|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 09 2015 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 06:51 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 06:45 wei2coolman wrote:On April 09 2015 06:42 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 06:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 06:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:30 wei2coolman wrote:On April 09 2015 06:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:23 wei2coolman wrote:
I don't know what you want exactly? Isn't the incident that happened exactly what's supposed to happen when shit like this goes down? It got investigated and the police officer was charged? ugh... It's only happening because it was caught on film and the officer didn't steal the camera... No video, and this guy stays on desk duty (which is where they put him after the incident) until it blows over and he's back on the streets. Well duh, DA ain't gunna charge someone without evidence. You're essentially saying "they only charged because there's evidence!". Which by the way, is exactly how the system is supposed to work. There is the problem... Without the independent video (pure luck) there is 'no evidence' despite it being a clear and deliberate murder. A criminal justice system like that is clearly in desperate need of correction. please explain this justice system that convicts people without evidence. I don't think GH is advocating for a justice system that convicts people with no evidence to support that conviction. But he has a point. If this killing had played out exactly as it did, but with no passerby to record it on video, it would have been astonishingly easy for this cop, his partner, and their department to cover it up as self defense. We know that there would be additional evidence indicating it was not, but when the police department is only accountable to themselves, can they be trusted to present those facts without any deception or modification? In this case, the video is great because it is evidence that can secure a conviction. If the video didn't exist, it wouldn't make this less of a murder it would just make it harder to prove in court. That's not a fault in the courts, it's a (significant) fault in our police system. The mayor's response, to order more body cameras for their police officers, is the right one. Until you can address the underlying racial bias that may be provoking these killings, making every police officer painfully aware that they are being recorded may be the best way to prevent his from happening in the short-term. Same with most crime... if there isn't evidence, you can't convict... the problem here, is if GH has just made the reasonable post of "this is why there needs to be body camera's in law enforcement", there would just be a couple of posts agreeing with body cameras. But, he rather stir the pot by claiming some wild conspiracy. But you have to admit that it is much easier for police officers to get rid of incriminating evidence than it is for random joe who shot his ex-wife to do the same. They are in charge of collecting evidence after all, and are in control of the crime scene while it is still fresh and no one else has seen it. There is power and responsibility associated with that, and without external accountability that power will be abused by bad cops. There is a difference between evidence not existing and evidence being hidden or destroyed. GH's contention was that if the video hadn't come to light, evidence that could have been used to gain a conviction in court would have been altered with none the wiser. And given that the cop tried to plant a taser on this man's corpse and lied to his department and the public about what happened, I'm inclined to believe that. I do think claiming conspiracy on this story is a little premature. The department acted foolishly by relying on this officer's word, but it doesn't necessarily mean they knew all the facts and decided to spin it anyways. The partner should also be charged with a crime for his involvement, but I do not think you can drag the whole department into it (yet). the police officer involved in the shooting wouldnt be the one booking the evidence; he is in no better a position than the average joe. you are assuming that everyone in the police department is corrupt.
Having a murderous cop doesn't help the department, it's less about corruption and more about covering their ass. If they don't HAVE to admit one of theirs unjustifiably murdered someone, they wont.
They look at it like you described not snitching on your friends. They just happen to have the ability to influence the outcome significantly more than an average Joe. The department has nothing to lose by proving Joe is a murderer but they have plenty to lose if they admit one of their own is a murderer.
|
On April 09 2015 07:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 06:51 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 06:45 wei2coolman wrote:On April 09 2015 06:42 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 06:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 06:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:30 wei2coolman wrote:On April 09 2015 06:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:23 wei2coolman wrote:
I don't know what you want exactly? Isn't the incident that happened exactly what's supposed to happen when shit like this goes down? It got investigated and the police officer was charged? ugh... It's only happening because it was caught on film and the officer didn't steal the camera... No video, and this guy stays on desk duty (which is where they put him after the incident) until it blows over and he's back on the streets. Well duh, DA ain't gunna charge someone without evidence. You're essentially saying "they only charged because there's evidence!". Which by the way, is exactly how the system is supposed to work. There is the problem... Without the independent video (pure luck) there is 'no evidence' despite it being a clear and deliberate murder. A criminal justice system like that is clearly in desperate need of correction. please explain this justice system that convicts people without evidence. I don't think GH is advocating for a justice system that convicts people with no evidence to support that conviction. But he has a point. If this killing had played out exactly as it did, but with no passerby to record it on video, it would have been astonishingly easy for this cop, his partner, and their department to cover it up as self defense. We know that there would be additional evidence indicating it was not, but when the police department is only accountable to themselves, can they be trusted to present those facts without any deception or modification? In this case, the video is great because it is evidence that can secure a conviction. If the video didn't exist, it wouldn't make this less of a murder it would just make it harder to prove in court. That's not a fault in the courts, it's a (significant) fault in our police system. The mayor's response, to order more body cameras for their police officers, is the right one. Until you can address the underlying racial bias that may be provoking these killings, making every police officer painfully aware that they are being recorded may be the best way to prevent his from happening in the short-term. Same with most crime... if there isn't evidence, you can't convict... the problem here, is if GH has just made the reasonable post of "this is why there needs to be body camera's in law enforcement", there would just be a couple of posts agreeing with body cameras. But, he rather stir the pot by claiming some wild conspiracy. But you have to admit that it is much easier for police officers to get rid of incriminating evidence than it is for random joe who shot his ex-wife to do the same. They are in charge of collecting evidence after all, and are in control of the crime scene while it is still fresh and no one else has seen it. There is power and responsibility associated with that, and without external accountability that power will be abused by bad cops. There is a difference between evidence not existing and evidence being hidden or destroyed. GH's contention was that if the video hadn't come to light, evidence that could have been used to gain a conviction in court would have been altered with none the wiser. And given that the cop tried to plant a taser on this man's corpse and lied to his department and the public about what happened, I'm inclined to believe that. I do think claiming conspiracy on this story is a little premature. The department acted foolishly by relying on this officer's word, but it doesn't necessarily mean they knew all the facts and decided to spin it anyways. The partner should also be charged with a crime for his involvement, but I do not think you can drag the whole department into it (yet). the police officer involved in the shooting wouldnt be the one booking the evidence; he is in no better a position than the average joe. you are assuming that everyone in the police department is corrupt. Having a murderous cop doesn't help the department, it's less about corruption and more about covering their ass. If they don't HAVE to admit one of theirs unjustifiably murdered someone, they wont.
what happened to innocent until proven guilty? or is that thrown out the window when it involves a black man being the victim?
it's the same anywhere else, you don't place blame without evidence.
