https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-for-black-motorists-death-idUSKBN1E12DC?il=0
Unless of course, you're a police officer on any number of police facebook groups /webpages /etc. I saw "Good shoot" one too many times for my taste. You know, I subscribe to a lot of law enforcement sites and read them because I feel it's important to get another perspective. More than a few of my childhood friends grew up to be police officers. Unfortunately, I almost feel like I need to stop, because if anything, it only gives me a worse impression.
It absolutely was with a bit of a powertrip added in for good measure. The only thing that makes any sense to me is that some of the jury believe in never convicting a cop no matter the circumstances.
That's basically true. The conviction rate for police killing someone is tiny. There are at least 1,000 killings by police each year. So between 2005 and 2017, that's 12,000. In that time period, 80 of the police involved were arrested for murder or manslaughter. 1% of 12,000 is 120, so less than 1% are even arrested. Only 35% of those 80 were convicted. So to simplify, the conviction rate for police who kill in the line of duty is less than 0.33%
Hey, at least you know there's at least one other cop with some human empathy . . . all the way down Georgia way
Well at least she wasn't in Australia: Victoria police faked 258,000 random breath tests, audit claims
The audit, AFAICT from reading, revealed that officers were padding their numbers by pretending to run breath tests (covering the straw port or blowing in themselves) to meet productivity quotas, which is a completely different situation (and sounds far preferable to having a beating and a breathalizer administered).
Just goes to show you how often law enforcement is a thinly veiled revenue stream. It used to be a small town thing, but not so much any more, thanks to civil asset forfeiture.
It's like greed is a bad thing that can ruin things...
I think that oversimplifies all "corruption" (I'm loathe to use that term right now, but can't think of a better one) as greed. Most almost-certainly justify it to themselves as helping put food on the table, taking care of their families, etc. Especially the front-line people, who aren't "really" benefiting much. They're part of a system which leads to bad things, but expecting everybody to be virtuous "just because" doesn't help much either.
Anything can be a bad thing and ruin things, in sufficient amounts and wielding power. Drink too much water and you die. Give even the most well-meaning government too much power and you get a dystopian nanny state.
Sure... if both sides have the same amount of pull... which is why plenty of poor people work 2 jobs and are still poor.
Yeah, i wasn't talking about greed of the low level people... if that was an issue they wouldn't feel the need for quotas.
I remember when Houston gave a cop a medal for doing the same thing.
Feel free to remove countries from the list that treat their prisoners worse than the U.S. (by whatever criteria you announce), I don't think the list would be any more flattering.
Japan, like many westernized countries, uses shorter (compared to the U.S.) prison sentences for most crimes, and has a (AFAIK) robust parole system. This results in fewer people being concurrently imprisoned, even if the crime rate isn't necessarily lower.
Interestingly, the countries in both the top and bottom portions of that list lean towards being the reprehensible parts of the world. Mostly the bottom. The top is more oppressive.
It's unfortunate that the kid was so scared, but neither the story nor video really give enough information to say whether or not the police acted irresponsibly. The video showed are of the kid sitting on the car while the cops talk on the radio, they don't seem to be using any excessive force.
Do you really think they'd have bothered to handcuff a white kid if he'd matched the same vague description like a "white kid dressed in all blue"? No, they wouldn't have, because that's not enough reason to handcuff a child. Not when they didn't find any weapon in that child's possession. I doubt even it would even be cause to handcuff an adult based on such a vague description.
If the child had been restrained for his own safety, that's the story the police would have told to the press. They wouldn't have gone with "they handcuffed the kid for safety reasons because he did match that description." (source) We've been told why they handcuffed him, because he matched the vague description of a suspect. This was said in a press briefing by the Chicago Police Superintendent. "They followed all the rules and protocols that we have in place. So, I’m not concerned about that at all. " Well, of course they did. Those rules and regulations are written with adults in mind, and no one who wrote them or reviewed them would have thought grown-ass police officers would be so terrified of a child half their size that they'd choose to put him in handcuffs when the rules don't dictate that they have to, but merely give them the option.
