Originally Posted by Anachrony:
“Most murder victims are not killed by instruments of the justice system. The police officer is a government employee meant to uphold justice, but he decided on a summary, extra-judicial execution of a non-violent offender instead. This case is not just some random killing, it's the justice system itself gone haywire. The state has more culpability here than in a typical murder, yet a clear history of showing leniency in similar cases. If you care so much about preserving the proper forms of law and order, then you really need to care about law and order not being flouted by the people meant to administer it. The possibility of the state getting away with yet another murder of one of it's citizens should be far more concerning to you than the possibility that somehow this guy who did shoot and kill someone for no reason is "innocent" on a technicality but suffers poor public relations.
The point is that the poster's priorities are demented. He cares too much about blatant murderers who are caught dead to rights in plain sight and hiding behind government corruption, and not enough about innocent victims.
Without public scrutiny, this trial would never have happened, and without ongoing scrutiny it could fade away at any point in the process, like it has so many times before. Police have gotten away with countless killings like this one and hardly ever face any legal consequences. Some people are far too concerned about the media attention possibly making the trial unfair for the murderer, when the media attention is the only reason that there even is a fair trial. Given the circumstances and the context, they should far be more concerned about a lack of attention making it unfair for the victim.
Nobody ever said there won't be a trial. It's a strawman argument creating a false dichotomy between having a trial and media attention. We don't have to choose just one. Media attention and a fair trial can coexist, and in a case like this, a trial with media attention is the only way it will be fair. There will be a trial now, but only because of the media.”
I simply suggested that the issue with the media is people make their own minds up prior to a trial which can cause issues. Especially if the media out a particular slant on tbings, or release untruths.
Nothing wrong with public scrutiny, I'm all for it when done correctly however you said if justice isn't done then they will take to rioting, I will never agree with that.
You also said that since the victim didn't gt a trial why should the officer and I said because it's part of his human rights and it's the right of an individual to have their side heard.
I'm not putting a nurderer before a victim, I just ask that justice is done properly and fairly and not by mob rule.
Out of interest, if he is found guilty of manslaughter and gets say 10 years, would that suffice or will the result in riots?