General Chat (Non-Music-Related)

My main worry about them pursuing a murder charge is this. It's much more difficult to convince a jury of premeditation and therefore a murder 1 conviction than it is to carry out a pretty much slam dunk case for M2 or manslaughter. They have to convince a jury, beyond a shadow of doubt, he acted with malice aforethought.

I'd love to see it happen, but I'm really not sure even a really good prosecutor could pull it off, even though the officer had time to make the decision. It only takes a few seconds.

One thing that's been brought up several times in interviews I've seen with police professionals, lawyers and judges, is the idea that police also have to consider the possibility of the suspect posing a general danger to public safety. I think this is out the window, there is no evidence so far that I've seen indicating this is the case.

And now since my last post I heard last night or this morning someone has finally decided to play the race card. I don't remember the details, I played a gig last night and I've been pretty much a zombie so far...I'm not exactly a spring chicken any more, setting up, playing then loading out takes its toll these days...so I'll have to check into that one a little more. But it looks like someone is trying to make it racial finally. I was really hoping that wouldn't happen, so far I've seen nothing to indicate it's true. And why aren't they screaming about dozens of blacks being killed by other blacks in places like Chicago and New York, black officers being among those killed, more white being killed by police than blacks?...

I still think this guy would be alive if he had simply cooperated with police, same as Michael Brown and Eric Garner. That doesn't excuse or defend the cop, he had absolutely no reason to fire. The only time a police officer might be justified in shooting a suspect that is running away is when that suspect is a clear threat to the general public. I don't think a deadbeat dad fits the bill...(If I'm correct that it was failure to pay child support that was the basis of the warrant he was running from.) I forgot to double check that...

I have little doubt this will result in a conviction, unless a defense team is able to convince a jury it was not premeditated, or worse yet end up with a hung jury and he walks...because they tried to pursue a difficult murder charge instead of a solid lesser case...Something else that hasn't been even mention that I know of, I really do hope they made sure it was a good, by the book arrest...if somebody forgot to read him his rights that would really suck...

Yet another example of the fine work that the NeoPolice are capable of "performing ...

http://www.infowars.com/raw-video-shows ... lay-dying/

Yes I think its murder. The cop shouldn't have shot at him as he was unarmed and was not causing a direct threat to the policeman. There are cases like these, where cops are found to be using there power in the wrong way.

But I think they need to do a better job of weeding out the cops who go on a power trip when they put on the uniform. It's a tough job.

true and true.

The police are not the police of Andy Taylor and Barney Fife days. They are now paramilitary outfits that often use unwarranted violence to gain their object. They view the public as their enemy, and of course in the larger cities this for good reason. But I think they need to do a better job of weeding out the cops who go on a power trip when they put on the uniform. It's a tough job.

For once I agree with you .

I'm worried about the tendency to bring out the military gear at every chance. In some cases it might be warranted, like after Ferguson turned into wide scale riots, burning businesses and looting. Standard police gear would put them at serious risk. The earlier riot gear used in the 60's like at the Kent State riots was good enough for the era, but now the thugs they deal with many times have weapons and sheer numbers that make the situation much more dangerous for police. Couple that with contemporary attitudes toward police and it's obvious they need better gear than 40 years ago.

That said, I do think they are too quick to use it.

As far as the few who are on a power trip or just bad cops, that's always been a problem, it's just being brought to the public's attention more these days, primarily by people like Sharpton who have nothing in mind but their own profit. I do agree the problem exists, but the fact is it's a small few, not the overwhelming majority the talking heads want you to believe.

There's also the increase in population, and the accompanying increase in police numbers, same as many things. When you have more of them you have more public attention. Numbers of street gangs have grown tremendously, the number of people on the crowds at most demonstrations are a lot higher then the number present 40 years ago. Larger crowds make things more difficult to deal with. That does not excuse over reacting.

Public relations is a problem too I think. With several incidents in recent years, the mistakes made by police in these incidents has greatly overshadowed public attention given to the good things cops do. The news agencies are concentrating more and more on the bad news and ignoring the good. That does not help the overall public impression of police departments in general.

This is a good example. In this case, the officer was definitely in the wrong, I have no doubt. But if you take a closer look at that specific local police department, I'm willing to bet you'll find plenty examples of officers doing the right thing and helping people. That is being ignored for the most part by the media.

I still think the prosecutors need to consider something less than a murder 1 charge, it seems it would be too easy to convince a jury he didn't have time to plan it, and lose the case. I'm positive he was in the wrong, and it wouldn't be hard to convince me, as a juror, he didn't have enough time to justify premeditation. The "heat of the moment" idea would carry a lot of weight...in a situation like that, adrenaline takes over and you don't think the way you normally would. You make spur of the moment decisions you would not make if you had a few seconds to think it over without the adrenaline going full tilt. That makes it a good chance a murder 1 case could lose. I'm no lawyer, but that's how I would see it if I were on the jury. Then again I've probably studied psychology and human nature a lot more than most people too...not to the level of a degree, but I'm not completely ignorant on the topic either.