The judges belong in prison for this type of incompetence and blatant racism. This is exactly they type of racist nonsense Gul loves to support and, indeed, he is idiotically trying his usual shucking and jiving to some how justify the unjustifiable.
I'm sure next we'll hear that running away carrying a big screen TV is just a popular form of exercise in the black community.
You should try watching the national news, bro, because the looting is the lead story riot now. Yes, there are criminal elements in that community who are trying to take advantage of the situation and everyone should agree the criminals should be dealt with harshly for the good of everypne else who does try to do things the honest way. Trying to claim anyone who mentions the problem is racist is a losing argument and not very bright.
But the protesters are anti-gay, anti-trans Just look at that protester proudly wearing his Chick-fil-A T-shirt.
Very quickly the response to looting, arson, and mob violence is going to be store owners and home owners shooting the looters and rioters. The looters and rioters will start shooting back. The shooting will escalate to the level of a small-scale civil war or insurgency. Things will rapidly devolve into something like Syria or Libya. Thus we have law enforcement to keep shit from getting too violent, preventing the need for people to take matters into their own hands and starting a cycle of violence and vengeance that takes forever to burn out and leaves scars for generations. But that's probably what Obama and his DoJ Civil Rights people want. They need more black anger and white guilt.
Because it wasn't premeditated could be one reason. For example if that cop was on record as saying "I sure wish I could shoot a black. Just give me one reason and I'm pulling that trigger on a ****er" then you might have a murder charge. Regardless the lawyer of the shooting victim's family knows that pushing for a murder conviction would end up in a dismissal because the burden of proof would be too high. At this point (it could be upgraded to murder depending on what the investigation digs up) all she can be charged with is manslaughter. That said if months down the road the cop gets off with anything less, I can just imagine that shit-storm.
What a disgusting display of white privilege, trying to run away from a peaceful collection of black citizens who just want to kick and punch you as a gesture of racial unity. Race relations will never improve in this country unless white people check their bigoted running privilege and lie down in unity. "Awwwww shit" is code for "You are my brother. Namaste."
Probably because they fear her built in defense against first or second degree murder. She takes the stand, tells some stories about similar dangerous confrontations, explains why she feared for her life in the situation she was in, etc. and there goes your premeditation and perhaps intention too. It's a lesser offense than murder because it's a bit easier to prove up.
Plus she didn't kill out of malice. First degree is obviously out since there is no premeditation. Second degree would require her to kill him with intent. As in she got into a fight with him and she beat him to death with her baton instead of stopping and taking him into custody for example. The manslaughter charge says that she made a mistake. Same as if she had been texting while driving and had hit him with her car. And really that's what happened here. She had him at gunpoint and something, probably the other officer firing his taser, caused her to startle fire her gun. People who are claiming she did it on purpose are idiots. You can tell in her voice when she says shots fired that she is distressed at the fact she shot him. So it's far easier for a prosecutor to prove manslaughter.
yet, if you shoot a cop, even if they shot at you first, isn't the default charge first degree murder? the "one law for us, another for them" has gotten pretty bizarre. The cop who shot the kid on the streetcar here wound up convicted of "attempted murder" for the last 3 of 9 shots he pumped into him. The logic being that it was the first 6 shots that killed him. Now under the letter of the law, this may be legit... but the price has been a huge loss of the public's trust in both the police and court systems.
Yeah you get charged with murder because you're not supposed to have your gun out and shooting at cops trying to kill them. This officer however, like all officers, will face times when they have to have their gun out and pointed at someone and still not shoot them. If she had not shot the man we of course would not hear about it. She made a mistake doing her job as an officer. It cost someone their life and she has to pay for it but she didn't intentionally murder them as someone shooting at a cop is trying to do. Officers, as part of their job, from time to time have to have their gun out even if they don't use it. You as a non-officer should only ever have your gun out when you're going to use it to defend yourself. That's the difference. Now if the prosecutor could show this was more then a terrible mistake on her part he could charge her with murder like the officer in South Carolina was when he shot the man in the back while the man was running.
