[Finfinder]

So you think that if some thug went into a crowd of people and started shooting at the cops it would be perfectly acceptable for the cops to fire back into a crowd of civillians at the thug, wounding and killing bystanders in the process?

That is not what happened.

I think you’re leaving out in major details of what happened and making overly generalized and sweeping statements. I never said the cops were right or wrong in any of my comments I just was adding some facts.

[Sivad]

Although only the cop who blindly fired should be in prison i think

The cop that fired blindly isn't the one who hit Taylor. Taylor was hit five times, think about that. Those cops didn't just accidently shoot a bystander one time, they shot a bystander five times. They shot a civillian bystander and then they kept firing and shot the civillian bystander four more times. That's what's called depraved indifference. Just firing into a residence without knowing who's inside, without knowing if there are kids inside, that's a maniac cop move, but to keep firing after you already hit a civillian and to hit that civillian four more times, that's deranged psycho territory.

[Sivad]

Engaging in a gunfight in a crowded apartment complex, firing into an apartment without knowing who's inside, killing civillian bystanders, that's some real thug shit. Those thug ass narco cops might as well have just done a drive-by.

[Rancid]

The fact of the matter is, cops are severely under-trained, and given way too much leeway.

[Finfinder]

I know a bisexual couple in Vegas. One of them is white. Both are professionals with educations and good jobs.

I know a crane operator in LA. If you have been there and used any infrastructure in LA that was built in the last twenty years, you probably enjoyed his work. I think he got amnesty during the Clinton years.

I know a Reformed Baptist preacher in Louisville, where Ms. Taylor was shot. He kept his mixed race congregation sage during the recent unrest.

Yes, he had the right to defend his home from the intruders. Are you arguing that US citizens should not be able to do that?

None of that changes the fact that you are a communist from Canadian, who overwhelmingly makes anti American hating posts on POFO. Readers should know your agenda and that you are the far from an expert or even a neophyte on who Americans are.

I know a bisexual couple in Vegas. One of them is white. Both are professionals with educations and good jobs.

I know a crane operator in LA. If you have been there and used any infrastructure in LA that was built in the last twenty years, you probably enjoyed his work. I think he got amnesty during the Clinton years.

I know a Reformed Baptist preacher in Louisville, where Ms. Taylor was shot. He kept his mixed race congregation sage during the recent unrest.

Yes, he had the right to defend his home from the intruders. Are you arguing that US citizens should not be able to do that?

Wow 4 total and only bigots and racists need to point out race and sexuality.

[Pants-of-dog]

...some irrelevant stuff....

“Thug” is the new n-word. Racist people in the USA are always coming up with new words to hide their racism.

But since you believe this fallacy that Canadians are less able to understand Us politics:

https://www.npr.org/2015/04/30/40336262 ... -word-thug

...more irrelevant stuff...

All three cops were firing indiscriminately and all of then should have been charged with the crime of killing someone through negligence.

[Finfinder]

Typical American hating POFO member post. They have to completely fabricate a post then call someone a racist. I think we all can see that.

[Unthinking Majority]

Because his actions (i.e. shooting at the police) only make sense if he was unaware if who the police were.

If he did know and started shooting, he would have knowingly put himself and Ms. Taylor where they would almost certainly have been killed. This would only be a rational choice if there were no alternative. If he had known they were the cops, he could have simply let them in, because he knew there were no drugs in the house.

There is no logical explanation for him to shoot at people that he knew to be cops.

A lot of people shoot at cops, not all of them think their apartment is being broken into at the time.

Why would Mr. Walker shoot and lie about it?

Because he shot a cop. His best defense is to claim self-defense on what he suspected was a break-and-enter.

You always give benefit of the doubt to someone if they're black, and will always defend them, while always assuming the worst in cops and white people. You can't ever separate your emotions and ideology and identity politics from facts. You will never look at these matters objectively, so debating with you on this topic is pointless, a waste of my time, so i'm not going to debate about blacks involved with shooting anymore with you.

