Would you be on the Jury?

[Walrus]

Then you had people like this. Unbiased jurors? Woke mob won.

[ousdahl]

Were the defense lawyers not a part of the jury selection process?

[Walrus]

What does that matter when you have a crowd of rioters waiting outside of the court for the answer they want? Should have never had the trial where they did.

[ousdahl]

It matters cuz if he really wasn’t fit to be a juror, the defense already had their chance.

And by your logic, if a proceeding must defer to a crowd of rioters outside, senators woulda never counted all those votes for Biden after all.

[ousdahl]

Chauvin, "while acting under color of law, willfully deprived Juvenile 1 of the right, secured and protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, to be free from an unreasonable seizure, which includes the right to be free from the use of unreasonable force by a police officer. Specifically, Defendant Chauvin, without legal justification, held Juvenile 1 by the throat and struck Juvenile 1 multiple times in the head with a flashlight. This offense includes the use of a dangerous weapon – a flashlight – and resulted in bodily injury to Juvenile 1."

Also, that Chauvin "held his knee on the neck and upper back of Juvenile 1 even after Juvenile 1 was lying prone, handcuffed, and unresisting."

https://www.fox9.com/news/derek-chauvin ... 4-year-old

[Deleted User 89]

sounds like an upstanding officer

[ousdahl]

When I first saw the pic I thought it was the Gaza Strip...holy shit!

[ousdahl]

Elizabeth City: State Finds Deputies' Shooting Of Andrew Brown 'Justified'

https://www.npr.org/2021/05/18/99785980 ... -justified

Officers are seen arriving at Brown's residence in the bed of a law enforcement vehicle, holding rifles or handguns. Brown is in his car outside his house, and deputies immediately pull their weapons and train them on Brown.

Brown puts his car in reverse and backs up, and deputies move on foot to surround it. Boxed in, Brown turns the wheel and puts the car in drive. He then drives forward in the direction of a deputy. The officers quickly open fire and strike Brown's vehicle with multiple shots.

Womble said law enforcement fired the first shot into the front windshield and then several others into the back of the vehicle as it drove away and toward other responding law enforcement officers. Fourteen shell casings were found at the scene.
...
Asked if officers might not have simply let Brown go and arrested him at another time, rather than shooting him, Womble said "they simply couldn't let him go."

"Law enforcement officers are duty bound," he said, and delivering the warrant "was their job on that particular day."

"Mr. Brown's response to that was to flee," Womble said.

The district attorney says that he believes Brown's aim was to flee, not to injure the officers – but that if he was going to attempt to flee, he had no choice but to drive at the officers.

Womble says he believes Brown fled because he did not want officers to find drugs that he had in his possession, though he acknowledged he was speculating as to Brown's intentions.
...
Brown's family members have pushed for Womble to be removed from the case, arguing that he is too close to the county sheriff's office.

[ousdahl]

So a bunch of cops with a bunch of guns roll up riding in the back of a truck. (Are warrants normally served like this?)

Pull up and apparently ID Brown in his car right away. (How much effort went into an affirmative ID?)

They point their guns and run up to the car. He puts the car in reverse. They form a ring around the car. He pulls forward. There’s at least one cop generally in the area of his forward path.

Brown doesn’t hit the cop in front and pulls away. (But I don’t think it does any good to say something like, the driver does not seem to be driving in a way that is aggressive toward the cops, he seems like he’s just trying to flee.)

A cop in front of the car fires. (Did he have any regard for the other cops down range on the other side of the car, or anyone potentially in the apartments behind?)

As he’s pulling away, the cops go full on firing squad, just a wall of sound, so many shots you can’t hear one from the other. (Did they have any regard for the fact they’re all now unloading into a residential neighborhood?)

I get why the DA says it’s justified, with the liberal use of force afforded to cops, and that driving a car could be considered deadly force.

I’m tempted to ask, is there any argument to whether he’s cleared any threat of vehicular aggression, and is instead in flight? Dude was ultimately killed with a shot to the back of the head, and it seems all but one shot came from behind while he fled. (But like I said, the “just trying to flee” argument seems dumb)

It all happens so fast. The whole thing is over within a matter of a few seconds.

But other than that, yea, this is policing in America. Despite the budgets and resources at their disposal, it’s still just a bunch of dudes with guns rolling around in the back of a pickup truck.

The only other thing I’ll say for now is, thank the lord there weren't more casualties than there were.

[CrimsonNBlue]

Like I said after the Minnesota gun/taser mix-up cop killer, it is past time to discuss what we want cops to do when a suspect flees.

Right now we have prosecutors with their hands tied, and maybe that's how we should want it--there's argument there.

But, we need less deadly interactions, and you can sure come up with a scenario where a trigger-happy cop actually wants the suspect to flee.

[ousdahl]

Yeah. Cops will candidly admit they get a rush out of an escalated situation. Surrenders are boring. Where’s the fun in that?

I’ve shared this before, but had a buddy who got caught garage hopping in high school (go into a random open garage and see if there’s any beer around)

Gets caught, homeowner calls the cops, and the officer shows up and says, “btw son, if you run, I won’t chase you. But my friend here will” (pats gun on hip).

...for garage hopping.

My buddy said even the homeowner was like, what in the actual eff?

[ousdahl]

There’s another vid of a former cop giving advice on how to act during a traffic stop.

The dude admits he liked to tel people they were under arrest then bullshit around, not cuff or detain, just bark about how they’re under arrest and in deep shit and blah blah blah

Cop figured the longer he scared them without actually detaining them, the more likely they were to fight or flight, and to the cop at the time, aggressive detainments and hot pursuits were fun.

