To Protect and to Serve...

Status
Not open for further replies.
#4,826
#4,826
I'm not ready to say he "planted" a weapon. If they fought over the taser, and it fell as the guy ran, he might go back and get it to prevent it from being picked up and put it on the ground as evidence. We'll see if his fingerprints are on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,827
#4,827
lawgator1 said:
I'm not ready to say he "planted" a weapon. If they fought over the taser, and it fell as the guy ran, he might go back and get it to prevent it from being picked up and put it on the ground as evidence. We'll see if his fingerprints are on it.
Click to expand...

Watch the video here:

Video Shows Officer Michael Slager Shooting Unarmed Black Man In The Back In South Carolina

The full video. It's my opinion that the second cop, if he didn't report the first one dropping the Taser next to the body, should be charged as an accessory as well.

All in all, I don't think this is a case you want to take to court as part of the defense, LG.
 
#4,828
#4,828
lawgator1 said:
I'm not ready to say he "planted" a weapon. If they fought over the taser, and it fell as the guy ran, he might go back and get it to prevent it from being picked up and put it on the ground as evidence. We'll see if his fingerprints are on it.
Click to expand...

The witness that shot the video of the encounter said there was a struggle and the officer had used the taser on the suspect.
 
#4,829
#4,829
Grand Vol said:
Watch the video here:

Video Shows Officer Michael Slager Shooting Unarmed Black Man In The Back In South Carolina

The full video. It's my opinion that the second cop, if he didn't report the first one dropping the Taser next to the body, should be charged as an accessory as well.

All in all, I don't think this is a case you want to take to court as part of the defense, LG.
Click to expand...

Maybe LG was the first attorney of the officer.....the one that removed himself from the case after seeing the video.
 
#4,830
#4,830
Grand Vol said:
Watch the video here:

Video Shows Officer Michael Slager Shooting Unarmed Black Man In The Back In South Carolina

The full video. It's my opinion that the second cop, if he didn't report the first one dropping the Taser next to the body, should be charged as an accessory as well.

All in all, I don't think this is a case you want to take to court as part of the defense, LG.
Click to expand...


The civil case will be settled quickly.

As to the other cop, depends on what he would say and to whom. In Florida virtually all agencies immediately suspend an officer/deputy involved in discharge of firearm and turn it over to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, which would interview everyone, do ballistics and trajectory, and any forensic examination. They don't come to a conclusion, they just send their findings to the local state attorney's office which then makes a decision on whether the use of force was justified.

The second officer would have been interviewed within 24 hours, and then again later as any issues or questions arose.

In a typical arrest or incident report, I'm not sure the second officer would have noted that the first officer went back, picked up the taser, and brought it to the scene.

Like I say, if the suspect's fingerprints are on it, then that would to some degree negate the throw-down scenario.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,831
#4,831
Grand Vol said:
This is probably one of the more reasonable posts I've seen you make in this thread.

For the sake of discussion, what incentives would work better?
Click to expand...

Whether you are a cop, a DA, or a judge people like to see convictions. Those numbers will get you ahead. So if you want to move up, you need to make arrests. You need to make arrests with charges that will stick.

In comes the war on drugs. It unnecessarily creates a reason to police minority neighborhoods. Not only are there easy arrests to be had, but they are the kind of criminal that is easier to convict. Which forces cops to profile (anybody in their position would...it's why black cops do it). With bigger budgets and asset forfeitures to be had, the war on drugs is a very attractive way to grow your PD, but it's not necessary (IMO) and it essentially makes cops racist.

Get rid of the war on drugs and you get rid of a lot of the profiling problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,832
#4,832
n_huffhines said:
Whether you are a cop, a DA, or a judge people like to see convictions. Those numbers will get you ahead. So if you want to move up, you need to make arrests. You need to make arrests with charges that will stick.

In comes the war on drugs. It unnecessarily creates a reason to police minority neighborhoods. Not only are there easy arrests to be had, but they are the kind of criminal that is easier to convict. Which forces cops to profile (anybody in their position would...it's why black cops do it). With bigger budgets and asset forfeitures to be had, the war on drugs is a very attractive way to grow your PD, but it's not necessary (IMO) and it essentially makes cops racist.

Get rid of the war on drugs and you get rid of a lot of the profiling problem.
Click to expand...

Okay, got that. But again, what incentives would be better for the departments and the public as a whole? Revenue neutral of course.

Although I don't think it makes cops "racist" as that term doesn't imply what you are speaking to. I know the context you are providing it with, but racist is one of terms that can (and will) cause more problems in the long run. Profiling, yes. Racist, no.
 
#4,833
#4,833
Grand Vol said:
Okay, got that. But again, what incentives would be better for the departments and the public as a whole? Revenue neutral of course.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about bonus $ incentives like they're sales guys, if that's what you're asking. Use those war on drugs resources to prevent and investigate violent crime and property crime, instead of victimless crimes. Promote guys who make their neighborhoods safer. Promote guys that solve burglaries. Don't promote the guy who made the most arrests, or who seized $60k in cocaine money. He probably did nice work to seize that $60k, but that doesn't serve and protect anybody, IMO.
 
#4,834
#4,834
n_huffhines said:
I'm not talking about bonus $ incentives like they're sales guys, if that's what you're asking. Use those war on drugs resources to prevent and investigate violent crime and property crime, instead of victimless crimes. Promote guys who make their neighborhoods safer. Promote guys that solve burglaries. Don't promote the guy who made the most arrests, or who seized $60k in cocaine money. He probably did nice work to seize that $60k, but that doesn't serve and protect anybody, IMO.
Click to expand...

