| Author |
Message |
    
Davegess
| | Posted on Thursday, April 09, 2015 - 09:18 pm: | 
|
It is always tough. Some folks don't want change, black or white, others want it worse-pit lower class whites against blacks and you get all the benefits that the english got with the catholics and protestants in NI. Keeps wages way down, keeps workers in line, keeps out the unions,--the fat cats get fatter.
We have been trying for hundreds of years to emasculate back men and we have in recent years been getting pretty good at it. The result: angry thugs with no respect of themselves or others. Who gains from this: the very rich who are insulted from the resulting violence. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Thursday, April 09, 2015 - 10:03 pm: |
|
Well put.
I haven't chimed in on this, individual debacle. Not enough information yet to have any opinions other than the ones I already have.
Police must be subject to the same laws as the OTHER citizens of our Republic. Anything else results in brutal indifference to the Law. It creates a Class structure that is foreign to our national soul. Without being fellow citizens, as well as our guardians, they become oppressors by nature, rather than by the order of evil politicians. ( which does happen and must be stopped. )
I think the same should be true of Politicians, but that's not the case. And, a different argument altogether.
The On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs essay by LTC Grossman covers this better than I can. I post it repeatedly, and if that bores you, sorry, but it's a view of reality that should be considered.
http://mwkworks.com/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html |
Sifo
| | Posted on Thursday, April 09, 2015 - 10:21 pm: |
|
Have all you people who are saying "manslughter" seen this video?
Well, I said manslaughter and I've seen both the first video and the dashcam video. I still say manslaughter. It's a legal definition.
Murder: Under the common law (law originating from custom and court decisions rather than statutes), murder was an intentional killing that was:
* unlawful (in other words, not legally justified), and
* committed with "malice aforethought."
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/homicide-mu rder-manslaughter-32637.html
VS.
Manslaughter: This is often called a "heat of passion" crime. Voluntary manslaughter occurs when a person:
* is strongly provoked (under circumstances that could similarly provoke a reasonable person) and
* kills in the heat of passion aroused by that provocation.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/homicide-mu rder-manslaughter-32637-2.html
This was a normal traffic stop, right up to the point that the victim bolted from the scene. After a yet to be determined length of time we get a new video that seems to show the two in close proximity, with a stun gun already on the ground. I don't know what happened during that time, but it seems safe to say that some sort of scuffle appears to have happened. This lead to a very bad heat of the moment decision to shoot him, but there is no evidence that he had in any way planned to kill this person. Try him for murder and he will likely beat it. Manslaughter fits what I've seen so far. They probably plan to offer him a plea deal down to manslaughter. That's in no way any vindication of the cops actions, but it has to do with his intentions going into the situation. He will likely see other charges regarding tampering of evidence after the fact, etc. too. |
Xdigitalx
| | Posted on Friday, April 10, 2015 - 06:50 am: |
|
Try explaining that to any of the protesters. I don't think any will want to hear what you have to say. But I hope they all keep cool heads. Does the town where it happened have a small population? |
Hughlysses
| | Posted on Friday, April 10, 2015 - 07:38 am: |
|
... and as predicted, the local news announced this morning that the Reverend Sharpton will be on scene this weekend.
 |
Thumper74
| | Posted on Friday, April 10, 2015 - 10:26 am: |
|
What is RS there to be on scene for? He was arrested and charged without his 'help'. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Friday, April 10, 2015 - 10:44 am: |
|
Because he's an opportunistic media wh°re. |
Airbozo
| | Posted on Friday, April 10, 2015 - 11:09 am: |
|
"Because he's an opportunistic media wh°re."
I think you are being way too polite... |
Sifo
| | Posted on Friday, April 10, 2015 - 11:16 am: |
|
Just noticed... Dashcam shows someone else in the car. I'm sure they took a statement from them. I wonder how many witnesses there are to this? Of course witness statements are often difficult to match with physical evidence. |
Reindog
| | Posted on Friday, April 10, 2015 - 11:19 am: |
|
Family of Walter Scott tells Rev. Al Sharpton to keep away
BY Matthew Lysiak , Ginger Adams Otis , Corky Siemasko
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Published: Thursday, April 9, 2015, 11:57 AM
Updated: Friday, April 10, 2015, 11:05 AM
excerpt:
Stay away, Rev. Al.
