Yes "neutralise" sounds so much better doesn't it? I'm surprised you didn't chuck in other garbage like 'collateral damage' for good measure too.
Sick.
Says the guy with the forum name "Bulletguy1". Gotta love the irony.
The fact that you assume the word "neutralise" is some kind of techno-babble does nothing to refute the fact that you're utterly wrong in your assumptions about how firearms are used and that they are, indeed, intended for the sole purpose of neutralising a potentially lethal threat.
Wrap your head around that and perhaps we'll make some progress.
I'm really not clear why we can discuss a killing in a foreign country, in which someone's been charged, but we can't discuss a disappearance in a foreign country, in which nobody has ever been charged. And there's never likely to be a charge,
I'm uncomfortable with this thread as although the US doesn't have laws covering pre-trial coverage; this is all in pretty bad taste as the officer has only been charged.
There is a long history of police killings being swept under the rug and covered up. They'll say to remain calm and give them months and months to investigate before deciding whether to do anything about it. But they don't need all that time for such a simple event, and may not even bother taking some of the most basic steps to collect evidence. They're stalling for more time until they think enough people have forgotten about it, at which point they'll announce that their internal investigation against their coworker has turned up no wrongdoing, and everything was just standard police work.
If not for the media coverage and public backlash there may very well never have been a real trial at all. Only because of the "trial by media" does this local government know that it can't get away with quietly acquitting this guy without their own heads rolling. Before the media published the witness video, the police were putting forward a very different official story, and they made no effort to track down witnesses to the event themselves.
There is a horrible track record of the police policing their own, and until that's been addressed somehow, there will be substantial outside pressure in these situations to try to keep them honest. Police patterns of closing ranks and absolving themselves of any responsibility have led to a great deal of mistrust, and it will take real reform to begin to earn it back.
There is a long history of police killings being swept under the rug and covered up. They'll say to remain calm and give them months and months to investigate before deciding whether to do anything about it. But they don't need all that time for such a simple event, and may not even bother taking some of the most basic steps to collect evidence. They're stalling for more time until they think enough people have forgotten about it, at which point they'll announce that their internal investigation against their coworker has turned up no wrongdoing, and everything was just standard police work.
If not for the media coverage and public backlash there may very well never have been a real trial at all. Only because of the "trial by media" does this local government know that it can't get away with quietly acquitting this guy without their own heads rolling. Before the media published the witness video, the police were putting forward a very different official story, and they made no effort to track down witnesses to the event themselves.
There is a horrible track record of the police policing their own, and until that's been addressed somehow, there will be substantial outside pressure in these situations to try to keep them honest. Police patterns of closing ranks and absolving themselves of any responsibility have led to a great deal of mistrust, and it will take real reform to begin to earn it back.
There is a long history of police killings being swept under the rug and covered up. They'll say to remain calm and give them months and months to investigate before deciding whether to do anything about it. But they don't need all that time for such a simple event, and may not even bother taking some of the most basic steps to collect evidence. They're stalling for more time until they think enough people have forgotten about it, at which point they'll announce that their internal investigation against their coworker has turned up no wrongdoing, and everything was just standard police work.
If not for the media coverage and public backlash there may very well never have been a real trial at all. Only because of the "trial by media" does this local government know that it can't get away with quietly acquitting this guy without their own heads rolling. Before the media published the witness video, the police were putting forward a very different official story, and they made no effort to track down witnesses to the event themselves.
There is a horrible track record of the police policing their own, and until that's been addressed somehow, there will be substantial outside pressure in these situations to try to keep them honest. Police patterns of closing ranks and absolving themselves of any responsibility have led to a great deal of mistrust, and it will take real reform to begin to earn it back.
The only problem is of course that the media isn't exactly a trustworthy way of providing the public with information.
If media did so in an unbiased manner without an agenda then all cases, police, public or whatever could make a fair evaluation of an event.
Hence why I'm so many cases parts of the public believe what they read and presume someones guilt without hearing all the facts.
Rape or any form of child sex offences are an example of that. If someone gets charged with that and its reported in the media more often than not the stigma of it has a knock on affect and regardless of the outcome many still make their own judgement calls on someone's guilt.