Everything revolves around the drug war. Here's my only problem with that...

Say we as a nation suddenly have a change of heart and make everything legal. Fine and all and that puts a lot of cops out of work, but no big deal. The high school dropouts can find other work. Anyway, what takes it's place? One thing about organized crime, to include the drug trade, is they suddenly won't just go straight and get 9-5 jobs. And something else will take the place of drugs along the way. And there will still be a black market for the drug trade even with legalization. Just like there still is with alcohol and tobacco on a more limited basis.
 
#4,835
#4,835
Grand Vol said:
Say we as a nation suddenly have a change of heart and make everything legal. Fine and all and that puts a lot of cops out of work, but no big deal. The high school dropouts can find other work. Anyway, what takes it's place? One thing about organized crime, to include the drug trade, is they suddenly won't just go straight and get 9-5 jobs. And something else will take the place of drugs along the way. And there will still be a black market for the drug trade even with legalization. Just like there still is with alcohol and tobacco on a more limited basis.
Click to expand...

So don't do it because it won't completely rid us of organized crime? Sure, people will find illegal enterprises to engage in, but they sell drugs because it's the most profitable. I can't see how getting rid of their most profitable enterprise is undesirable.

Also, who cares about the black market for alcohol and tobacco? Is it really that big of a national problem? I've never even considered it a problem worth addressing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,836
#4,836
n_huffhines said:
I'm not talking about bonus $ incentives like they're sales guys, if that's what you're asking. Use those war on drugs resources to prevent and investigate violent crime and property crime, instead of victimless crimes. Promote guys who make their neighborhoods safer. Promote guys that solve burglaries. Don't promote the guy who made the most arrests, or who seized $60k in cocaine money. He probably did nice work to seize that $60k, but that doesn't serve and protect anybody, IMO.
Click to expand...

I agree with a portion of what you are saying, however I will have to disagree on the victimless crime piece if you are lumping the war on drugs into that category. Spend one day in a Children's hospital and you may change your mind.
 
#4,837
#4,837
jp1 said:
I agree with a portion of what you are saying, however I will have to disagree on the victimless crime piece if you are lumping the war on drugs into that category. Spend one day in a Children's hospital and you may change your mind.
Click to expand...

When a commodity is illegal, it breeds violent activity. Simple as that.

There are victims of the war on drugs though, with the tax payer being a big one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,838
#4,838
n_huffhines said:
So don't do it because it won't completely rid us of organized crime? Sure, people will find illegal enterprises to engage in, but they sell drugs because it's the most profitable. I can't see how getting rid of their most profitable enterprise is undesirable.

Also, who cares about the black market for alcohol and tobacco? Is it really that big of a national problem? I've never even considered it a problem worth addressing.
Click to expand...

Don't get swayed away from the point. I'm having a reasonable discussion and never even implied not to do it because of that reason.

I merely asked for a little future thought on your part.
 
#4,839
#4,839
jp1 said:
I agree with a portion of what you are saying, however I will have to disagree on the victimless crime piece if you are lumping the war on drugs into that category. Spend one day in a Children's hospital and you may change your mind.
Click to expand...

What does this mean?
 
#4,840
#4,840
Grand Vol said:
Don't get swayed away from the point. I'm having a reasonable discussion and never even implied not to do it because of that reason.

I merely asked for a little future thought on your part.
Click to expand...

I'll try to be more reasonable.
 
#4,841
#4,841
n_huffhines said:
I'll try to be more reasonable.
Click to expand...

So the point is worth debating though.

I don't disagree with your premise of rewarding those that achieve above and beyond with things other than drug busts. But promotions means more money, so on and so forth. Where does the revenue come from?
 
#4,842
#4,842
Grand Vol said:
So the point is worth debating though.

I don't disagree with your premise of rewarding those that achieve above and beyond with things other than drug busts. But promotions means more money, so on and so forth. Where does the revenue come from?
Click to expand...

Revenue for promotions? I would guess they don't need extra money for that. I figure they are already promoting guys, just promote the guys that follow the right incentives. You could always take some of the money we save by ending our "Billion dollar a week, kill-brown-people habit", AKA the war on drugs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,843
#4,843
n_huffhines said:
Revenue for promotions? I would guess they don't need extra money for that. I figure they are already promoting guys, just promote the guys that follow the right incentives. You could always take some of the money we save by ending our "Billion dollar a week, kill-brown-people habit", AKA the war on drugs.
Click to expand...

Still government funding in some way or other.
 
#4,845
#4,845
jp1 said:
Just curious though, had the woman killed the 2 people on bicycles would your view on proper handling of this case have changed?
Click to expand...

It wouldn't matter... the safest thing to do is shoot the tires and demobilize the car, not shoot the driver and risk the car going wildly and more erratically with a dead woman's foot still on the gas...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,846
#4,846
n_huffhines said:
What does this mean?
Click to expand...

What I mean is.....I work in a childrens hospital and I see first hand the victims of the drug culture. It may be neglect, abuse (mental, sexual, and physical), babies born with neonatal abstinence syndrome, and learned/repetitive behavior.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,847
#4,847
Rasputin_Vol said:
It wouldn't matter... the safest thing to do is shoot the tires and demobilize the car, not shoot the driver and risk the car going wildly and more erratically with a dead woman's foot still on the gas...
Click to expand...

But youre also thinking of a perfect case scenario. If they shoot the tires or lay down spike strips, she continues on her rampage for many more miles perhaps. Goes through a residential neighborhood and wipes out kids playing in their front yard. Still feel the same?
 
#4,849
#4,849
Just to be clear, but there really isnt anyone in here that is condoning this North Charleston shooting, am I correct?
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top