Reply With QuoteGood point.Originally Posted by Sheriff
Thread: Culpeper shooting |
Who is available to believe is a better question. As to the facts, what facts are there beyond the word of the cop? We may not have any video or audio, to my knowledge, we only have the word of a cop.
It may very well be that Church Lady was some dangerous yet unconvicted felon, just one step ahead of the law, the community at large may be safer for her being removed from the community by this brave and selfless cop.
Then again, she may have been 'pure as the wind driven snow' and now she will be portrayed as 'yellow snow'.
Liberals are very broadminded: they are always willing to give careful consideration to both sides of the same side.( Anonymous)
Good point.
The felonies it has been suggested she committed have been laid out in detail. There should be no question they were happening at the immediate time of the incident. You are trying - unsuccessfully, I might add - to imply that her crimes were of some long standing.
But I will forgive you for that because you have been willing to consider that her behavior might in fact have been dangerous.
You have proved emperically that it is in fact possible to speak out of both sides of one's mouth simultaneously.
stay safe.
"He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man
Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.
It is a good thing that the telephone pole was there. I'm personally quite impressed that the cop had the presence of mind to calculate the physics involved to know that just as he put 3 bullets into the back of the dangerous, fleeing church lady felon that her car would come to rest harmlessly against the pole rather than continue its Not so high speed departure into the most populated section of town.
Last edited by jegoodin; 06-26-2012 at 06:24 PM. Reason: Typo fix.
The 'gift of gab' so to speak.
But I will forgive you for that because you have been willing to consider that her behavior might in fact have been dangerous.
You have proved empirically that it is in fact possible to speak out of both sides of one's mouth simultaneously.
stay safe.
Further more, she, the 'alleged' ex-fleeing and dangerous felon, obviously had/has not been convicted of the felonious crimes it has been alleged she had committed. Since she is now room temperature we will never know if she would have been convicted of committing those 'alleged felonious acts' in a court of law.
The people and the cop's actions along with himself will have their day in court. Sadly the alleged ex-fleeing and dangerous felon will have little representation in a courtroom other than to be portrayed as a fleeing dangerous felon intent on perpetrating many felonious and dangerous acts upon the good citizens of Culpeper that fateful day.
The Commonwealth is not out to vindicate the Church Lady, moot now anyway. If there were dash-cam video or even audio we would likely not be so interested in this incident regardless of who may have been justified or not for their actions.
This thread is no longer about what the cop did and was he justified in what he did, this thread is now about the folks posting (us) on this incident and their perspective of the incident, especially so, now that user is his lawyer.
The cop will have his day in court....Church Lady, nope, not required.
Liberals are very broadminded: they are always willing to give careful consideration to both sides of the same side.( Anonymous)
Sits poorly with me, also, mamabear.
Last edited by riverrat10k; 06-27-2012 at 08:49 AM.
Thanks for the notice. I'll try to remember that, especially when it comes to the issue of your (our?) judgement of User. And that makes the use of the term "church lady" all the more appropriate.
But, in the meantime, would you please explain howis different fromabout the folks posting (us) on this incident and their perspective of the incident?about what the cop did and was he justified in what he did
stay safe.
"He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man
Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.
Sure, in my view this thread has morphed from the cop shot, the Church Lady died, the cop claims a justification under the law, the facts. To, he does not deserve to claim a justification for killing the Church lady because of __________ (insert rational). Rightly or wrongly.
Pointing ou, needlessly it seems, that user has posted what Church Lady is alleged to have done as if those are the settled facts, not just allegations of wrong doing by the cop. The again, it could be that if a alleged felon is shot and killed then the alleged charges become a defacto conviction due to the lack of a defense against those charges.
Or, the alleged felonies committed are what they are and lacking a proper conviction the cop's allegation is sufficient to 'paint a picture of the now dead accused felon' that can be used to help validate the cop's version of the incident. The cop said so, and without a contradictory version of the story, it must be so.
Are there any witnesses to the exchange of words?
Regarding user, I wish him luck, yet also wish that he fails in his defense. This case could affect the use of lethal force mindset by cops in the future if this cop is found to not to have been justified in his use of lethal force. Just as fresh pursuit laws have changed due to the conduct of cops doing their job under the law. Fresh pursuit laws were tweaked in some jurisdictions to limit the amount of death, mayhem, and liability, by cops doing 120 in 25.