|
On April 09 2015 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 06:51 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 06:45 wei2coolman wrote:On April 09 2015 06:42 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 06:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 06:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:30 wei2coolman wrote:On April 09 2015 06:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:23 wei2coolman wrote:
I don't know what you want exactly? Isn't the incident that happened exactly what's supposed to happen when shit like this goes down? It got investigated and the police officer was charged? ugh... It's only happening because it was caught on film and the officer didn't steal the camera... No video, and this guy stays on desk duty (which is where they put him after the incident) until it blows over and he's back on the streets. Well duh, DA ain't gunna charge someone without evidence. You're essentially saying "they only charged because there's evidence!". Which by the way, is exactly how the system is supposed to work. There is the problem... Without the independent video (pure luck) there is 'no evidence' despite it being a clear and deliberate murder. A criminal justice system like that is clearly in desperate need of correction. please explain this justice system that convicts people without evidence. I don't think GH is advocating for a justice system that convicts people with no evidence to support that conviction. But he has a point. If this killing had played out exactly as it did, but with no passerby to record it on video, it would have been astonishingly easy for this cop, his partner, and their department to cover it up as self defense. We know that there would be additional evidence indicating it was not, but when the police department is only accountable to themselves, can they be trusted to present those facts without any deception or modification? In this case, the video is great because it is evidence that can secure a conviction. If the video didn't exist, it wouldn't make this less of a murder it would just make it harder to prove in court. That's not a fault in the courts, it's a (significant) fault in our police system. The mayor's response, to order more body cameras for their police officers, is the right one. Until you can address the underlying racial bias that may be provoking these killings, making every police officer painfully aware that they are being recorded may be the best way to prevent his from happening in the short-term. Same with most crime... if there isn't evidence, you can't convict... the problem here, is if GH has just made the reasonable post of "this is why there needs to be body camera's in law enforcement", there would just be a couple of posts agreeing with body cameras. But, he rather stir the pot by claiming some wild conspiracy. But you have to admit that it is much easier for police officers to get rid of incriminating evidence than it is for random joe who shot his ex-wife to do the same. They are in charge of collecting evidence after all, and are in control of the crime scene while it is still fresh and no one else has seen it. There is power and responsibility associated with that, and without external accountability that power will be abused by bad cops. There is a difference between evidence not existing and evidence being hidden or destroyed. GH's contention was that if the video hadn't come to light, evidence that could have been used to gain a conviction in court would have been altered with none the wiser. And given that the cop tried to plant a taser on this man's corpse and lied to his department and the public about what happened, I'm inclined to believe that. I do think claiming conspiracy on this story is a little premature. The department acted foolishly by relying on this officer's word, but it doesn't necessarily mean they knew all the facts and decided to spin it anyways. The partner should also be charged with a crime for his involvement, but I do not think you can drag the whole department into it (yet). the police officer involved in the shooting wouldnt be the one booking the evidence; he is in no better a position than the average joe. you are assuming that everyone in the police department is corrupt.
Isn't there a period of time that exists between when the evidence is created (the shooting) and the evidence is booked? A period of time during which a bad cop can do bad things?
I'm not assuming everyone in the police department is corrupt, and even said as much in that I don't think this is a department-wide conspiracy, just bad police work. But why give the departments which are ACTUALLY corrupt any opportunity to cover up things like this? Everyone knows that checks and balances are a good thing, and that people in positions of power should be accountable to people or groups other than themselves and outside of their sphere of influence.
|
On April 09 2015 07:02 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 06:51 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 06:45 wei2coolman wrote:On April 09 2015 06:42 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 06:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 06:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:30 wei2coolman wrote:On April 09 2015 06:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:23 wei2coolman wrote:
I don't know what you want exactly? Isn't the incident that happened exactly what's supposed to happen when shit like this goes down? It got investigated and the police officer was charged? ugh... It's only happening because it was caught on film and the officer didn't steal the camera... No video, and this guy stays on desk duty (which is where they put him after the incident) until it blows over and he's back on the streets. Well duh, DA ain't gunna charge someone without evidence. You're essentially saying "they only charged because there's evidence!". Which by the way, is exactly how the system is supposed to work. There is the problem... Without the independent video (pure luck) there is 'no evidence' despite it being a clear and deliberate murder. A criminal justice system like that is clearly in desperate need of correction. please explain this justice system that convicts people without evidence. I don't think GH is advocating for a justice system that convicts people with no evidence to support that conviction. But he has a point. If this killing had played out exactly as it did, but with no passerby to record it on video, it would have been astonishingly easy for this cop, his partner, and their department to cover it up as self defense. We know that there would be additional evidence indicating it was not, but when the police department is only accountable to themselves, can they be trusted to present those facts without any deception or modification? In this case, the video is great because it is evidence that can secure a conviction. If the video didn't exist, it wouldn't make this less of a murder it would just make it harder to prove in court. That's not a fault in the courts, it's a (significant) fault in our police system. The mayor's response, to order more body cameras for their police officers, is the right one. Until you can address the underlying racial bias that may be provoking these killings, making every police officer painfully aware that they are being recorded may be the best way to prevent his from happening in the short-term. Same with most crime... if there isn't evidence, you can't convict... the problem here, is if GH has just made the reasonable post of "this is why there needs to be body camera's in law enforcement", there would just be a couple of posts agreeing with body cameras. But, he rather stir the pot by claiming some wild conspiracy. But you have to admit that it is much easier for police officers to get rid of incriminating evidence than it is for random joe who shot his ex-wife to do the same. They are in charge of collecting evidence after all, and are in control of the crime scene while it is still fresh and no one else has seen it. There is power and responsibility associated with that, and without external accountability that power will be abused by bad cops. There is a difference between evidence not existing and evidence being hidden or destroyed. GH's contention was that if the video hadn't come to light, evidence that could have been used to gain a conviction in court would have been altered with none the wiser. And given that the cop tried to plant a taser on this man's corpse and lied to his department and the public about what happened, I'm inclined to believe that. I do think claiming conspiracy on this story is a little premature. The department acted foolishly by relying on this officer's word, but it doesn't necessarily mean they knew all the facts and decided to spin it anyways. The partner should also be charged with a crime for his involvement, but I do not think you can drag the whole department into it (yet). the police officer involved in the shooting wouldnt be the one booking the evidence; he is in no better a position than the average joe. you are assuming that everyone in the police department is corrupt. Isn't there a period of time that exists between when the evidence is created (the shooting) and the evidence is booked? A period of time during which a bad cop can do bad things?I'm not assuming everyone in the police department is corrupt, and even said as much in that I don't think this is a department-wide conspiracy, just bad police work. But why give the departments which are ACTUALLY corrupt any opportunity to cover up things like this? Everyone knows that checks and balances are a good thing, and that people in positions of power should be accountable to people or groups other than themselves and outside of their sphere of influence.
you mean the same period of time where a suspect can hide/destroy evidence?
|
On April 09 2015 07:02 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 06:51 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 06:45 wei2coolman wrote:On April 09 2015 06:42 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 06:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 06:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:30 wei2coolman wrote:On April 09 2015 06:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:23 wei2coolman wrote:
I don't know what you want exactly? Isn't the incident that happened exactly what's supposed to happen when shit like this goes down? It got investigated and the police officer was charged? ugh... It's only happening because it was caught on film and the officer didn't steal the camera... No video, and this guy stays on desk duty (which is where they put him after the incident) until it blows over and he's back on the streets. Well duh, DA ain't gunna charge someone without evidence. You're essentially saying "they only charged because there's evidence!". Which by the way, is exactly how the system is supposed to work. There is the problem... Without the independent video (pure luck) there is 'no evidence' despite it being a clear and deliberate murder. A criminal justice system like that is clearly in desperate need of correction. please explain this justice system that convicts people without evidence. I don't think GH is advocating for a justice system that convicts people with no evidence to support that conviction. But he has a point. If this killing had played out exactly as it did, but with no passerby to record it on video, it would have been astonishingly easy for this cop, his partner, and their department to cover it up as self defense. We know that there would be additional evidence indicating it was not, but when the police department is only accountable to themselves, can they be trusted to present those facts without any deception or modification? In this case, the video is great because it is evidence that can secure a conviction. If the video didn't exist, it wouldn't make this less of a murder it would just make it harder to prove in court. That's not a fault in the courts, it's a (significant) fault in our police system. The mayor's response, to order more body cameras for their police officers, is the right one. Until you can address the underlying racial bias that may be provoking these killings, making every police officer painfully aware that they are being recorded may be the best way to prevent his from happening in the short-term. Same with most crime... if there isn't evidence, you can't convict... the problem here, is if GH has just made the reasonable post of "this is why there needs to be body camera's in law enforcement", there would just be a couple of posts agreeing with body cameras. But, he rather stir the pot by claiming some wild conspiracy. But you have to admit that it is much easier for police officers to get rid of incriminating evidence than it is for random joe who shot his ex-wife to do the same. They are in charge of collecting evidence after all, and are in control of the crime scene while it is still fresh and no one else has seen it. There is power and responsibility associated with that, and without external accountability that power will be abused by bad cops. There is a difference between evidence not existing and evidence being hidden or destroyed. GH's contention was that if the video hadn't come to light, evidence that could have been used to gain a conviction in court would have been altered with none the wiser. And given that the cop tried to plant a taser on this man's corpse and lied to his department and the public about what happened, I'm inclined to believe that. I do think claiming conspiracy on this story is a little premature. The department acted foolishly by relying on this officer's word, but it doesn't necessarily mean they knew all the facts and decided to spin it anyways. The partner should also be charged with a crime for his involvement, but I do not think you can drag the whole department into it (yet). the police officer involved in the shooting wouldnt be the one booking the evidence; he is in no better a position than the average joe. you are assuming that everyone in the police department is corrupt. Isn't there a period of time that exists between when the evidence is created (the shooting) and the evidence is booked? A period of time during which a bad cop can do bad things? I'm not assuming everyone in the police department is corrupt, and even said as much in that I don't think this is a department-wide conspiracy, just bad police work. But why give the departments which are ACTUALLY corrupt any opportunity to cover up things like this? Everyone knows that checks and balances are a good thing, and that people in positions of power should be accountable to people or groups other than themselves and outside of their sphere of influence.