I fear for the U.S should this cop be found not guilty, because despite him facing the justice system people still won't be happy.
I fear for the U.S should this cop be found not guilty, because despite him facing the justice system people still won't be happy.
The guy he murdered on video never got a trial. We saw him do it. If he gets off it's only because of the sort of perversion of justice that normally happens when a cop commits murder.
The guy he murdered on video never got a trial. We saw him do it. If he gets off it's only because of the sort of perversion of justice that normally happens when a cop commits murder.
So why have a trial?
Why not just post the video up for everyone to see and tell everyone 'we didn't feel a trial was necessary and we have sentenced him to death'.
The guy he murdered on video never got a trial. We saw him do it. If he gets off it's only because of the sort of perversion of justice that normally happens when a cop commits murder.
You see, it's at this point that so many will say "we only saw part of what happened, and you need to see it all to put in context - the officer may have had good reason to fear for his life and was therefore possibly justified in shooting dead Mr Scott"
Not that I believe he was, I'm simply playing devil's advocate as I've seen it all before on here.
Why not just post the video up for everyone to see and tell everyone 'we didn't feel a trial was necessary and we have sentenced him to death'.
That's about what should happen during the trial. He gets a jury to go through the motions, but there isn't really much for them to talk about, is there? The cop decided he was judge, jury, and executioner and that guy needed to be put to death, and he didn't have video evidence that he was a murderer.
Why do you care so much more about the murderer's rights than the murder victim's rights?
You see, it's at this point that so many will say "we only saw part of what happened, and you need to see it all to put in context - the officer may have had good reason to fear for his life and was therefore possibly justified in shooting dead Mr Scott"
Not that I believe he was, I'm simply playing devil's advocate as I've seen it all before on here.
Not actually justifying anything, just saying I believe everyone has a right to a trial.
I recall a trial i witnessed once whereby 2 guys were caught on hidden CCTV taking money from the shop they worked. It was clear as day, they sat at the checkout at the end of the night, counted up the money, had a quick check to see if anyone was watching and then pocketed half the money. The CCTV was damning and it was hard to see how anyone would see beyond it. They gave a story, albeit it a rubbish one about how they would always bring the money back and in the end got found not guilty.
Now of course they haven't killed someone so I appreciate the stakes are lower here but if I had the CCTV and posted it on here I would Guarentee the vast majority would say they were guilty without question.
In this case was the jury bent? did they play the system? Who knows but regardless the decision was made and had to be agreed with.
My point is that the justice system is there For a reason and that officer will face the same process as any criminal does. If you condemn a person based upon one bit of information and already state that he must be found guilty if not the system is messed up then you have to question the entire legal system and apply the same rule to everyone, including yourself.
What that means is that we disband trials and witnesses and go solely on video evidence, nothing more. You get caught on CCTV doing anything then straight to jail for you no trial.
That's about what should happen during the trial. The cop decided he was judge, jury, and executioner and that guy needed to be put to death, and he didn't have video evidence that he was a murderer.
Why do you care so much more about the murderer's rights than the murder victim's rights?
I don't believe it or not. It would just be a messed up world if we convicted everyone based upon video evidence.
Nope what I want is for that cop to be held accountable for his actions by explaining it to a court and a court deciding what to do with him.
He will get that, and then, if they fail to hold him accountable for what we've all seen him do, there will be rioting and mass resignations of their public officials. As there should be.
He will get that, and then, if they fail to hold him accountable for what we've all seen him do, there will be rioting and mass resignations of their public officials. As there should be.
Yes because that's civilised adult behaviour. Let's act like a kid who hasn't got his own way and go smash things up mess up other people's lives because we don't agree with a decision made by 10 of our peers, NOT public officials but 10 members of the community.
He should be sentenced and should receive a punishment, I believe that, but not at the expense of a trial and all evidence heard.
But there will still be a trial - accompanied by video evidence.
Not possible for any cover ups to occur. The shooting is all there on film, and the officer can relate why he felt his life was endangered by a man fleeing from him, and tell the court what he dropped over his body.