If the cop walks, he walks, good for him and good for user. If he does not walk, then what will be the benefit to the citizenry? Then again, this case is not just about us, is it. In my view it is not much about the Church Lady either....well, anymore.
Liberals are very broadminded: they are always willing to give careful consideration to both sides of the same side.( Anonymous)
§ 15.2-1704. Powers and duties of police force.
There is no similar provision with respect to a Sheriff, whose powers are defined by common law. A constable is different.A. The police force of a locality is hereby invested with all the power and authority which formerly belonged to the office of constable at common law and is responsible for the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension of criminals, the safeguard of life and property, the preservation of peace and the enforcement of state and local laws, regulations, and ordinances.
B. A police officer has no authority in civil matters, except (i) to execute and serve temporary detention and emergency custody orders and any other powers granted to law-enforcement officers in § 16.1-340, 16.1-340.1, 37.2-808, or 37.2-809, (ii) to serve an order of protection pursuant to §§ 16.1-253.1, 16.1-253.4, and 16.1-279.1, (iii) to execute all warrants or summons as may be placed in his hands by any magistrate serving the locality and to make due return thereof, and (iv) to deliver, serve, execute, and enforce orders of isolation and quarantine issued pursuant to §§ 32.1-48.09, 32.1-48.012, and 32.1-48.014 and to deliver, serve, execute, and enforce an emergency custody order issued pursuant to § 32.1-48.02. A town police officer, after receiving training under subdivision 8 of § 9.1-102, may, with the concurrence of the local sheriff, also serve civil papers, and make return thereof, only when the town is the plaintiff and the defendant can be found within the corporate limits of the town.
Last edited by user; 06-28-2012 at 08:37 AM.
Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com
By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.
I think it comes from the realization that just about any advice or "explanation" given by a LEO has a greater chance of being wrong than I do of not picking the correct lottery numbers. While experience never equals data, the existence of coincidence cannot be overlooked.
stay safe.
"He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man
Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.
You've identified precisely my concern, which Grape and Skid seem to be so inclined to ignore/disregard.
Whether Mrs. Cook is guilty or innocent of the allegations is relevant, regardless of her not being on trial, because the truth/validity of the proffered defense for her homicide lies entirely on the truth of those allegations. It's not enough to judge whether what he claims he perceived might justify the shooting, because he might lie. The objective truth does matter, although it may be that "you can't get there from here".
And this issue is bigger than merely the scope of this case. What, exactly, prevents the government/its agents from murdering anybody, and simply making allegations of felonious behavior? Here, we having nothing to back up those claims, except the word of the officer. Who, is of course, the person with every reason to lie, as his future is in jeopardy.
And, the presence of his skin/blood in the window groove is not evidence proving his word. It may be construed as supporting evidence, but then it may equally be construed as evidence of the alternate scenario. The skin/blood proves that she drove off with his arm in the window; it does not prove that she did so feloniously. We still rely on the cop's word when we take it as evidence of felonious behavior. For, without hard knowledge of his prior actions, we do not know that he did not behave illegally in such a fashion as to justify her trying to flee.
And, once again, I'm not pointing this out because I want to play courtroom. I'm pointing this out, because, given what we know, nothing has rendered it impossible for the cop to have been in the wrong. Therefore, it is possible that the state, through its agent, simply murdered Mrs. Cook for no reason and without due process. Here's the thing: if it can happen to "church lady", it can happen to you. And this we should worry about. If the state possibly can murder someone like Mrs. Cook, with nothing more than the word of a cop making allegations of felonious behavior, then the state (or its agents) can just as easily murder any one of us, and simply make unsubstantiated allegations that we were, I dunno, going for our guns. If nobody is going to demand a higher standard of proof when taking the life of "church lady", do you really think they're going to care when it comes to someone who was carrying a gun?
We mitigate these risks by carrying voice recorders, but nothing physically prevents a cop from simply destroying any recordings.
Here's the thing: we have the technology, money, and ability to change this, to render it far more difficult (if not quite impossible) for the state to do such. That the state, in this case, may or may not have actually done so does not change the fact that, from what we know, it could have murdered Mrs. Cook. That should be enough to demand immediate reform of the standard of proof the government must provide when it goes, with prior knowledge, into a situation, and takes the life of a citizen.
Why, skid and grape, are you so intent on being apologists for this cop, and telling me to write letters? Where are your letters? Where is your concern? Why am I encountering resistance, of all things, to these eminently reasonable concerns and suggestions?