That was the message from the family of South Carolina police shooting victim Walter Scott to the civil rights activist Thursday two days before the funeral for the slain father of four.
“We don’t want another Ferguson type of circus here,” a source close to the Scott family told The Daily News.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/family-walte r-scott-shot-dead-preparing-lawsuit-article-1.2179 020?42424242?42424242&utm_content=bufferce0cf&utm_ medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign= NYDailyNewsTw |
Fresnobuell
| | Posted on Friday, April 10, 2015 - 04:43 pm: |
|
quote:ell, I said manslaughter and I've seen both the first video and the dashcam video. I still say manslaughter. It's a legal definition.
The "heat of the battle" ended when the black guy took off running. So your manslaughter argument ends there. A single shot from the cop and MAYBE you can make an argument for manslaughter. Emptying a clip into the guys back is MURDER.
I hope to God this cop gets put in general population. The black gangs will have a ball with him. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Friday, April 10, 2015 - 04:45 pm: |
|
From what I've read, and as stated above, unless it was premeditated, it isn't murder, it's manslaughter.
It isn't his or my argument, it's state law. |
Fresnobuell
| | Posted on Friday, April 10, 2015 - 04:50 pm: |
|
quote:Just noticed... Dashcam shows someone else in the car. I'm sure they took a statement from them. I wonder how many witnesses there are to this? Of course witness statements are often difficult to match with physical evidence.
what more physical evidence to you need, besides the video? It is immaterial what happened prior to the video footage.
The video shows:
The murder
The planting of the taser on the victim
The lies of a resuscitation effort (or lack thereof)
The general attitude of "piss on this guy" by the cops (except of course the black cop.) |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Friday, April 10, 2015 - 04:53 pm: |
|
The cop is forked, no doubt. No excuse. This is a really great example of why we should be allowed to film the police. |
Ferris_von_bueller
| | Posted on Friday, April 10, 2015 - 04:54 pm: |
|
If it's manslaughter and they charged the cop with murder with no hope of convicting him on that charge then they f***** up because the expectation is one of murder. I'm doubting the crowd will react favorably to a lesser charge. |
Fresnobuell
| | Posted on Friday, April 10, 2015 - 05:05 pm: |
|
quote:From what I've read, and as stated above, unless it was premeditated, it isn't murder, it's manslaughter.
How long does it take to be considered premeditated? Because the way I see it, there IS a premeditated decision to kill this guy as soon as the gun is drawn and the 8 shots is proof enough. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Friday, April 10, 2015 - 05:05 pm: |
|
The danger is that if they charge him with murder and the evidence only supports manslaughter, he could get off. Not sure how the system works in that state...I think most allow the jury to convict on a lesser charge, in which case they could charge him with murder and still get a manslaughter conviction. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Friday, April 10, 2015 - 05:10 pm: |
|
Premeditation is where you plan to kill someone before your encounter with them. I do not believe the prosecutor will be able to convince a jury that he stopped the man in order to kill him. A split second decision to kill him by shooting him in the back eight times is not premeditation. It's arrogant, tyrannical, and fascist, but not premeditated. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Friday, April 10, 2015 - 08:33 pm: |
|
So what separates the person demanding a murder conviction, when the facts don't warrant that from the cop who shot the guy in the back? Both have ignored our rule of law. The cop did so in the heat of a life threatening scuffle, from available evidence so far. The other is doing it as a cold calculation. I'm not sure which offends me more. |
Hughlysses
| | Posted on Friday, April 10, 2015 - 08:36 pm: |
|
Looks to me the choice could be between 2nd degree murder and manslaughter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(United_States_law) |
Sifo
| | Posted on Friday, April 10, 2015 - 08:58 pm: |
|
I don't know how you get to 2nd degree murder without aforethought, basically premeditation. This was a normal traffic stop right up to the point where the guy bolted. Go ahead and make the best case for the cop planning this killing. The jury will have no choice but to acquit. To make it more difficult, the "victim" escalated the situation, not the cop. Had the cop turned a normal traffic stop into more by escalating it with a shake down of some sort, or just some sort of harassment, you might have a snowball's chance of convincing 12 jurors that the cop had premeditation that at least lead to the killing.