there is a period of time, which both the bad cop and the bad average joe would be able to manipulate the crime scene before other officers get to the crime scene--most likely there is more time for the average joe since an officer will likely call the shooting in to the dispatcher. i don't get your distinction between cops and regular people with respect to being able to clean up a murder scene.
|
On April 09 2015 07:01 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 07:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 06:51 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 06:45 wei2coolman wrote:On April 09 2015 06:42 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 06:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 06:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:30 wei2coolman wrote:On April 09 2015 06:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
ugh... It's only happening because it was caught on film and the officer didn't steal the camera... No video, and this guy stays on desk duty (which is where they put him after the incident) until it blows over and he's back on the streets. Well duh, DA ain't gunna charge someone without evidence. You're essentially saying "they only charged because there's evidence!". Which by the way, is exactly how the system is supposed to work. There is the problem... Without the independent video (pure luck) there is 'no evidence' despite it being a clear and deliberate murder. A criminal justice system like that is clearly in desperate need of correction. please explain this justice system that convicts people without evidence. I don't think GH is advocating for a justice system that convicts people with no evidence to support that conviction. But he has a point. If this killing had played out exactly as it did, but with no passerby to record it on video, it would have been astonishingly easy for this cop, his partner, and their department to cover it up as self defense. We know that there would be additional evidence indicating it was not, but when the police department is only accountable to themselves, can they be trusted to present those facts without any deception or modification? In this case, the video is great because it is evidence that can secure a conviction. If the video didn't exist, it wouldn't make this less of a murder it would just make it harder to prove in court. That's not a fault in the courts, it's a (significant) fault in our police system. The mayor's response, to order more body cameras for their police officers, is the right one. Until you can address the underlying racial bias that may be provoking these killings, making every police officer painfully aware that they are being recorded may be the best way to prevent his from happening in the short-term. Same with most crime... if there isn't evidence, you can't convict... the problem here, is if GH has just made the reasonable post of "this is why there needs to be body camera's in law enforcement", there would just be a couple of posts agreeing with body cameras. But, he rather stir the pot by claiming some wild conspiracy. But you have to admit that it is much easier for police officers to get rid of incriminating evidence than it is for random joe who shot his ex-wife to do the same. They are in charge of collecting evidence after all, and are in control of the crime scene while it is still fresh and no one else has seen it. There is power and responsibility associated with that, and without external accountability that power will be abused by bad cops. There is a difference between evidence not existing and evidence being hidden or destroyed. GH's contention was that if the video hadn't come to light, evidence that could have been used to gain a conviction in court would have been altered with none the wiser. And given that the cop tried to plant a taser on this man's corpse and lied to his department and the public about what happened, I'm inclined to believe that. I do think claiming conspiracy on this story is a little premature. The department acted foolishly by relying on this officer's word, but it doesn't necessarily mean they knew all the facts and decided to spin it anyways. The partner should also be charged with a crime for his involvement, but I do not think you can drag the whole department into it (yet). the police officer involved in the shooting wouldnt be the one booking the evidence; he is in no better a position than the average joe. you are assuming that everyone in the police department is corrupt. Having a murderous cop doesn't help the department, it's less about corruption and more about covering their ass. If they don't HAVE to admit one of theirs unjustifiably murdered someone, they wont. what happened to innocent until proven guilty? or is that thrown out the window when it involves a black man being the victim? it's the same anywhere else, you don't place blame without evidence.
There was evidence... The victim was shot in the back, the casings were far away from the body, an officer witnessed the cop planting the taser, etc.. All that wasn't enough for even an arrest...After all of that he still had a job at the department.
|
On April 09 2015 07:01 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 07:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 06:51 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 06:45 wei2coolman wrote:On April 09 2015 06:42 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 06:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 06:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:30 wei2coolman wrote:On April 09 2015 06:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
ugh... It's only happening because it was caught on film and the officer didn't steal the camera... No video, and this guy stays on desk duty (which is where they put him after the incident) until it blows over and he's back on the streets. Well duh, DA ain't gunna charge someone without evidence. You're essentially saying "they only charged because there's evidence!". Which by the way, is exactly how the system is supposed to work. There is the problem... Without the independent video (pure luck) there is 'no evidence' despite it being a clear and deliberate murder. A criminal justice system like that is clearly in desperate need of correction. please explain this justice system that convicts people without evidence. I don't think GH is advocating for a justice system that convicts people with no evidence to support that conviction. But he has a point. If this killing had played out exactly as it did, but with no passerby to record it on video, it would have been astonishingly easy for this cop, his partner, and their department to cover it up as self defense. We know that there would be additional evidence indicating it was not, but when the police department is only accountable to themselves, can they be trusted to present those facts without any deception or modification? In this case, the video is great because it is evidence that can secure a conviction. If the video didn't exist, it wouldn't make this less of a murder it would just make it harder to prove in court. That's not a fault in the courts, it's a (significant) fault in our police system. The mayor's response, to order more body cameras for their police officers, is the right one. Until you can address the underlying racial bias that may be provoking these killings, making every police officer painfully aware that they are being recorded may be the best way to prevent his from happening in the short-term. Same with most crime... if there isn't evidence, you can't convict... the problem here, is if GH has just made the reasonable post of "this is why there needs to be body camera's in law enforcement", there would just be a couple of posts agreeing with body cameras. But, he rather stir the pot by claiming some wild conspiracy. But you have to admit that it is much easier for police officers to get rid of incriminating evidence than it is for random joe who shot his ex-wife to do the same. They are in charge of collecting evidence after all, and are in control of the crime scene while it is still fresh and no one else has seen it. There is power and responsibility associated with that, and without external accountability that power will be abused by bad cops. There is a difference between evidence not existing and evidence being hidden or destroyed. GH's contention was that if the video hadn't come to light, evidence that could have been used to gain a conviction in court would have been altered with none the wiser. And given that the cop tried to plant a taser on this man's corpse and lied to his department and the public about what happened, I'm inclined to believe that. I do think claiming conspiracy on this story is a little premature. The department acted foolishly by relying on this officer's word, but it doesn't necessarily mean they knew all the facts and decided to spin it anyways. The partner should also be charged with a crime for his involvement, but I do not think you can drag the whole department into it (yet). the police officer involved in the shooting wouldnt be the one booking the evidence; he is in no better a position than the average joe. you are assuming that everyone in the police department is corrupt. Having a murderous cop doesn't help the department, it's less about corruption and more about covering their ass. If they don't HAVE to admit one of theirs unjustifiably murdered someone, they wont. what happened to innocent until proven guilty? or is that thrown out the window when it involves a black man being the victim? it's the same anywhere else, you don't place blame without evidence.
