word NYPD called it when a cop gave dishonest answers on the stand. NOPD has been widespread corrupt (the department had demonstrations for cops charged with murder), RAMPART, Cleveland Police & Ferguson Police have widespread issues. Chicago police -- no way you can justify what has been revealed by whistle-blowers who were threatened with "going home in a casket". The list goes on.

They (or many) justify their behavior that the suspect deserves it or a # of things said to justify what happened to them but if a cop is charged with a crime it is a different story. Fucking over a cop (treating them as anyone else) is a big no-no. Phoenix recently had a police chief who made cops wear body cameras, he even asked DPS to investigate an officer involved shooting, & was very unpopular with the union where the Republican city council demanded his firing & sure enough it happened.

A major thing that made him unpopular with the cops was when he kicked a cop off the force when he got a DUI. The officer killed himself & he was slammed for not having enough sympathy because he had PTSD & I couldn't believe it. Cops could give a rats ass about PTSD or any other personal issue & perfectly willing to go ahead & ruin their lives but they fight tooth & nail any rollback of their wide latitude.

They are fascists.

I mean really, who are we going to believe? Them or our own lying eyes???

what the retired cop I'm married to said about that video.

He called it MURDER.


Plain and simple. And he was glad someone was there to record the incident, otherwise the cop would likely have gotten away with something.

and the outcome of his trial? Seems like some days, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

I suppose if there is a difference today, it's that there is more video content being made and distributed, by many orders of magnitude, because almost everyone has a still and video camera in their smart phones. And Vimeo, Youtube, Facebook, etc. are all free sources for public distribution of same.