[Heisenberg]

There is only really one possible interpretation of the decision not to prosecute anyone for such a cut-and-dried case of murder: a deliberate "fuck you" from the authorities. The whole point is to emphasise that the police are untouchable.

Of course, I am wholly unsurprised to see freedom loving libertarians like @Doug64 coming out in support of no knock warrants and the state's absolute right to perform summary executions.

[Sivad]

The fact of the matter is, cops are severely under-trained, and given way too much leeway.

and they have a toxic thug culture with the same omerta common to all thug cultures:

The blue wall of silence,[1] also blue code[2] and blue shield,[3] are terms used in the United States to denote the alleged informal code of silence among police officers not to report on a colleague's errors, misconducts, or crimes, including police brutality.[4] If questioned about an incident of alleged misconduct involving another officer (e.g., during the course of an official inquiry), while following the code, the officer being questioned would perjure themselves by feigning ignorance of another officer's wrongdoing.

The code is considered to be an example of alleged police corruption and misconduct. Officers who engaged in discriminatory arrests, physical or verbal harassment, and selective enforcement of the law may be considered to be corrupt. Many officers who follow the code may participate in some of these acts during their career for personal matters or in order to protect or support fellow officers.[5] All of these are considered illegal offenses and are grounds for suspension or immediate dismissal. Officers who follow the code are unable to report fellow officers who participate in corruption due to the unwritten laws of their "police family."

Police perjury or "testilying" (in United States police slang) is when an officer gives false testimony in court. Officers who do not lie in court may sometimes be threatened and ostracized by fellow police officers. In 1992, the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Police Corruption (also known as the Mollen Commission) undertook a two-year investigation on perjury in law enforcement. They discovered that some officers falsified documents such as arrest reports, warrants and evidence to provide "cover" for an illegal arrest or search. Some police officers also fabricated stories when testifying before a jury. The Commission found that the officers were not lying for greed but because they believed that they were imprisoning people who deserved it. Many prosecutors allowed police perjury to occur, as well.[1][6]

And the parallels between cop culture and thug life don't end there, cops will also retaliate against "snitches" for exposing police corruption and miscinduct in much the same way thugs retaliate against informants and witnesses:

Whistleblowing (police officers reporting other officers' misconduct) is not common. The low number of officers coming forward may have to do with the understanding that things happen in the heat of the moment that some officers would rather keep personal. Another reason officers may hesitate to go against the blue code may be that challenging the blue code would mean challenging long-standing traditions and feelings of brotherhood within the institution. The fear of consequences may play a large role as well. These consequences can include being shunned, losing friends, and losing back-up, as well as receiving physical threats or having one's own misconduct exposed.[11][8]

[Wellsy]

There is only really one possible interpretation of the decision not to prosecute anyone for such a cut-and-dried case of murder: a deliberate "fuck you" from the authorities. The whole point is to emphasise that the police are untouchable.

Of course, I am wholly unsurprised to see freedom loving libertarians like @Doug64 coming out in support of no knock warrants and the state's absolute right to perform summary executions.

[Finfinder]

It's a conpspi5racy between the grand jury and the attorney general of LA who happens to be a black man. The AT of La a must be a racist.

[annatar1914]

and they have a toxic thug culture with the same omerta common to all thug cultures:




And the parallels between cop culture and thug life don't end there, cops will also retaliate against "snitches" for exposing police corruption and miscinduct in much the same way thugs retaliate against informants and witnesses:

The law officers and the rulers are wicked too, but they restrain the wicked in this world somewhat. Otherwise, nobody is restrained and we all shortly go on a spree of rapes, murders, and destruction of civilization in general. Without the evil people who are promulgating the laws and enforcing them, we would all be pretty close to extermination with the survivors living in caves in the wilderness. Everybody gets something rather than nobody getting anything, and we have a relative peace.

Sorry, that's the truth.

[Pants-of-dog]

A lot of people shoot at cops, not all of them think their apartment is being broken into at the time.