Also, as anachrony said, Mr Scott didn't get a trial.
Yes because that's civilised adult behaviour. Let's act like a kid who hasn't got his own way and go smash things up mess up other people's lives because we don't agree with a decision made by 10 of our peers, NOT public officials but 10 members of the community.
A decision based solely on the evidence gathered by his friends in the police and presented to the jury by his friend in the district attorney's office. We've seen the same scenario play out countless times before. As far as our justice system is concerned, police are saints who have never done any wrong.
It's not solely up to the jury. If the police and prosecutor don't feel like doing their jobs because they want to protect one of their own, then the jury never sees a reasonable case and their hands are tied. There are more people involved than the jurors, and those other people have vested interests in police not being prosecuted. Just because jurors have delivered a non-guilty verdict does not mean that the system has functioned and dispensed justice.
And that's assuming it ever got to the jury, which normally it doesn't, and would not have done in this case if not for the media intervention. These cases are normally decided and done with long before any jurors are involved, by people who work closely with the very police officer they are meant to be investigating.
The justice system is not some perfect machine that will just keep running along dispensing perfect justice forever. It needs maintenance and monitoring to keep it functioning. Away from public scrutiny, corruption can and has festered. The only way to keep them honest and make sure they are doing their jobs are to make sure they understand that they won't have jobs if they don't do them.
Then why didn't his victim get one, and why don't you care?
That will be for the officer to answer to the court, and hoping justice is delivered correctly shouldn't be confused with not caring about the fate of the victim in all this.
Comments
Says the guy with the forum name "Bulletguy1". Gotta love the irony.
The fact that you assume the word "neutralise" is some kind of techno-babble does nothing to refute the fact that you're utterly wrong in your assumptions about how firearms are used and that they are, indeed, intended for the sole purpose of neutralising a potentially lethal threat.
Wrap your head around that and perhaps we'll make some progress.
UK never had any legally sanctioned system of racial segregation.
Pretty much my thoughts!
I know it's not okay, but that's why I asked blueblade.
There is a long history of police killings being swept under the rug and covered up. They'll say to remain calm and give them months and months to investigate before deciding whether to do anything about it. But they don't need all that time for such a simple event, and may not even bother taking some of the most basic steps to collect evidence. They're stalling for more time until they think enough people have forgotten about it, at which point they'll announce that their internal investigation against their coworker has turned up no wrongdoing, and everything was just standard police work.
If not for the media coverage and public backlash there may very well never have been a real trial at all. Only because of the "trial by media" does this local government know that it can't get away with quietly acquitting this guy without their own heads rolling. Before the media published the witness video, the police were putting forward a very different official story, and they made no effort to track down witnesses to the event themselves.
There is a horrible track record of the police policing their own, and until that's been addressed somehow, there will be substantial outside pressure in these situations to try to keep them honest. Police patterns of closing ranks and absolving themselves of any responsibility have led to a great deal of mistrust, and it will take real reform to begin to earn it back.
Excellent post.
The only problem is of course that the media isn't exactly a trustworthy way of providing the public with information.
If media did so in an unbiased manner without an agenda then all cases, police, public or whatever could make a fair evaluation of an event.
Hence why I'm so many cases parts of the public believe what they read and presume someones guilt without hearing all the facts.
Rape or any form of child sex offences are an example of that. If someone gets charged with that and its reported in the media more often than not the stigma of it has a knock on affect and regardless of the outcome many still make their own judgement calls on someone's guilt.
I fear for the U.S should this cop be found not guilty, because despite him facing the justice system people still won't be happy.
The guy he murdered on video never got a trial. We saw him do it. If he gets off it's only because of the sort of perversion of justice that normally happens when a cop commits murder.
So why have a trial?
Why not just post the video up for everyone to see and tell everyone 'we didn't feel a trial was necessary and we have sentenced him to death'.
You see, it's at this point that so many will say "we only saw part of what happened, and you need to see it all to put in context - the officer may have had good reason to fear for his life and was therefore possibly justified in shooting dead Mr Scott"
Not that I believe he was, I'm simply playing devil's advocate as I've seen it all before on here.