Seriously, last time, one of you asked me why the standard should be different for police than for citizens. And then not two pages later we have all this baloney about how officers are required to stop, with lethal force if they prefer (certainly not if necessary, as proven by this case), those subject to felonious allegations. I could just as easily ask why police should get all this extra authority and obligation. Instead, I far less controversially ask why they shouldn't be required to, you know, actually turn on the video recorders they already have, and I encounter resistance?
Do you know what it is when a double standard is championed if it benefits the police, but another, less severe, double standard is disregarded out of hand if it benefits instead the citizenry? Do you know what I call that? Can you guess what word I'm going to assign to such behavior? That's right. Apologia.
You seriously don't have a problem with any of this? You seriously don't see how a cop, with all this extra authority and obligations, should be held to a higher standard of proof (which is easily obtainable, if only we passed a law requiring video recordings whenever a police officer has prior warning he is going to make a contact)?
http://www.hark.com/clips/qlpprwrnbd...d-of-sick-joke
I'm inclined to agree. Since nobody cares for reform, I'd rather like to see a conviction (although I'd prefer reform). If we can't get the proper restraint implemented by law, then at least we can jail those who act to excess. At least then there will be some disincentive to such excess. And, if cops and their sycophants don't like it, perhaps they should find a different job, or accept reasonable compromise designed to safeguard the noncriminal citizen. Being that police lobbies fight relentlessly against such incredibly reasonable reform, I'm not going to lose any sleep of one if their number suffers jail time as a warning to all the rest, since they won't let us enact more reasonable disincentives into law. Frankly, I'm not going to cry if, after eating their cake, they can't have it too.Regarding user, I wish him luck, yet also wish that he fails in his defense. This case could affect the use of lethal force mindset by cops in the future if this cop is found to not to have been justified in his use of lethal force. Just as fresh pursuit laws have changed due to the conduct of cops doing their job under the law. Fresh pursuit laws were tweaked in some jurisdictions to limit the amount of death, mayhem, and liability, by cops doing 120 in 25.
Last edited by marshaul; 06-28-2012 at 06:10 PM.
I do not speak for Skidmark - he is a big boy and can address this or not as he chooses.
As for myself, I find your remarks and inferences insulting and a personal attack. I neither ignore nor disregard anything regarding this incident or the comments of others regarding such on this thread. You cast me in a light opposing responsible improvements in policy, procedures and practice. I do not apologize for giving the system a chance to work and I do not set preconceived standards/conclusions on what the correct outcome should be.
It is no accident that I make every attempt to avoid jumping to conclusions. I neither apologize nor make excuses for the officer. So too do I not subscribe manufactured details regarding the lady, her reasons, thought process or reactions. I have sincere reservations and questions as to what transpired that day, but hold them in abeyance for now. Whether I express them or not at a later time will be my choice alone.
Right now I have an obligation to this forum and thereby the other posters to see that proper order and conduct is maintained. Getting in the middle of a he-did, she-did match would not benefit this forum one iota and will solve nothing. IMO - the time to analyze what changes may be indicated is when we know what the result/final outcome is.
Meanwhile sir, I suggest that you not assign to me those things of which you know little or nothing.
Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time.
Yata hey
Great soapbox marshaul...very high!
Now that you've accused everyone of being part of the great conspiracy and printed reams about reform....tell me, how do we go about this reform (aside from thumping your shoe on the podium)?
Where do we start?
Vote out every incubent. Every f0934850 one. No exceptions except maybe first year congressmen. Vote them out next term.Along with new ones voted in.
That's a great idea RR. We're all in agreement with that and always have been, but marshaul seems a little angry at Grapeshot and Skidmark because they're holding out for a trial.
I just thought he'd have a little more colorful solution. The guy is out on bail and rope's cheap. Maybe a few pitchforks for ambiance.
This in spite of what the statutes and case law say? If you can introduce evidence to demonstrate that the fictitious "reasonable person" would not form a good-faith belief, then you have introduced reasonable doubt and overcome the defense claim. But "it might have been" or "she could have" without something more substantial to hang it on than the same method of asserting as that of saying it might be possible for me to be pregnant. (BTW, in the world of science and fact it actually may be possible. It's just so overwhelmimhly improbable as to make that consideration meaningless for all but the most theoretical consideration.)