[Deleted User 89]

statement i just heard on the radio said 1) the officers did nothing wrong, but 2) the were on leave, would face discipline and be retrained

wtf

[ousdahl]

I mean, with the way our system affords such a broad interpretation of justification of force, and such a narrow interpretation of official misconduct, I’m surprised anyone is suggesting any disciplinary action at all.

[Deleted User 863]

So a bunch of cops with a bunch of guns roll up riding in the back of a truck. (Are warrants normally served like this?)

Pull up and apparently ID Brown in his car right away. (How much effort went into an affirmative ID?)

They point their guns and run up to the car. He puts the car in reverse. They form a ring around the car. He pulls forward. There’s at least one cop generally in the area of his forward path.

Brown doesn’t hit the cop in front and pulls away. (But I don’t think it does any good to say something like, the driver does not seem to be driving in a way that is aggressive toward the cops, he seems like he’s just trying to flee.)

A cop in front of the car fires. (Did he have any regard for the other cops down range on the other side of the car, or anyone potentially in the apartments behind?)

As he’s pulling away, the cops go full on firing squad, just a wall of sound, so many shots you can’t hear one from the other. (Did they have any regard for the fact they’re all now unloading into a residential neighborhood?)

I get why the DA says it’s justified, with the liberal use of force afforded to cops, and that driving a car could be considered deadly force.

I’m tempted to ask, is there any argument to whether he’s cleared any threat of vehicular aggression, and is instead in flight? Dude was ultimately killed with a shot to the back of the head, and it seems all but one shot came from behind while he fled. (But like I said, the “just trying to flee” argument seems dumb)

It all happens so fast. The whole thing is over within a matter of a few seconds.

But other than that, yea, this is policing in America it’s still just a bunch of dudes with guns rolling around in the back of a pickup truck.

LOL

Yup. That is all they do.

All. Of. Them. All. The. Time.

[Deleted User 863]

Like I said after the Minnesota gun/taser mix-up cop killer, it is past time to discuss what we want cops to do when a suspect flees.

Right now we have prosecutors with their hands tied, and maybe that's how we should want it--there's argument there.

But, we need less deadly interactions, and you can sure come up with a scenario where a trigger-happy cop actually wants the suspect to flee.

Know any cops?

Know anyone that has killed someone?

Doubt many (like almost NONE) are truly hoping for someone to flee so they can kill them. That is so stupid. And it is dangerous rhetoric.

There are absolutely bad cops. There are absolutely bad rules/training for cops that need to change....but 99.99% of cops do a great job for the right reasons and help keep their communities safe.

[ousdahl]

If that 99.99% measure was true, more cops would speak up about the bad apples, instead of helping their bros in blue cover it up

[ousdahl]

And re: the Brown shooting, watch the cops get charged with endangering the neighbors for some stray bullet that hit some house, like Breonna Taylor.

[CrimsonNBlue]

Like I said after the Minnesota gun/taser mix-up cop killer, it is past time to discuss what we want cops to do when a suspect flees.

Right now we have prosecutors with their hands tied, and maybe that's how we should want it--there's argument there.

But, we need less deadly interactions, and you can sure come up with a scenario where a trigger-happy cop actually wants the suspect to flee.

Know any cops?

Know anyone that has killed someone?

Doubt many (like almost NONE) are truly hoping for someone to flee so they can kill them. That is so stupid. And it is dangerous rhetoric.

There are absolutely bad cops. There are absolutely bad rules/training for cops that need to change....but 99.99% of cops do a great job for the right reasons and help keep their communities safe.

I defend cops that kill and injure citizens in civil suits. And, there are a lot of different types of people out there. Of course, most cops are good people trying to do their job as best they can. Of course, your 99.99% stat is ridiculous.

You might as well say 99.99% of all people do a great job for the right reasons--it's an outrageous, unsourced, inflated stat that is thrown out there to try and quiet down the police reform rhetoric.

[Deleted User 863]

Like I said after the Minnesota gun/taser mix-up cop killer, it is past time to discuss what we want cops to do when a suspect flees.

Right now we have prosecutors with their hands tied, and maybe that's how we should want it--there's argument there.

But, we need less deadly interactions, and you can sure come up with a scenario where a trigger-happy cop actually wants the suspect to flee.

Know any cops?

Know anyone that has killed someone?

Doubt many (like almost NONE) are truly hoping for someone to flee so they can kill them. That is so stupid. And it is dangerous rhetoric.

There are absolutely bad cops. There are absolutely bad rules/training for cops that need to change....but 99.99% of cops do a great job for the right reasons and help keep their communities safe.

I defend cops that kill and injure citizens in civil suits. And, there are a lot of different types of people out there. Of course, most cops are good people trying to do their job as best they can. Of course, your 99.99% stat is ridiculous.

You might as well say 99.99% of all people do a great job for the right reasons--it's an outrageous, unsourced, inflated stat that is thrown out there to try and quiet down the police reform rhetoric.

Maybe by some. I have been pretty vocal about the need for police reform around here. So there shouldn't be much confusion on that.

99.9% is unsourced for sure.

...but law enforcement consists of a lot of things other than local law enforcement. There is a BIG difference between how local police act/are trained, and how other the other types of law enforcement are trained.

And also i think it is safe to assume there is a difference in qualifications/characteristics of who is hired for those different branches of law enforcement.