And? This does not refute the logic that clearly shows that in Mr. Walker’s case, there was no rational reason to knowingly shoot at cops, and every rational reason to shoot at someone whom Mr. Walker did not think was a cop.

Because he shot a cop. His best defense is to claim self-defense on what he suspected was a break-and-enter.

Why would he knowingly shoot a cop?

...

Please note that I am not the only one who thinks Mr. Walker is innocent of any crimes and that he shot in self defense. The justice system found that he had a rational expectation of imminent danger. This would not have been the verdict if the jury (or judge) thought that Mr. Walker knew that the people breaking in were cops.

[Heisenberg]

It's a conpspi5racy between the grand jury and the attorney general of LA who happens to be a black man. The AT of La a must be a racist.

There's no need for a "conspiracy" given that prosecutors routinely put no effort whatsoever into these cases - and often explicitly do the work of the defence! - because the grand jury offers them a convenient excuse for refusing to prosecute police officers. Note that the below is a discussion of the Michael Brown shooting, where the prosecutor took the unprecedented step of voluntarily releasing grand jury transcripts, thinking it would exonerate his handling of the case! God only knows how skewed proceedings are in the ones they don't make public.

While the records of grand jury proceedings are almost never made available, the released transcripts from the Ferguson police shooting case arguably reveal a relatively tepid effort on the part the prosecutors to obtain an indictment. The prosecutors called would-be government witnesses before the grand jury and impeached their credibility with statements they allegedly made in the media. The prosecutors also failed to aggressively challenge flaws in the local police department’s handling of the forensic evidence from the shooting scene.

Finally, the prosecutors did not appear to mount an aggressive cross examination of the target of the grand jury investigation when officer Darren Wilson testified. Typically, when a prosecutor has the opportunity to question a defendant under oath at trial or in the grand jury, the result is a blistering cross-examination designed to challenge the defendant’s version of events and bolster the government’s theory of the case. The need for this type of scrutiny is particularly acute in self-defense or other justifiable homicide cases in which the defendant is the only one of the principal parties still alive and able to testify. In the Ferguson case, the questioning was relatively light and did not seem designed to challenge the officer’s narrative at all, despite the obvious incentive to do so in a case involving an asserted defense of justifiable homicide.

As described above, the prosecutors in Ferguson did not seem to be advocating in favor of the grand jury returning an indictment. To be sure, some have argued that the more neutral approach to grand jury presentations used in the Ferguson case — and presumably employed by prosecutors in similar police killing cases — is preferable to the typical, more aggressive attempt to obtain indictments in other types of criminal cases, and that this same sort of even-handed treatment should be extended to all targets of grand jury investigations. However, the neutral approach seems to be reserved for police cases.

[Pants-of-dog]

The adversarial court system definitely breaks down when both sides are on the side of the cop.

[Sivad]

The adversarial court system definitely breaks down when both sides are on the side of the cop.

Anyone who has ever shelled out tens of thousands of dollars for a criminal defense attorney knows the adversarial system is a fucking joke. It's all horse trading and cronyism. There are only three ways to get a defense attorney to actually put up anything resembling a vigorous defense:

1) you gotta be some kind of crazy fucking gangster that the attorney knows will literally murder his ass if he doesn't do everything in his power to get you off.

2) you gotta be a career criminal that the attorney knows will be a repeat customer.

3) you gotta have a high profile case where the attorney's rep is on the line.

otherwise you're fucked and it don't matter how much you pay the shyster.

Courtroom Workgroup

In the United States criminal justice system, a Courtroom Workgroup is an informal arrangement between a criminal prosecutor, criminal defense attorney, and the judicial officer. This foundational concept in the academic discipline of criminal justice recharacterizes the seemingly adversarial courtroom participants as collaborators in "doing justice." The courtroom workgroup was proposed by Eisenstein and Jacob in 1977 to explain their observations of the ways courts, especially lower level courts, actually come to decisions.

Because the courtroom workgroup deviates from the public consensus of how justice works, it has developed a deviant set of rules to continue its work and facilitate daily life for its participants.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtroom_Workgroup