Innocent until proven guilty applies to the courts. In an ideal world, this man will not be convicted of anything until the evidence, including this video, is presented in court to a jury of his peers. That's the limit of innocent until proven guilty. His partner, the police department, and the general public are more than within their rights to burn his ass if they smell anything funny about his story or the situation, and it reeks.
And GH is right, there is a lot of incentive for a police department to look the other way when this happens. You have to hope that someone's conscience prevents them from doing that, but considering the opportunity to tamper with evidence, the ease of proving self defense, and the national shit storm that falls on a police department and its city when something like this happens, the incentives are numerous.
|
Indictments in the federal investigation of the George Washington Bridge closures appear to be coming as early as next week, The New York Times reported on Wednesday.
The scandal has ensnared potential presidential contender and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) along with members of his administration, but the Times report stopped short of saying whether the criminal case was expected to reach the governor:
People close to the case say prosecutors are likely to bring charges based on a rarely used provision of a fraud statute, under which they would argue that Mr. Christie’s associates used the bridge, or the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which runs it, for a purpose other than its intended one. In the case of the bridge, the closings were apparently meant to punish Mayor Mark Sokolich of Fort Lee, a Democrat, after he declined to endorse the governor’s re-election bid in 2013.
The Times noted that since the scandal broke, Christie has pushed back his presidential ambitions further and further while waiting for U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman to make his move.
Source
|
On April 09 2015 07:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 06:51 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 06:45 wei2coolman wrote:On April 09 2015 06:42 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 06:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 06:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:30 wei2coolman wrote:On April 09 2015 06:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:23 wei2coolman wrote:
I don't know what you want exactly? Isn't the incident that happened exactly what's supposed to happen when shit like this goes down? It got investigated and the police officer was charged? ugh... It's only happening because it was caught on film and the officer didn't steal the camera... No video, and this guy stays on desk duty (which is where they put him after the incident) until it blows over and he's back on the streets. Well duh, DA ain't gunna charge someone without evidence. You're essentially saying "they only charged because there's evidence!". Which by the way, is exactly how the system is supposed to work. There is the problem... Without the independent video (pure luck) there is 'no evidence' despite it being a clear and deliberate murder. A criminal justice system like that is clearly in desperate need of correction. please explain this justice system that convicts people without evidence. I don't think GH is advocating for a justice system that convicts people with no evidence to support that conviction. But he has a point. If this killing had played out exactly as it did, but with no passerby to record it on video, it would have been astonishingly easy for this cop, his partner, and their department to cover it up as self defense. We know that there would be additional evidence indicating it was not, but when the police department is only accountable to themselves, can they be trusted to present those facts without any deception or modification? In this case, the video is great because it is evidence that can secure a conviction. If the video didn't exist, it wouldn't make this less of a murder it would just make it harder to prove in court. That's not a fault in the courts, it's a (significant) fault in our police system. The mayor's response, to order more body cameras for their police officers, is the right one. Until you can address the underlying racial bias that may be provoking these killings, making every police officer painfully aware that they are being recorded may be the best way to prevent his from happening in the short-term. Same with most crime... if there isn't evidence, you can't convict... the problem here, is if GH has just made the reasonable post of "this is why there needs to be body camera's in law enforcement", there would just be a couple of posts agreeing with body cameras. But, he rather stir the pot by claiming some wild conspiracy. But you have to admit that it is much easier for police officers to get rid of incriminating evidence than it is for random joe who shot his ex-wife to do the same. They are in charge of collecting evidence after all, and are in control of the crime scene while it is still fresh and no one else has seen it. There is power and responsibility associated with that, and without external accountability that power will be abused by bad cops. There is a difference between evidence not existing and evidence being hidden or destroyed. GH's contention was that if the video hadn't come to light, evidence that could have been used to gain a conviction in court would have been altered with none the wiser. And given that the cop tried to plant a taser on this man's corpse and lied to his department and the public about what happened, I'm inclined to believe that. I do think claiming conspiracy on this story is a little premature. The department acted foolishly by relying on this officer's word, but it doesn't necessarily mean they knew all the facts and decided to spin it anyways. The partner should also be charged with a crime for his involvement, but I do not think you can drag the whole department into it (yet). the police officer involved in the shooting wouldnt be the one booking the evidence; he is in no better a position than the average joe. you are assuming that everyone in the police department is corrupt. Having a murderous cop doesn't help the department, it's less about corruption and more about covering their ass. If they don't HAVE to admit one of theirs unjustifiably murdered someone, they wont. They look at it like you described not snitching on your friends. They just happen to have the ability to influence the outcome significantly more than an average Joe. The department has nothing to lose by proving Joe is a murderer but they have plenty to lose if they admit one of their own is a murderer.
if you start with the premise that police departments are corrupt and cover up murders, i can see why you think this, but i do not start from such a premise and thus find your statement unconvincing at best.
|
On April 09 2015 07:07 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 07:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 06:51 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 06:45 wei2coolman wrote:On April 09 2015 06:42 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 06:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 06:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:30 wei2coolman wrote:On April 09 2015 06:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
ugh... It's only happening because it was caught on film and the officer didn't steal the camera... No video, and this guy stays on desk duty (which is where they put him after the incident) until it blows over and he's back on the streets. Well duh, DA ain't gunna charge someone without evidence. You're essentially saying "they only charged because there's evidence!". Which by the way, is exactly how the system is supposed to work. There is the problem... Without the independent video (pure luck) there is 'no evidence' despite it being a clear and deliberate murder. A criminal justice system like that is clearly in desperate need of correction. please explain this justice system that convicts people without evidence. I don't think GH is advocating for a justice system that convicts people with no evidence to support that conviction. But he has a point. If this killing had played out exactly as it did, but with no passerby to record it on video, it would have been astonishingly easy for this cop, his partner, and their department to cover it up as self defense. We know that there would be additional evidence indicating it was not, but when the police department is only accountable to themselves, can they be trusted to present those facts without any deception or modification? In this case, the video is great because it is evidence that can secure a conviction. If the video didn't exist, it wouldn't make this less of a murder it would just make it harder to prove in court. That's not a fault in the courts, it's a (significant) fault in our police system. The mayor's response, to order more body cameras for their police officers, is the right one. Until you can address the underlying racial bias that may be provoking these killings, making every police officer painfully aware that they are being recorded may be the best way to prevent his from happening in the short-term. Same with most crime... if there isn't evidence, you can't convict... the problem here, is if GH has just made the reasonable post of "this is why there needs to be body camera's in law enforcement", there would just be a couple of posts agreeing with body cameras. But, he rather stir the pot by claiming some wild conspiracy. But you have to admit that it is much easier for police officers to get rid of incriminating evidence than it is for random joe who shot his ex-wife to do the same. They are in charge of collecting evidence after all, and are in control of the crime scene while it is still fresh and no one else has seen it. There is power and responsibility associated with that, and without external accountability that power will be abused by bad cops. There is a difference between evidence not existing and evidence being hidden or destroyed. GH's contention was that if the video hadn't come to light, evidence that could have been used to gain a conviction in court would have been altered with none the wiser. And given that the cop tried to plant a taser on this man's corpse and lied to his department and the public about what happened, I'm inclined to believe that. I do think claiming conspiracy on this story is a little premature. The department acted foolishly by relying on this officer's word, but it doesn't necessarily mean they knew all the facts and decided to spin it anyways. The partner should also be charged with a crime for his involvement, but I do not think you can drag the whole department into it (yet). the police officer involved in the shooting wouldnt be the one booking the evidence; he is in no better a position than the average joe. you are assuming that everyone in the police department is corrupt. Having a murderous cop doesn't help the department, it's less about corruption and more about covering their ass. If they don't HAVE to admit one of theirs unjustifiably murdered someone, they wont. They look at it like you described not snitching on your friends. They just happen to have the ability to influence the outcome significantly more than an average Joe. The department has nothing to lose by proving Joe is a murderer but they have plenty to lose if they admit one of their own is a murderer. if you start with the premise that police departments are corrupt and cover up murders, i can see why you think this, but i do not start from such a premise and thus find your statement unconvincing at best.