that'd be why there was the qualification of responding to, rather than initiating, the shooting. if you're stupid enough to start a gunfight with the cops, yeah, tough shit... but if you're defending from their opening fire? or what could legitimately be an AD before surrendering during a no knock raid? Will you be automatically charged with the highest or lowest form of murder? Prior to the exchange, you're just a citizen exercising the right to keep and bear arms, yes? The officer already had her gun out before their was a discernible threat, and I'm fairly certain gunforge has told us a million times that one should never point a gun at anything you aren't about to shoot. THat would be a low enough bar to charge a civilian with 1st degree if the victim was a cop no matter who fired first. Anyway, what the law says and will do was never the point so much as that the appearance of a double standard is why people have lost so much faith in police.
Eh, don't take a safety guideline for gun handling to be a rule for police work. The police often pull their guns and point them at people without shooting.
You aren't defending yourself if police have to shoot at you. There are no legitimate AD. And on the off chance you have one during a no knock raid....well life sucks for you. This is also why I am against no knock raids except in cases of hostages or terrorism. It depends. Your scenarios are highly unlikely. There was a threat. The man was acting strangely and compared to her he is a large man who probably could easily disarm her if he wanted. As I said above there are plenty of times that police would justifiably have their weapons out but not use them. But a non-police officer would be in trouble if they did the same. Police aren't the perfect angels they sometimes act like they are but people like you are just as bad with your closed mind. This officer should have used her taser if she had one. She should have kept her finger off the trigger. She didn't and now she's going to pay for it.
If someone's shooting you, then returning fire is by definition a defensive act. Skipping to the bottom though, as everything in between seems subjective to our viewpoints and personal experiences, the officer's partner (also a large male) DID have a taser drawn. The fact remains of the perception that cops can injure/kill citizens with rare consequence, but reverse that and the citizen will be lucky to make it to the holding cells.
Yes - I don't want to sound cold-blooded, but it's all about being "on the job". In other words if your job involves toting a gun (like mine, the military) then part of that job entails having to deal with dangerous people trying to kill you (who are also likely armed). Being a drug dealer in the US is similar - your job entails a valid necessity to arm yourself against other drug dealers. I can't think of too many jobs that call for a law abiding civilian to be in a position to kill a law enforcement officer.
Well here's the video - pretty much what I saw at the gym on the news but I couldn't focus on it totally at the time: wife tells the cops "he has no weapon" yet we soon hear the cops yell "drop the gun! Drop the gun!" The guy was a convicted felon, meaning he cannot have a gun. Maybe the wife didn't know he had a gun. So if maybe he had something that looked like a gun then why didn't he drop that object that looks like a gun? The cops yell "drop the gun" over & over - and the woman yells at her husband to get out of the truck and says "don't do it!" Don't do what? Shoot your husband? Or is she telling her husband not to do something? The investigators did find a gun at the scene. This will take some time to get all the facts - but this being the US rioters & peaceful protesters (they have that right) can't wait for all the facts. That doesn't fit the preconceived narrative of cops hunting down blacks. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/24/us/charlotte-keith-scott-shooting-video.html?_r=0
No it's not. You cause police to shoot at you then you returning fire is not a defensive act by any stretch of imangination. Or legal for that matter. Your self defense motion would be laughed out of the courtroom. I was talking before the other officers showed up. When the other officers showed up they should have taken him to the ground. Citizens don't generally attack cops. If they do then they have no business complaining about what happens.
Yeah, but you can also see one of the cops dropping something towards the end. That's got people talking right now.
I couldn't see it, but the shaky camera was making me nauseated so I'm not going to frame-by-frame it. Good thing though she did get it on video - it may help or hurt her claims but regardless it's good data/evidence. One thing I did notice - she goes from "he has no weapon" to "he won't hurt anyone". That's why I think if he did have a gun the narrative will shift to "he didn't actually point it at anyone so he was no threat."
speculate much? dude, you're probably the most white trash around here short of me... there's a video around that shows the vehicle window being closed-he wasn't reaching for shit... why are you even questioning this summary execution?
