Another black man shot by police in USA
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 7mins  In the bush 27 Jul 16 3.58pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Ray in Houston
Can you give me the view of how Marilyn Mosby handled this case?
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| 7mins In the bush 27 Jul 16 3.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 27 Jul 16 4.00pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by 7mins
You suggest the police aren't properly investigated, have you any evidence for this? No, I'm not suggesting that is the case. I'm saying that is the case. You can thank the FBI for saying the system in inadequate, and that it varies in quality from state to state, with varying degrees of impartiality. The Atlanta Constitution Journal investigation into shootings by Police in Georgia, found that in nearly half of the shootings since 2010, individuals shot by police officers were either unarmed or shot in the back or both. In all 184 cases no officer was charged with any criminal offence. Interestingly that report did state there was little difference between the race of those shot. Typically shootings are investigated within the District Attorneys office, who work closely with the police, or by a political subcommittee, which is usually appointed by local politicals from local authority, including possibly the Mayor. However in the US its important to remember that the Police and the office of the Police Commissioner can swing elections of officals.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| 7mins In the bush 27 Jul 16 4.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Ray in Houston
I go back to the bit about being informed. It's dangerous to suggest the coppers lied, when in reality, the prosecutor was laughed out of court, the evidence was so flimsy. These are the charges against Mosby... that she did not have probable cause to believe that there was sufficient admissible evidence to support a conviction of the officers;
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| 7mins In the bush 27 Jul 16 4.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
No, I'm not suggesting that is the case. I'm saying that is the case. You can thank the FBI for saying the system in inadequate, and that it varies in quality from state to state, with varying degrees of impartiality. The Atlanta Constitution Journal investigation into shootings by Police in Georgia, found that in nearly half of the shootings since 2010, individuals shot by police officers were either unarmed or shot in the back or both. In all 184 cases no officer was charged with any criminal offence. Interestingly that report did state there was little difference between the race of those shot. Typically shootings are investigated within the District Attorneys office, who work closely with the police, or by a political subcommittee, which is usually appointed by local politicals from local authority, including possibly the Mayor. However in the US its important to remember that the Police and the office of the Police Commissioner can swing elections of officals. That doesn't tell the whole story, just saying "unarmed" doesn't meant the killing wasn't justified. There was a case recently where the guy was shot in the back and "unarmed", then you investigate a little further, and find out he was shot in the back, while driving a car at over 50moh towards officers that were trying to get out the way (they were deployed to put down a stinger), you can guess the bit that BLM left out.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 27 Jul 16 5.00pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by 7mins
That doesn't tell the whole story, just saying "unarmed" doesn't meant the killing wasn't justified. There was a case recently where the guy was shot in the back and "unarmed", then you investigate a little further, and find out he was shot in the back, while driving a car at over 50moh towards officers that were trying to get out the way (they were deployed to put down a stinger), you can guess the bit that BLM left out. It does at a surface level though. Yes, there are cases where that is the case, and the Atlanta Constitutional Journal in their report does state that unarmed doesn't mean not dangerous, and highlights incidents where the use of a car could, for example, constitute a lethal weapon, and justify lethal force. It also demonstrates that in some cases shooting in the back can be justified. However, it also pointed out that applied in only a few of the cases, maybe, and would be for a court to determine justifiable homicide, not the police, ADA or DA. According to a specialist, admittedly one specialising in police force cases, only three of the 'in the back shootings' could at face value be considered safe shootings. Similarly with an automobile - The possibility exists of it being utilised as a weapon, but that would have to be determined that it was the case. Now it doesn't mean that the police were wrong, or that they're racist (in fact the report found that the figures for white and black were identical as a percentage) - But it does, at least to me, suggest that by and large, the police operate with a massive benefit of the doubt, bordering on absurdly dangerous in Georgia.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| 7mins In the bush 27 Jul 16 5.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
It does at a surface level though. Yes, there are cases where that is the case, and the Atlanta Constitutional Journal in their report does state that unarmed doesn't mean not dangerous, and highlights incidents where the use of a car could, for example, constitute a lethal weapon, and justify lethal force. It also demonstrates that in some cases shooting in the back can be justified. However, it also pointed out that applied in only a few of the cases, maybe, and would be for a court to determine justifiable homicide, not the police, ADA or DA. According to a specialist, admittedly one specialising in police force cases, only three of the 'in the back shootings' could at face value be considered safe shootings. Similarly with an automobile - The possibility exists of it being utilised as a weapon, but that would have to be determined that it was the case. Now it doesn't mean that the police were wrong, or that they're racist (in fact the report found that the figures for white and black were identical as a percentage) - But it does, at least to me, suggest that by and large, the police operate with a massive benefit of the doubt, bordering on absurdly dangerous in Georgia. I'd need more evidence before coming to the same conclusion, but as always, i'll carry out research.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Ray in Houston  Houston 27 Jul 16 8.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by 7mins
Cops lying? in this case, we'll never know. However, even though they are almost never convicted, independent video evidence has shown repeated occasions when multiple cops will report the same - incorrect - story around a cop-involved shooting. In these cases, yes, they are lying.
We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| 7mins In the bush 27 Jul 16 11.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Ray in Houston
Cops lying? in this case, we'll never know. However, even though they are almost never convicted, independent video evidence has shown repeated occasions when multiple cops will report the same - incorrect - story around a cop-involved shooting. In these cases, yes, they are lying. So in the Freddie Gray case... the cops weren't lying, and the case against them was very weak, also the prosecutor has been heavily criticised by all quarters. I'm unaware of the other cases you mention, all seems a bit ambiguous
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 29 Jul 16 7.58am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
It does at a surface level though. Yes, there are cases where that is the case, and the Atlanta Constitutional Journal in their report does state that unarmed doesn't mean not dangerous, and highlights incidents where the use of a car could, for example, constitute a lethal weapon, and justify lethal force. It also demonstrates that in some cases shooting in the back can be justified. However, it also pointed out that applied in only a few of the cases, maybe, and would be for a court to determine justifiable homicide, not the police, ADA or DA. According to a specialist, admittedly one specialising in police force cases, only three of the 'in the back shootings' could at face value be considered safe shootings. Similarly with an automobile - The possibility exists of it being utilised as a weapon, but that would have to be determined that it was the case. Now it doesn't mean that the police were wrong, or that they're racist (in fact the report found that the figures for white and black were identical as a percentage) - But it does, at least to me, suggest that by and large, the police operate with a massive benefit of the doubt, bordering on absurdly dangerous in Georgia. Stay out of trouble then
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 29 Jul 16 12.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by dannyh
Stay out of trouble then Like driving around, being black?
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 29 Jul 16 1.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Like driving around, being black whilst carrying concealed fire arms ? yes exactly like that
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.