Well not every department every time, but even you wouldn't claim that police departments are free from the same corruption we find everywhere else? Or that them being corrupt gives them advantages average corrupt people can't use?
|
On April 09 2015 07:07 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 07:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 06:51 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 06:45 wei2coolman wrote:On April 09 2015 06:42 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 06:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 06:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:30 wei2coolman wrote:On April 09 2015 06:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
ugh... It's only happening because it was caught on film and the officer didn't steal the camera... No video, and this guy stays on desk duty (which is where they put him after the incident) until it blows over and he's back on the streets. Well duh, DA ain't gunna charge someone without evidence. You're essentially saying "they only charged because there's evidence!". Which by the way, is exactly how the system is supposed to work. There is the problem... Without the independent video (pure luck) there is 'no evidence' despite it being a clear and deliberate murder. A criminal justice system like that is clearly in desperate need of correction. please explain this justice system that convicts people without evidence. I don't think GH is advocating for a justice system that convicts people with no evidence to support that conviction. But he has a point. If this killing had played out exactly as it did, but with no passerby to record it on video, it would have been astonishingly easy for this cop, his partner, and their department to cover it up as self defense. We know that there would be additional evidence indicating it was not, but when the police department is only accountable to themselves, can they be trusted to present those facts without any deception or modification? In this case, the video is great because it is evidence that can secure a conviction. If the video didn't exist, it wouldn't make this less of a murder it would just make it harder to prove in court. That's not a fault in the courts, it's a (significant) fault in our police system. The mayor's response, to order more body cameras for their police officers, is the right one. Until you can address the underlying racial bias that may be provoking these killings, making every police officer painfully aware that they are being recorded may be the best way to prevent his from happening in the short-term. Same with most crime... if there isn't evidence, you can't convict... the problem here, is if GH has just made the reasonable post of "this is why there needs to be body camera's in law enforcement", there would just be a couple of posts agreeing with body cameras. But, he rather stir the pot by claiming some wild conspiracy. But you have to admit that it is much easier for police officers to get rid of incriminating evidence than it is for random joe who shot his ex-wife to do the same. They are in charge of collecting evidence after all, and are in control of the crime scene while it is still fresh and no one else has seen it. There is power and responsibility associated with that, and without external accountability that power will be abused by bad cops. There is a difference between evidence not existing and evidence being hidden or destroyed. GH's contention was that if the video hadn't come to light, evidence that could have been used to gain a conviction in court would have been altered with none the wiser. And given that the cop tried to plant a taser on this man's corpse and lied to his department and the public about what happened, I'm inclined to believe that. I do think claiming conspiracy on this story is a little premature. The department acted foolishly by relying on this officer's word, but it doesn't necessarily mean they knew all the facts and decided to spin it anyways. The partner should also be charged with a crime for his involvement, but I do not think you can drag the whole department into it (yet). the police officer involved in the shooting wouldnt be the one booking the evidence; he is in no better a position than the average joe. you are assuming that everyone in the police department is corrupt. Having a murderous cop doesn't help the department, it's less about corruption and more about covering their ass. If they don't HAVE to admit one of theirs unjustifiably murdered someone, they wont. They look at it like you described not snitching on your friends. They just happen to have the ability to influence the outcome significantly more than an average Joe. The department has nothing to lose by proving Joe is a murderer but they have plenty to lose if they admit one of their own is a murderer. if you start with the premise that police departments are corrupt and cover up murders, i can see why you think this, but i do not start from such a premise and thus find your statement unconvincing at best.
Surely you agree that at least some PDs are corrupt.protect their own. You don't just stop doing ethics investigations of any body because you think most of them are swell chaps. You get ethically clean groups by investigating them constantly.
|
On April 09 2015 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 07:07 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 07:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 06:51 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 06:45 wei2coolman wrote:On April 09 2015 06:42 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 06:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 06:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:30 wei2coolman wrote:
[quote]
Well duh, DA ain't gunna charge someone without evidence. You're essentially saying "they only charged because there's evidence!". Which by the way, is exactly how the system is supposed to work. There is the problem... Without the independent video (pure luck) there is 'no evidence' despite it being a clear and deliberate murder. A criminal justice system like that is clearly in desperate need of correction. please explain this justice system that convicts people without evidence. I don't think GH is advocating for a justice system that convicts people with no evidence to support that conviction. But he has a point. If this killing had played out exactly as it did, but with no passerby to record it on video, it would have been astonishingly easy for this cop, his partner, and their department to cover it up as self defense. We know that there would be additional evidence indicating it was not, but when the police department is only accountable to themselves, can they be trusted to present those facts without any deception or modification? In this case, the video is great because it is evidence that can secure a conviction. If the video didn't exist, it wouldn't make this less of a murder it would just make it harder to prove in court. That's not a fault in the courts, it's a (significant) fault in our police system. The mayor's response, to order more body cameras for their police officers, is the right one. Until you can address the underlying racial bias that may be provoking these killings, making every police officer painfully aware that they are being recorded may be the best way to prevent his from happening in the short-term. Same with most crime... if there isn't evidence, you can't convict... the problem here, is if GH has just made the reasonable post of "this is why there needs to be body camera's in law enforcement", there would just be a couple of posts agreeing with body cameras. But, he rather stir the pot by claiming some wild conspiracy. But you have to admit that it is much easier for police officers to get rid of incriminating evidence than it is for random joe who shot his ex-wife to do the same. They are in charge of collecting evidence after all, and are in control of the crime scene while it is still fresh and no one else has seen it. There is power and responsibility associated with that, and without external accountability that power will be abused by bad cops. There is a difference between evidence not existing and evidence being hidden or destroyed. GH's contention was that if the video hadn't come to light, evidence that could have been used to gain a conviction in court would have been altered with none the wiser. And given that the cop tried to plant a taser on this man's corpse and lied to his department and the public about what happened, I'm inclined to believe that. I do think claiming conspiracy on this story is a little premature. The department acted foolishly by relying on this officer's word, but it doesn't necessarily mean they knew all the facts and decided to spin it anyways. The partner should also be charged with a crime for his involvement, but I do not think you can drag the whole department into it (yet). the police officer involved in the shooting wouldnt be the one booking the evidence; he is in no better a position than the average joe. you are assuming that everyone in the police department is corrupt. Having a murderous cop doesn't help the department, it's less about corruption and more about covering their ass. If they don't HAVE to admit one of theirs unjustifiably murdered someone, they wont. They look at it like you described not snitching on your friends. They just happen to have the ability to influence the outcome significantly more than an average Joe. The department has nothing to lose by proving Joe is a murderer but they have plenty to lose if they admit one of their own is a murderer. if you start with the premise that police departments are corrupt and cover up murders, i can see why you think this, but i do not start from such a premise and thus find your statement unconvincing at best. Well not every department every time, but even you wouldn't claim that police departments are free from the same corruption we find everywhere else? Or that them being corrupt gives them advantages average corrupt people can't use?