If you are going to lob the soft ones over the plate, I'll swing at them. First, our system of laws, our system of adversarial criminal trial, and our system of justice as the means to protect the innocent rather than to punish the guilty all answer your question. Because, secondly, there is absolutely nothing now, nor has there been, here in Virginia, since 1604 anything to stop the state from doing just what you suggest it might do. Well, except for our system of seeking accountability as opposed to ascribing blame.And this issue is bigger than merely the scope of this case. What, exactly, prevents the government/its agents from murdering anybody, and simply making allegations of felonious behavior? Here, we having nothing to back up those claims, except the word of the officer. Who, is of course, the person with every reason to lie, as his future is in jeopardy.
And here I thougt that only Lousiana operated under the Napoleanic Code, and that to their chagrin they have been forced to make amendments to that in spite of their expressed desire not to.And, the presence of his skin/blood in the window groove is not evidence proving his word. It may be construed as supporting evidence, but then it may equally be construed as evidence of the alternate scenario. The skin/blood proves that she drove off with his arm in the window; it does not prove that she did so feloniously. We still rely on the cop's word when we take it as evidence of felonious behavior. For, without hard knowledge of his prior actions, we do not know that he did not behave illegally in such a fashion as to justify her trying to flee.
And, once again, I'm not pointing this out because I want to play courtroom. I'm pointing this out, because, given what we know, nothing has rendered it impossible for the cop to have been in the wrong. Therefore, it is possible that the state, through its agent, simply murdered Mrs. Cook for no reason and without due process. Here's the thing: if it can happen to "church lady", it can happen to you. And this we should worry about. If the state possibly can murder someone like Mrs. Cook, with nothing more than the word of a cop making allegations of felonious behavior, then the state (or its agents) can just as easily murder any one of us, and simply make unsubstantiated allegations that we were, I dunno, going for our guns. If nobody is going to demand a higher standard of proof when taking the life of "church lady", do you really think they're going to care when it comes to someone who was carrying a gun?
Or have I misunderstood, and ou are in fact proffering the notion that if it can be imagined it must be so? I refer you again to the possibility that I might be pregnant.
Just as nothing physically prevents you from double-tapping the cop.We mitigate these risks by carrying voice recorders, but nothing physically prevents a cop from simply destroying any recordings.
Here's the thing: we have the technology, money, and ability to change this, to render it far more difficult (if not quite impossible) for the state to do such. That the state, in this case, may or may not have actually done so does not change the fact that, from what we know, it could have murdered Mrs. Cook. That should be enough to demand immediate reform of the standard of proof the government must provide when it goes, with prior knowledge, into a situation, and takes the life of a citizen.
Why, skid and grape, are you so intent on being apologists for this cop, and telling me to write letters? Where are your letters? Where is your concern? Why am I encountering resistance, of all things, to these eminently reasonable concerns and suggestions?
Seriously, last time, one of you asked me why the standard should be different for police than for citizens. And then not two pages later we have all this baloney about how officers are required to stop, with lethal force if they prefer (certainly not if necessary, as proven by this case), those subject to felonious allegations. I could just as easily ask why police should get all this extra authority and obligation. Instead, I far less controversially ask why they shouldn't be required to, you know, actually turn on the video recorders they already have, and I encounter resistance?
Do you know what it is when a double standard is championed if it benefits the police, but another, less severe, double standard is disregarded out of hand if it benefits instead the citizenry? Do you know what I call that? Can you guess what word I'm going to assign to such behavior? That's right. Apologia.
You seriously don't have a problem with any of this? You seriously don't see how a cop, with all this extra authority and obligations, should be held to a higher standard of proof (which is easily obtainable, if only we passed a law requiring video recordings whenever a police officer has prior warning he is going to make a contact)?
http://www.hark.com/clips/qlpprwrnbd...d-of-sick-joke
I'm inclined to agree. Since nobody cares for reform, I'd rather like to see a conviction (although I'd prefer reform). If we can't get the proper restraint implemented by law, then at least we can jail those who act to excess. At least then there will be some disincentive to such excess. And, if cops and their sycophants don't like it, perhaps they should find a different job, or accept reasonable compromise designed to safeguard the noncriminal citizen. Being that police lobbies fight relentlessly against such incredibly reasonable reform, I'm not going to lose any sleep of one if their number suffers jail time as a warning to all the rest, since they won't let us enact more reasonable disincentives into law. Frankly, I'm not going to cry if, after eating their cake, they can't have it too.
