|
Taeke posted:Isn't a large part of the outrage also because the officers themselves often don't seem to give a poo poo and fail to provide basic medical care or call in for medical assistance when it's obviously warranted? I can understand the former because they're not medically trained but the latter is inexcusable.
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 11:22 |
|
|
Getting shot 16 times in the leg probably won't lead to a higher survivor rate than being shot 16 times in the body.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Kind of a bigger entity than the Ferguson PD. Any chance of this resulting in changes in police practices, in Chicago and elsewhere, as a long term result? It is kind of serving notice that the DOJ is paying attention to all this. Submarine Sandpaper fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Also note the tradition of the dash cam video magically loosing sound at the time of shooting, the cop using the flashlight to look for his shell casings rather than render aid after seeing that yes, he did indeed shoot the person, but still isn't the threshold of criminal as defined by the DA:quote:A persona acts with criminal negligence when: 1) He or she acts in a reckless way that creates a high risk of death or great bodily injury; and 2) A reasonable person would have known that acting in that way would create such a risk. In other words, a person acts with criminal negligence when the way he or she acts is so different from the way an ordinarily careful person would actin the same situation that his or her act amounts to disregard of human life or indifference tot he consequence of that act." And any proof of criminal negligence is upon the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The facts here do not rise to that proof. To my eyes the video does not look at all as if it was accidental and the officer did shoot twice, but you can't confirm that because the sound was cut off.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:There's a massive difference, twirling a loaded firearm on your finger by the trigger-well is is astoundingly dangerous, and aiming a gun at someone you're trying to arrest is a standard practice.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Radish posted:The entire premise is ridiculous. If a drug operation is so paltry that the suspects can flush it in the time it takes for the police to knock on the door and show their warrant it's not worth potentially killing the people inside or worse killing totally innocent people when you get the wrong loving house. The fact that politicians just ignore this issue is shameful.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Are black people going to riot about this?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:White people participating wouldn't be helpful. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Illegal Username posted:Regarding the bail system: does a person get the bail money back after the process is over?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Click on his post history. Same old poo poo, different day.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
Meta Ridley posted:So was the police response of not aiding Tamir, checking for a pulse or anything after shooting him also correct? And tackling and cuffing his 14 year old sister while she watched her brother die, unable to help? What exactly was her crime??
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
He's well enough connected that it won't happen.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
MariusLecter posted:The state's case is that Tamir Rice deserved to die.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:Is there something wrong with this? I don't think prosecutors should try cases in which they don't have a reasonably good shot of conviction.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:Okay, but prosecutors have an ethical duty to only go after prosecutions when they think a jury is more likely to convict a person than not. I don't see why sexual assault charges should get an exemption from the standard. If the proseuctors thinks he has little chance of conviction, why should he waste the court's and the defendants time? Not to mention the legal bills the defendant will have to rack up in defending the charge.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 11:22 |
|
|
Monaghan posted:I'm Canadian and my previous post had the legal standard they use up here. You can't just say " a crime's been committed." A prosecutor should only go forward if they can prove it in court. If they don't have enough admissible evidence to support a conviction they shouldn't prosecute. There are a ton of cases in which the prosecutor likely thinks something happened. However, given that they can't prove it, they don't go forward with the charges. That's how the system is supposed to work. quote:Which is dumb because it's a waste of time and the prosecutor almost always get's enough evidence to show there is grounds for charging the defendant. IMO this area is addressed in prosecutorial discretion. quote:I think that prospector's should consider the costs to a defendant in longshot cases. If a prosecutor goes forward with a case it knows has little chance of winning, it's costing the defendant a great deal of money. They don't get this money back if they are found not guilty. Pretty much only way they can get it back is if an abuse of process action is found. quote:I have no idea why you brought up judge discretion and jury nullification as I can't see how they relate to this topic at all.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2015 23:08
|
|