not sure what you mean by corruption, but cops are just regular people and all regular people suffer from the same faults.
if the police department as a whole is corrupt and wants to cover up a crime then they have an advantage over the average joe since they are trusted with the evidence and can lose or destroy a lot of the evidence, but a lot of people in the police department would have to be involved in the cover up.
|
On April 09 2015 07:14 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 07:07 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 07:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 06:51 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 06:45 wei2coolman wrote:On April 09 2015 06:42 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 06:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 06:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:30 wei2coolman wrote:
[quote]
Well duh, DA ain't gunna charge someone without evidence. You're essentially saying "they only charged because there's evidence!". Which by the way, is exactly how the system is supposed to work. There is the problem... Without the independent video (pure luck) there is 'no evidence' despite it being a clear and deliberate murder. A criminal justice system like that is clearly in desperate need of correction. please explain this justice system that convicts people without evidence. I don't think GH is advocating for a justice system that convicts people with no evidence to support that conviction. But he has a point. If this killing had played out exactly as it did, but with no passerby to record it on video, it would have been astonishingly easy for this cop, his partner, and their department to cover it up as self defense. We know that there would be additional evidence indicating it was not, but when the police department is only accountable to themselves, can they be trusted to present those facts without any deception or modification? In this case, the video is great because it is evidence that can secure a conviction. If the video didn't exist, it wouldn't make this less of a murder it would just make it harder to prove in court. That's not a fault in the courts, it's a (significant) fault in our police system. The mayor's response, to order more body cameras for their police officers, is the right one. Until you can address the underlying racial bias that may be provoking these killings, making every police officer painfully aware that they are being recorded may be the best way to prevent his from happening in the short-term. Same with most crime... if there isn't evidence, you can't convict... the problem here, is if GH has just made the reasonable post of "this is why there needs to be body camera's in law enforcement", there would just be a couple of posts agreeing with body cameras. But, he rather stir the pot by claiming some wild conspiracy. But you have to admit that it is much easier for police officers to get rid of incriminating evidence than it is for random joe who shot his ex-wife to do the same. They are in charge of collecting evidence after all, and are in control of the crime scene while it is still fresh and no one else has seen it. There is power and responsibility associated with that, and without external accountability that power will be abused by bad cops. There is a difference between evidence not existing and evidence being hidden or destroyed. GH's contention was that if the video hadn't come to light, evidence that could have been used to gain a conviction in court would have been altered with none the wiser. And given that the cop tried to plant a taser on this man's corpse and lied to his department and the public about what happened, I'm inclined to believe that. I do think claiming conspiracy on this story is a little premature. The department acted foolishly by relying on this officer's word, but it doesn't necessarily mean they knew all the facts and decided to spin it anyways. The partner should also be charged with a crime for his involvement, but I do not think you can drag the whole department into it (yet). the police officer involved in the shooting wouldnt be the one booking the evidence; he is in no better a position than the average joe. you are assuming that everyone in the police department is corrupt. Having a murderous cop doesn't help the department, it's less about corruption and more about covering their ass. If they don't HAVE to admit one of theirs unjustifiably murdered someone, they wont. They look at it like you described not snitching on your friends. They just happen to have the ability to influence the outcome significantly more than an average Joe. The department has nothing to lose by proving Joe is a murderer but they have plenty to lose if they admit one of their own is a murderer. if you start with the premise that police departments are corrupt and cover up murders, i can see why you think this, but i do not start from such a premise and thus find your statement unconvincing at best. Surely you agree that at least some PDs are corrupt.protect their own. You don't just stop doing ethics investigations of any body because you think most of them are swell chaps. You get ethically clean groups by investigating them constantly.
i doubt you can find a single police department where the entire department is "corrupt" other than maybe small towns where the PD is like one or two people. i do not doubt that there are many police departments that have bad apples.
|
On April 09 2015 07:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 07:01 wei2coolman wrote:On April 09 2015 07:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 06:51 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 06:45 wei2coolman wrote:On April 09 2015 06:42 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 06:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 06:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:30 wei2coolman wrote:
[quote]
Well duh, DA ain't gunna charge someone without evidence. You're essentially saying "they only charged because there's evidence!". Which by the way, is exactly how the system is supposed to work. There is the problem... Without the independent video (pure luck) there is 'no evidence' despite it being a clear and deliberate murder. A criminal justice system like that is clearly in desperate need of correction. please explain this justice system that convicts people without evidence. I don't think GH is advocating for a justice system that convicts people with no evidence to support that conviction. But he has a point. If this killing had played out exactly as it did, but with no passerby to record it on video, it would have been astonishingly easy for this cop, his partner, and their department to cover it up as self defense. We know that there would be additional evidence indicating it was not, but when the police department is only accountable to themselves, can they be trusted to present those facts without any deception or modification? In this case, the video is great because it is evidence that can secure a conviction. If the video didn't exist, it wouldn't make this less of a murder it would just make it harder to prove in court. That's not a fault in the courts, it's a (significant) fault in our police system. The mayor's response, to order more body cameras for their police officers, is the right one. Until you can address the underlying racial bias that may be provoking these killings, making every police officer painfully aware that they are being recorded may be the best way to prevent his from happening in the short-term. Same with most crime... if there isn't evidence, you can't convict... the problem here, is if GH has just made the reasonable post of "this is why there needs to be body camera's in law enforcement", there would just be a couple of posts agreeing with body cameras. But, he rather stir the pot by claiming some wild conspiracy. But you have to admit that it is much easier for police officers to get rid of incriminating evidence than it is for random joe who shot his ex-wife to do the same. They are in charge of collecting evidence after all, and are in control of the crime scene while it is still fresh and no one else has seen it. There is power and responsibility associated with that, and without external accountability that power will be abused by bad cops. There is a difference between evidence not existing and evidence being hidden or destroyed. GH's contention was that if the video hadn't come to light, evidence that could have been used to gain a conviction in court would have been altered with none the wiser. And given that the cop tried to plant a taser on this man's corpse and lied to his department and the public about what happened, I'm inclined to believe that. I do think claiming conspiracy on this story is a little premature. The department acted foolishly by relying on this officer's word, but it doesn't necessarily mean they knew all the facts and decided to spin it anyways. The partner should also be charged with a crime for his involvement, but I do not think you can drag the whole department into it (yet). the police officer involved in the shooting wouldnt be the one booking the evidence; he is in no better a position than the average joe. you are assuming that everyone in the police department is corrupt. Having a murderous cop doesn't help the department, it's less about corruption and more about covering their ass. If they don't HAVE to admit one of theirs unjustifiably murdered someone, they wont. what happened to innocent until proven guilty? or is that thrown out the window when it involves a black man being the victim? it's the same anywhere else, you don't place blame without evidence. There was evidence... The victim was shot in the back, the casings were far away from the body, an officer witnessed the cop planting the taser, etc.. All that wasn't enough for even an arrest...After all of that he still had a job at the department.