That's about what should happen during the trial. He gets a jury to go through the motions, but there isn't really much for them to talk about, is there? The cop decided he was judge, jury, and executioner and that guy needed to be put to death, and he didn't have video evidence that he was a murderer.
Why do you care so much more about the murderer's rights than the murder victim's rights?
Not actually justifying anything, just saying I believe everyone has a right to a trial.
I recall a trial i witnessed once whereby 2 guys were caught on hidden CCTV taking money from the shop they worked. It was clear as day, they sat at the checkout at the end of the night, counted up the money, had a quick check to see if anyone was watching and then pocketed half the money. The CCTV was damning and it was hard to see how anyone would see beyond it. They gave a story, albeit it a rubbish one about how they would always bring the money back and in the end got found not guilty.
Now of course they haven't killed someone so I appreciate the stakes are lower here but if I had the CCTV and posted it on here I would Guarentee the vast majority would say they were guilty without question.
In this case was the jury bent? did they play the system? Who knows but regardless the decision was made and had to be agreed with.
My point is that the justice system is there For a reason and that officer will face the same process as any criminal does. If you condemn a person based upon one bit of information and already state that he must be found guilty if not the system is messed up then you have to question the entire legal system and apply the same rule to everyone, including yourself.
What that means is that we disband trials and witnesses and go solely on video evidence, nothing more. You get caught on CCTV doing anything then straight to jail for you no trial.
Is that what you want?
Is this cop shooting people on a whim what you want? Which is the greater tragedy? A murderer has people talk mean about him, or an innocent man dead?
I don't believe it or not. It would just be a messed up world if we convicted everyone based upon video evidence.
But it wouldn't be a messed up world if cops went around shooting whomever they like with impunity? You only care about one side of this equation.
Slager gets the trial that his victim never got. We just get to talk about it, that's all. Your priorities are perverse.
Nope what I want is for that cop to be held accountable for his actions by explaining it to a court and a court deciding what to do with him.
He will get that, and then, if they fail to hold him accountable for what we've all seen him do, there will be rioting and mass resignations of their public officials. As there should be.
A right to a trial is a basic human right. How would you like it if you were sentenced without giving your side of he story.
He may well be a murderer but we can't just go round convicting people on the basis of a 10 second video without a trial.
Then why didn't his victim get one, and why don't you care?
Yes because that's civilised adult behaviour. Let's act like a kid who hasn't got his own way and go smash things up mess up other people's lives because we don't agree with a decision made by 10 of our peers, NOT public officials but 10 members of the community.
He should be sentenced and should receive a punishment, I believe that, but not at the expense of a trial and all evidence heard.
But there will still be a trial - accompanied by video evidence.
Not possible for any cover ups to occur. The shooting is all there on film, and the officer can relate why he felt his life was endangered by a man fleeing from him, and tell the court what he dropped over his body.
Also, as anachrony said, Mr Scott didn't get a trial.
A decision based solely on the evidence gathered by his friends in the police and presented to the jury by his friend in the district attorney's office. We've seen the same scenario play out countless times before. As far as our justice system is concerned, police are saints who have never done any wrong.
It's not solely up to the jury. If the police and prosecutor don't feel like doing their jobs because they want to protect one of their own, then the jury never sees a reasonable case and their hands are tied. There are more people involved than the jurors, and those other people have vested interests in police not being prosecuted. Just because jurors have delivered a non-guilty verdict does not mean that the system has functioned and dispensed justice.
And that's assuming it ever got to the jury, which normally it doesn't, and would not have done in this case if not for the media intervention. These cases are normally decided and done with long before any jurors are involved, by people who work closely with the very police officer they are meant to be investigating.
The justice system is not some perfect machine that will just keep running along dispensing perfect justice forever. It needs maintenance and monitoring to keep it functioning. Away from public scrutiny, corruption can and has festered. The only way to keep them honest and make sure they are doing their jobs are to make sure they understand that they won't have jobs if they don't do them.
ETA: It's first
That will be for the officer to answer to the court, and hoping justice is delivered correctly shouldn't be confused with not caring about the fate of the victim in all this.