No, I want a real case of police being unable to enforce the law and chaos breaking out just because they convicted a cop who was guilty of murder... for murder. Whatever worst-case apocalyptic bullshit you guys mean when you say things like
You're attempting to apply some kind of negative consequence to being able to put cops in jail for breaking the law. Surely you have some historical precedent to reference here?
The reality is, the chaos breaks out when the public constantly sees these cops getting away with murder. That's when you get the rioting. Not the other way around.
Everyone now calm down.
Just give them their space.
OT: No charges going to jury trial, really?
You know that cops can get put in jail for breaking law? It happens regulary. My point is that forcing cops to prove innocence for any claim will most likely end in reduced number of cops. And no I dont have historical precedent of fking democratic countries changing their court system to guilty until proven innocent.
And with chaos you mean the court of public opinion thinks someone is guilty based on no facts / evidence and is angry about the outcome and decides to burn down their own neighborhood while looting the stores.
Last edited by lonely zergling; 2016-05-24 at 01:20 AM.
You mean you want a situation where the police is unable to maintain law and order because they risk blowback ?
You should look to sweden to begin with.
You are not proposing that, you are proposing reversing the burden of guilt.You're attempting to apply some kind of negative consequence to being able to put cops in jail for breaking the law.
- - - Updated - - -
yes, but you are advocating we should stop having that as a goal.
You don't know me, so it would go to understand that you wouldn't know I don't have a brother. But we'll substitute my sister int his instance. From the details int he case, I am 100% certain that my sister would be perfectly safe. My sister is a law abiding citizen, but say some strange circumstance cause her to be arrested, then she would comply, not trying to inflict an injury upon herself so that she can claim police brutality, and the like.
I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that I, and my family are safe, and wouldn't come to harm in police custody. Thus, your argument is invalid.
Now, in the extremely unlikely situation that a family member of mine was hurt, or even killed in police custody, then I would be upset, rightfully so. But I wouldn't threaten the officer in question should he be found not guilty.
The media sensationalizes police brutality, yet it is in fact statistically minor when ALL police actions are taken into consideration. As such, when a life is lost, it is a tragedy, but if the courts find the officer innocent, then the officer is innocent.
- - - Updated - - -
I didn't mean to imply that the state's duty was to prosecute public opinion. I mean that public opinion usually implies guilty until proven innocent, then the public cries bias or rigged jury or whatever the case may be.
I also meant the state didn't provide enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict, as such the officer has been found innocent.
Wasn't Freddie's spine broken?
Who breaks their own spine?
They fucked him up and are lying about it, guaranteed.
im just waiting on the idiots in baltimore if they riot when the black officers involved in that go free.