I'm going to lump all of this together - you want to use the outcome of a sensational case as not the impetus to change the way policy and procedure are derived, the rationale behind the criminal prosecution of suspects, and the laws themselves but as those actual changes. Sure, this case will more likely than not highlight a staggering list of things that need to be changed. But they should not be changed by the outcome of this case. They should, instead, be changed by deliberation and the administrative and legislative procedures established and in place - unless it can be demonstrated that those are also in neeed of change.
So if you do not like the way the law and the legal system works you are going to convict someone anyway to send a message that you wish things were different?Since nobody cares for reform, I'd rather like to see a conviction (although I'd prefer reform). If we can't get the proper restraint implemented by law, then at least we can jail those who act to excess. At least then there will be some disincentive to such excess.
That'll learn them, won't it?Being that police lobbies fight relentlessly against such incredibly reasonable reform, I'm not going to lose any sleep of one if their number suffers jail time as a warning to all the rest, since they won't let us enact more reasonable disincentives into law.
At the moment they seem to have more influence than you and those who support your views. That's pretty much the way a representative republic works, as opposed to mob rule whether it disguises itself as a democracy or not. That was the position of those wanting to improve the access to civil rights of a significant population of this country. They went from roughly 1865 to 1943 trying to go along to get along. Teen, when a small crack appeared, they became "uppity"! and started exerting more and more pressure until they got most of what they said they wanted - by convincing the rest of the population that it was either "the right thing to do" or it was less troublesome than trying to cling to the way things used to be and how things used to get done. Somewhere between 1954 and 1975 they in fact got as much as they were willing to push for.
But you? No! "What do we want? - Not really sure, boss. When do we want it? Right now!!"
Sure it would be nice if everybody agreed to do "the right thing" - and even better if we all agreed what "the right thing" is. But since society is made up of human beings and human beings (along with the other great apes and the lesser apes and monkeys) tend to operate based on power it becomes necessary to change the base of power. Humans have at least said (if not practiced) that it is better to change power through negotiation and compromise than by force. There have always been outliers to that concept. I say you are now one of those outliers.
stay safe.
! In case anyone wonders, I carefully and purposely chose that term. I not only read Alinsky, I know how to use his tactics and techniques, but prefer not to unless absolutely necessary. This is one of those times.
"He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man
Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.
This sensational case, regardless of the outcome, should be 'the straw that breaks the camels back' regarding a cops use of lethal force. A conviction (or is it a rejection of his justification claim) gets us to where I would like to be using the deliberative and the administrative and legislative procedures established and in place.
A civil award, in the event of a conviction, so large as to make the Church Lady's widower the sole owner of Culpeper and several surrounding villages would be nice too.
Sadly, the reality is/will be that a acquittal, and likely a conviction too, will leave us all where we were before the first shot was fired. As was so aptly postulated previously, the citizenry is easily preoccupied, has a notoriously short memory, and generally (rightly or wrongly) give cops the benefit of the doubt.
Regarding this case specifically....some unjust variant of 'jury nullification' likely could not work to convict....could it?So if you do not like the way the law and the legal system works you are going to convict someone anyway to send a message that you wish things were different?
stay safe.
Liberals are very broadminded: they are always willing to give careful consideration to both sides of the same side.( Anonymous)
Actually, it could and IMO represents the greatest chance of a conviction. There are a lot of emotions ramped up over this.Regarding this case specifically....some unjust variant of 'jury nullification' likely could not work to convict....could it?
Just look at this thread. Even setting aside the trolls, there's still a hang em high atmosphere.
To be honest, I am in the hangem high camp but for a different reason. As I stated, if user does his job well as he is wont to do the cop will be acquitted and rightly so. If the Commonwealth does their job and is able prove beyond a reasonable doubt the cop will have his justification rejected by the people.
Either way, you, skid, user, Grapeshot, and some others are squarely in the camp of being the adults in the room. Me I'm still on the fence about being one of the adults.
+1 to you Sir.
Liberals are very broadminded: they are always willing to give careful consideration to both sides of the same side.( Anonymous)
Thanks, the welts were starting to smart!
If you are going to lob the soft ones over the plate, I'll swing at them. First, our system of laws, our system of adversarial criminal trial, and our system of justice as the means to protect the innocent rather than to punish the guilty all answer your question. Because, secondly, there is absolutely nothing now, nor has there been, here in Virginia, since 1604 anything to stop the state from doing just what you suggest it might do. Well, except for our system of seeking accountability as opposed to ascribing blame.
