imported post
cheese wrote:
It is clear that you think you have all the information.
Not at all. But neither do you.
Indeed, we
almost never have
all the information regarding the stories on which we comment. That does
not preclude us from offering comments based on the information we do have. If and when more or better information is made known, we sometimes end up having to change our views. That doesn't prevent us from offering comments and forming opinions based on the information available at the time.
And I don't see why police officers involved in a shooting should be treated especially different than anyone else involved in a shooting in this regard. I personally tend to give cops the benefit of the doubt when they end up shooting someone with a long criminal record or obviously involved in a crime. I even try to be understanding of the particulars of their job when an innocent person gets shot by mistake. As a private citizen I have the option to run away from a crime in progress. We expect cops to go running in.
But the details of this case--to the extent we have them currently--stretch even my ability to give much benefit of the doubt here in cyberworld. As a member of a jury or review board, I would, of course, have to set a different standard. But I'm not on a jury nor a review board over this case so I get to speculate a bit, and form opinions based on the data available. And from what has been presented, no honest person can come to any conclusion other than some serious problems on the part of the cops who shot an innocent man in the back and then conspired to cover it up.
Anyone here who does anything more to defend the cops in this case other than simply refuse to form an opinion until more details are available is showing a pro-cop bias at least as strong as some of the anti-cop biases that lead to what little bashing we do see here.
Here in Utah, police officers are, man for man, every bit as likely to lose their POST certification as are private citizens likely to have their firearm carry permits revoked. And permits to carry are revoked for much lower offenses than will get a POST certification revoked. For example, barring injuries, it generally takes
three DUIs to revoke POST. A carry permit is revoked for the
first alcohol related offense, including simple public intoxication.
Now, in both cases--cops and firearm carry permit holders--the revocation rate is about 0.2% (2 out of every 1,000). That is so low as to prove to me that the vast majority are doing the right thing. But it is also proof that
no group is free of a few, rare, bad apples.
And whether the group is cops or firearm carry permit holders, when a bad apple surfaces, the honest and good members of the group need to be sure the bad apple is properly punished. They should
not be covering for him.
Charles