Again, declaring conspiracy when there hasn't been any evidence of it. For all we know, the investigation was still on going.
|
On April 09 2015 07:15 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 07:07 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 07:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 06:51 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 06:45 wei2coolman wrote:On April 09 2015 06:42 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 06:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 06:35 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
There is the problem... Without the independent video (pure luck) there is 'no evidence' despite it being a clear and deliberate murder. A criminal justice system like that is clearly in desperate need of correction. please explain this justice system that convicts people without evidence. I don't think GH is advocating for a justice system that convicts people with no evidence to support that conviction. But he has a point. If this killing had played out exactly as it did, but with no passerby to record it on video, it would have been astonishingly easy for this cop, his partner, and their department to cover it up as self defense. We know that there would be additional evidence indicating it was not, but when the police department is only accountable to themselves, can they be trusted to present those facts without any deception or modification? In this case, the video is great because it is evidence that can secure a conviction. If the video didn't exist, it wouldn't make this less of a murder it would just make it harder to prove in court. That's not a fault in the courts, it's a (significant) fault in our police system. The mayor's response, to order more body cameras for their police officers, is the right one. Until you can address the underlying racial bias that may be provoking these killings, making every police officer painfully aware that they are being recorded may be the best way to prevent his from happening in the short-term. Same with most crime... if there isn't evidence, you can't convict... the problem here, is if GH has just made the reasonable post of "this is why there needs to be body camera's in law enforcement", there would just be a couple of posts agreeing with body cameras. But, he rather stir the pot by claiming some wild conspiracy. But you have to admit that it is much easier for police officers to get rid of incriminating evidence than it is for random joe who shot his ex-wife to do the same. They are in charge of collecting evidence after all, and are in control of the crime scene while it is still fresh and no one else has seen it. There is power and responsibility associated with that, and without external accountability that power will be abused by bad cops. There is a difference between evidence not existing and evidence being hidden or destroyed. GH's contention was that if the video hadn't come to light, evidence that could have been used to gain a conviction in court would have been altered with none the wiser. And given that the cop tried to plant a taser on this man's corpse and lied to his department and the public about what happened, I'm inclined to believe that. I do think claiming conspiracy on this story is a little premature. The department acted foolishly by relying on this officer's word, but it doesn't necessarily mean they knew all the facts and decided to spin it anyways. The partner should also be charged with a crime for his involvement, but I do not think you can drag the whole department into it (yet). the police officer involved in the shooting wouldnt be the one booking the evidence; he is in no better a position than the average joe. you are assuming that everyone in the police department is corrupt. Having a murderous cop doesn't help the department, it's less about corruption and more about covering their ass. If they don't HAVE to admit one of theirs unjustifiably murdered someone, they wont. They look at it like you described not snitching on your friends. They just happen to have the ability to influence the outcome significantly more than an average Joe. The department has nothing to lose by proving Joe is a murderer but they have plenty to lose if they admit one of their own is a murderer. if you start with the premise that police departments are corrupt and cover up murders, i can see why you think this, but i do not start from such a premise and thus find your statement unconvincing at best. Well not every department every time, but even you wouldn't claim that police departments are free from the same corruption we find everywhere else? Or that them being corrupt gives them advantages average corrupt people can't use? not sure what you mean by corruption, but cops are just regular people and all regular people suffer from the same faults. if the police department as a whole is corrupt and wants to cover up a crime then they have an advantage over the average joe since they are trusted with the evidence and can lose or destroy a lot of the evidence, but a lot of people in the police department would have to be involved in the cover up.
You at least recognize that's precisely what happened with the Brown convenience store video being released and then the chief lying about it right?
|
On April 09 2015 06:16 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 06:12 tshi wrote:
a politician should use this kind of thing as a platform for campaigning in america. 2016 / winter is coming. there's a lot of good publicity to be had if they can get success off the "shooting innocents" idea.
id be interested if a black politician could leverage the race card by doing this - they might be untouchable cuz no one will want to deny that there is ANY kind of racism which would be hyperbole, but there is definitely a problem. you mean the democrats?
yeah, these kinds of events are political gold mines for democrats who are not above playing the racecard to move forward their campaigns.
like, if another huge storm or something happens under obama's watch, he can handle it better than Katrina and that'll be another feather in their caps for blaming republicans on stuff.
what a time to be alive.
|
On April 09 2015 07:22 tshi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 06:16 wei2coolman wrote:On April 09 2015 06:12 tshi wrote:
a politician should use this kind of thing as a platform for campaigning in america. 2016 / winter is coming. there's a lot of good publicity to be had if they can get success off the "shooting innocents" idea.
id be interested if a black politician could leverage the race card by doing this - they might be untouchable cuz no one will want to deny that there is ANY kind of racism which would be hyperbole, but there is definitely a problem. you mean the democrats? yeah, these kinds of events are political gold mines for democrats who are not above playing the racecard to move forward their campaigns. like, if another huge storm or something happens under obama's watch, he can handle it better than Katrina and that'll be another feather in their caps for blaming republicans on stuff. what a time to be alive.
I don't think democrats even need to run on this kind of stuff tbh. It can alienate quite a bit of their supporters. They just need to run neutral, and just have the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot with their own comments.
|
On April 09 2015 07:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 07:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 07:07 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 07:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 06:51 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 06:45 wei2coolman wrote:On April 09 2015 06:42 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 06:36 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
please explain this justice system that convicts people without evidence. I don't think GH is advocating for a justice system that convicts people with no evidence to support that conviction. But he has a point. If this killing had played out exactly as it did, but with no passerby to record it on video, it would have been astonishingly easy for this cop, his partner, and their department to cover it up as self defense. We know that there would be additional evidence indicating it was not, but when the police department is only accountable to themselves, can they be trusted to present those facts without any deception or modification? In this case, the video is great because it is evidence that can secure a conviction. If the video didn't exist, it wouldn't make this less of a murder it would just make it harder to prove in court. That's not a fault in the courts, it's a (significant) fault in our police system. The mayor's response, to order more body cameras for their police officers, is the right one. Until you can address the underlying racial bias that may be provoking these killings, making every police officer painfully aware that they are being recorded may be the best way to prevent his from happening in the short-term. Same with most crime... if there isn't evidence, you can't convict... the problem here, is if GH has just made the reasonable post of "this is why there needs to be body camera's in law enforcement", there would just be a couple of posts agreeing with body cameras. But, he rather stir the pot by claiming some wild conspiracy. But you have to admit that it is much easier for police officers to get rid of incriminating evidence than it is for random joe who shot his ex-wife to do the same. They are in charge of collecting evidence after all, and are in control of the crime scene while it is still fresh and no one else has seen it. There is power and responsibility associated with that, and without external accountability that power will be abused by bad cops. There is a difference between evidence not existing and evidence being hidden or destroyed. GH's contention was that if the video hadn't come to light, evidence that could have been used to gain a conviction in court would have been altered with none the wiser. And given that the cop tried to plant a taser on this man's corpse and lied to his department and the public about what happened, I'm inclined to believe that. I do think claiming conspiracy on this story is a little premature. The department acted foolishly by relying on this officer's word, but it doesn't necessarily mean they knew all the facts and decided to spin it anyways. The partner should also be charged with a crime for his involvement, but I do not think you can drag the whole department into it (yet). the police officer involved in the shooting wouldnt be the one booking the evidence; he is in no better a position than the average joe. you are assuming that everyone in the police department is corrupt. Having a murderous cop doesn't help the department, it's less about corruption and more about covering their ass. If they don't HAVE to admit one of theirs unjustifiably murdered someone, they wont. They look at it like you described not snitching on your friends. They just happen to have the ability to influence the outcome significantly more than an average Joe. The department has nothing to lose by proving Joe is a murderer but they have plenty to lose if they admit one of their own is a murderer. if you start with the premise that police departments are corrupt and cover up murders, i can see why you think this, but i do not start from such a premise and thus find your statement unconvincing at best. Well not every department every time, but even you wouldn't claim that police departments are free from the same corruption we find everywhere else? Or that them being corrupt gives them advantages average corrupt people can't use? not sure what you mean by corruption, but cops are just regular people and all regular people suffer from the same faults. if the police department as a whole is corrupt and wants to cover up a crime then they have an advantage over the average joe since they are trusted with the evidence and can lose or destroy a lot of the evidence, but a lot of people in the police department would have to be involved in the cover up. You at least recognize that's precisely what happened with the Brown convenience store video being released and then the chief lying about it right?
i dont know what you are talking about. i assume this has something to do with ferguson since everything you say goes back to ferguson, but know very little about the investigation in that case.
|
On April 09 2015 07:31 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 07:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 07:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 07:07 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 07:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 06:51 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 06:45 wei2coolman wrote:On April 09 2015 06:42 ZasZ. wrote:
[quote]
I don't think GH is advocating for a justice system that convicts people with no evidence to support that conviction. But he has a point.