Both the wiki link and my link mention aforethought as a required factor for murder. I just do not see it. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Friday, April 10, 2015 - 09:23 pm: |
|
Sifo, I think the difference is that EVERY officer leaves the barn knowing that deadly force may be required as a component of their duties.
In fact, pulling a weapon and firing on someone isn't just a potential eventuality, it's a probability for which they train.
The same argument is made against CCW holders who leave their home armed. If you take additional tactical training, it can also be used against you. |
Xdigitalx
| | Posted on Friday, April 10, 2015 - 09:39 pm: |
|
Seems simple enough, he definitely killed the guy, but it wasn't premeditated ... Cop looks like he could have been on something more than adrenalin. What is the normal sentence for murder these days? 25 to life? End's up as 17 with good behavior? (for normal folk) LEO's should get slightly more time obviously. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Saturday, April 11, 2015 - 07:49 pm: |
|
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416738/tsarn aev-deserves-death-penalty-and-so-might-michael-sl ager-jonah-goldberg?target=author&tid=897
.......Tsarnaev knowingly left a bomb next to a family on a family outing. Martin William Richard, eight years old, died. His sister Jane lost a leg. His mother lost an eye. A half hour after the bombing, Tsarnaev went to the Whole Foods to buy some milk, and the next day, he wrote on Twitter, “I’m a stress-free kind of guy.” Ever since Rolling Stone’s asinine cover story on the murderer, Tsarnaev has become something of a sex symbol for the morally stunted and chronically stupid. If you’re one of them, or just someone prone to conspiracy theories who thinks maybe Tsarnaev’s confession was coerced, bear in mind that he was captured on video planting the bombs. A jury convicted him on 30 out of 30 counts against him. In other words, we know he did it. Does he deserve the death penalty?
Wait, before you answer that, consider Michael Slager. He’s the North Charleston, S.C., cop who shot Walter Scott in the back as he was fleeing and then allegedly lied about why he did it. I don’t have to say he allegedly shot Scott because Slager admitted that much. I do have to say that Slager allegedly lied because that’s probably going to be decided in a courtroom. Slager claimed he was in fear for his own safety after Scott stole his Taser. But it’s obvious he lied because the shooting was captured on video. Slager can even be seen apparently moving the Taser to fit his story. Legally, it’s harder to argue that Slager should get the death penalty if convicted. Not all murders are equal before the law. It’s unclear how much premeditation, if any, there was in this case. Presumably Slager didn’t know Scott before he pulled him over for a traffic stop. Still, I think you could make a case for the death penalty in cases like this. The analogy that comes to mind is the wartime military. There are capital offenses for crimes other than murder because the integrity and effectiveness of the armed forces is a priority. We are not a martial society, but I could make a similar argument about police officers who murder and lie about it. Faith in the fairness of the justice system is simply indispensable to a democracy and social peace. Lack of such faith may be why Scott ran from Officer Slager. If so, his mistrust was tragically well placed.
I'm still not going to comment on a video I haven't seen, or the stuff not in the video none of us have. It's usually best to let the system work, and it seems this isn't one of those cases where the police officer's butt gets covered by reflex by his superiors. Or they wouldn't have charged him with murder.
Murder, to what degree, or manslaughter, the Court should decide based on evidence I have not seen.
The political/conspiracy aspect, that's another thing. It may be Bad that the cop is charged with murder and gets a lesser conviction, it may be Good that it shows his own superiors are willing to stand for the Rule of law, and not for covering their department's rears.
And the IrReverend is there to make money. And people are starting to see that.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/416668/im-aga inst-death-penalty-i-dont-really-care-if-tsarnaev- fries-charles-c-w-cooke
I'm against the Death penalty for much the same reasons as Mr. Cooke. I also understand some very good reasons for the death penalty exist. Child rapists, for example, have a very poor record of "cure" from their disease, and I think it should be a fatal one.... but I'm biased. I don't mean to start another debate on the subject, but I wanted to make clear where I'm coming from.
(Message edited by aesquire on April 11, 2015) |
Pwnzor
| | Posted on Sunday, April 12, 2015 - 10:00 am: |
|
I'm against the death penalty, but not because I think people shouldn't be executed.
I'm against it because our system is totally F**KED up, and they get so many things wrong.
No matter how many guilty parties go free or underconvicted, the blood of a single innocent person should not be spilled in the name of "justice". |
|