If this killing had played out exactly as it did, but with no passerby to record it on video, it would have been astonishingly easy for this cop, his partner, and their department to cover it up as self defense. We know that there would be additional evidence indicating it was not, but when the police department is only accountable to themselves, can they be trusted to present those facts without any deception or modification?
In this case, the video is great because it is evidence that can secure a conviction. If the video didn't exist, it wouldn't make this less of a murder it would just make it harder to prove in court. That's not a fault in the courts, it's a (significant) fault in our police system. The mayor's response, to order more body cameras for their police officers, is the right one. Until you can address the underlying racial bias that may be provoking these killings, making every police officer painfully aware that they are being recorded may be the best way to prevent his from happening in the short-term. Same with most crime... if there isn't evidence, you can't convict... the problem here, is if GH has just made the reasonable post of "this is why there needs to be body camera's in law enforcement", there would just be a couple of posts agreeing with body cameras. But, he rather stir the pot by claiming some wild conspiracy. But you have to admit that it is much easier for police officers to get rid of incriminating evidence than it is for random joe who shot his ex-wife to do the same. They are in charge of collecting evidence after all, and are in control of the crime scene while it is still fresh and no one else has seen it. There is power and responsibility associated with that, and without external accountability that power will be abused by bad cops. There is a difference between evidence not existing and evidence being hidden or destroyed. GH's contention was that if the video hadn't come to light, evidence that could have been used to gain a conviction in court would have been altered with none the wiser. And given that the cop tried to plant a taser on this man's corpse and lied to his department and the public about what happened, I'm inclined to believe that. I do think claiming conspiracy on this story is a little premature. The department acted foolishly by relying on this officer's word, but it doesn't necessarily mean they knew all the facts and decided to spin it anyways. The partner should also be charged with a crime for his involvement, but I do not think you can drag the whole department into it (yet). the police officer involved in the shooting wouldnt be the one booking the evidence; he is in no better a position than the average joe. you are assuming that everyone in the police department is corrupt. Having a murderous cop doesn't help the department, it's less about corruption and more about covering their ass. If they don't HAVE to admit one of theirs unjustifiably murdered someone, they wont. They look at it like you described not snitching on your friends. They just happen to have the ability to influence the outcome significantly more than an average Joe. The department has nothing to lose by proving Joe is a murderer but they have plenty to lose if they admit one of their own is a murderer. if you start with the premise that police departments are corrupt and cover up murders, i can see why you think this, but i do not start from such a premise and thus find your statement unconvincing at best. Well not every department every time, but even you wouldn't claim that police departments are free from the same corruption we find everywhere else? Or that them being corrupt gives them advantages average corrupt people can't use? not sure what you mean by corruption, but cops are just regular people and all regular people suffer from the same faults. if the police department as a whole is corrupt and wants to cover up a crime then they have an advantage over the average joe since they are trusted with the evidence and can lose or destroy a lot of the evidence, but a lot of people in the police department would have to be involved in the cover up. You at least recognize that's precisely what happened with the Brown convenience store video being released and then the chief lying about it right? i dont know what you are talking about. i assume this has something to do with ferguson since everything you say goes back to ferguson, but know very little about the investigation in that case.
Not surprised you don't know what I'm talking about at all... The police chief released the video of Brown in the convenience store, the immediate observation was that it was a corrupt department tainting public opinion. The chief lied to the national press claiming he released it because they were bombarding the department with Freedom of information requests. Reporters immediately noted none of them could find a single instance of anyone requesting the video or even knowing it existed before it's release. The federal investigation confirmed the immediate suspicions that the chief was blatantly lying to influence the narrative.
Similar to parroting a lying officers account by the PD as if it was a fact. A cursory review of the evidence makes it undeniably obvious that the account the officer was giving was at best woefully incomplete and had no business being presented by the department in their name.
|
On April 09 2015 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 07:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 07:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 07:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 07:07 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 07:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 06:51 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 06:45 wei2coolman wrote:
[quote]
Same with most crime...
if there isn't evidence, you can't convict...
the problem here, is if GH has just made the reasonable post of "this is why there needs to be body camera's in law enforcement", there would just be a couple of posts agreeing with body cameras. But, he rather stir the pot by claiming some wild conspiracy. But you have to admit that it is much easier for police officers to get rid of incriminating evidence than it is for random joe who shot his ex-wife to do the same. They are in charge of collecting evidence after all, and are in control of the crime scene while it is still fresh and no one else has seen it. There is power and responsibility associated with that, and without external accountability that power will be abused by bad cops. There is a difference between evidence not existing and evidence being hidden or destroyed. GH's contention was that if the video hadn't come to light, evidence that could have been used to gain a conviction in court would have been altered with none the wiser. And given that the cop tried to plant a taser on this man's corpse and lied to his department and the public about what happened, I'm inclined to believe that. I do think claiming conspiracy on this story is a little premature. The department acted foolishly by relying on this officer's word, but it doesn't necessarily mean they knew all the facts and decided to spin it anyways. The partner should also be charged with a crime for his involvement, but I do not think you can drag the whole department into it (yet). the police officer involved in the shooting wouldnt be the one booking the evidence; he is in no better a position than the average joe. you are assuming that everyone in the police department is corrupt. Having a murderous cop doesn't help the department, it's less about corruption and more about covering their ass. If they don't HAVE to admit one of theirs unjustifiably murdered someone, they wont. They look at it like you described not snitching on your friends. They just happen to have the ability to influence the outcome significantly more than an average Joe. The department has nothing to lose by proving Joe is a murderer but they have plenty to lose if they admit one of their own is a murderer. if you start with the premise that police departments are corrupt and cover up murders, i can see why you think this, but i do not start from such a premise and thus find your statement unconvincing at best. Well not every department every time, but even you wouldn't claim that police departments are free from the same corruption we find everywhere else? Or that them being corrupt gives them advantages average corrupt people can't use? not sure what you mean by corruption, but cops are just regular people and all regular people suffer from the same faults. if the police department as a whole is corrupt and wants to cover up a crime then they have an advantage over the average joe since they are trusted with the evidence and can lose or destroy a lot of the evidence, but a lot of people in the police department would have to be involved in the cover up. You at least recognize that's precisely what happened with the Brown convenience store video being released and then the chief lying about it right? i dont know what you are talking about. i assume this has something to do with ferguson since everything you say goes back to ferguson, but know very little about the investigation in that case. Not surprised you don't know what I'm talking about at all... The police chief released the video of Brown in the convenience store, the immediate observation was that it was a corrupt department tainting public opinion. The chief lied to the national press claiming he released it because they were bombarding the department with Freedom of information requests. Reporters immediately noted none of them could find a single instance of anyone requesting the video or even knowing it existed before it's release. The federal investigation confirmed the immediate suspicions that the chief was blatantly lying to influence the narrative.
okay. so what is your question? thats not losing or destroying evidence. that is the police chief trying to show that the victim was not a pleasant person to, as you say, sway public opinion.
also, havent we beaten the ferguson horse to a bloody pulp by now? i thought we were talking about the police department (hailed by the NAACP of doing a good job) that helped indict one of its members for murder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