They didn't have video recorders in 1604. What's your point?
Let's compare the probability of my being killed by other cops after doing so, with that of a cop being convicted after doing so to me, shall we?Just as nothing physically prevents you from double-tapping the cop.
This despite the fact that I've said half a dozen times that I'm far more interested in legislative reform than the outcome of this case. Which is pretty much, you know, the exact opposite of making the case itself into the change.I'm going to lump all of this together - you want to use the outcome of a sensational case as not the impetus to change the way policy and procedure are derived, the rationale behind the criminal prosecution of suspects, and the laws themselves but as those actual changes. Sure, this case will more likely than not highlight a staggering list of things that need to be changed. But they should not be changed by the outcome of this case. They should, instead, be changed by deliberation and the administrative and legislative procedures established and in place - unless it can be demonstrated that those are also in neeed of change.
But, hey, if the other guy's statements aren't convenient enough, just pretend he said whatever best helps the point you're trying to make. I believe they call that a "straw man".
Yeah, I would. But not by preference – only because there is nothing else on the table. As I said, officers and their lobbies are complicit in the process by which reform is stifled and rendered impracticable. They made the **** sandwich – not my fault if they have to take a bite. I've provided two very reasonable options for police who don't like it. In the meantime, there is no other avenue to creating disincentive. And, some disincentive needs to come out of this case, as if the officer walks it will be an "inspiring" example of just how much police can get away with. Yes, it's perfectly reasonable for those who choose to be agents of the state to bear this burden. The instant one becomes an agent of the state, his interests become secondary to that of the people, as the interests of the state, where distinct, are secondary to the interests of the people. And if an individual doesn't wish his interests to be tied to the interests of the state, then he oughtn't to seek a career in service to the state.So if you do not like the way the law and the legal system works you are going to convict someone anyway to send a message that you wish things were different?
Remember the Nuremberg trials? Kind of the same thing, but without a holocaust.
Oh yeah, because I haven't been painfully specific about the very small number of reforms I think are necessary to restore a proper balance.At the moment they seem to have more influence than you and those who support your views. That's pretty much the way a representative republic works, as opposed to mob rule whether it disguises itself as a democracy or not. That was the position of those wanting to improve the access to civil rights of a significant population of this country. They went from roughly 1865 to 1943 trying to go along to get along. Teen, when a small crack appeared, they became "uppity"! and started exerting more and more pressure until they got most of what they said they wanted - by convincing the rest of the population that it was either "the right thing to do" or it was less troublesome than trying to cling to the way things used to be and how things used to get done. Somewhere between 1954 and 1975 they in fact got as much as they were willing to push for.
But you? No! "What do we want? - Not really sure, boss. When do we want it? Right now!!"
Back to this:
That's nice. I can't control what you think, nor what conclusions you force from what you've been presented with. Know, however, that it says nothing about me, and plenty about yourself.Sure it would be nice if everybody agreed to do "the right thing" - and even better if we all agreed what "the right thing" is. But since society is made up of human beings and human beings (along with the other great apes and the lesser apes and monkeys) tend to operate based on power it becomes necessary to change the base of power. Humans have at least said (if not practiced) that it is better to change power through negotiation and compromise than by force. There have always been outliers to that concept. I say you are now one of those outliers.
By the way, this is another of those things you say which is beyond merely ironic, in a couple different ways. See if you can figure it out.
Last edited by marshaul; 06-29-2012 at 12:38 PM.
My lord, Grape! How many times do I have to say, I'm not interested in playing trial? Manufactured details serve to illustrate a possibility which necessitates reform. She could have been a meth head for all we know. But, the important fact is that, from what we do know, she was guilty of nothing more than a handful of highly dubious allegations of felonious behavior, made only after the fact in justification.
This is why I prefer (and have repeatedly stated my preference for) legislative reform over courtroom lynching. She could, for all we know, be much worse than anybody suspects, and the officer "pure as the driven snow".
But we don't know that. From what we do know, she was guilty of nothing beyond the allegations made by her killer, for which we must trust his word. And, unlike Joe Citizen, her killer uses his duty as a defense, a duty which also happens to provide him with the video recorder he ought to have been required to turn on (knowing in advance he was going to make a contact) to back up his claim. This creates both a possibility for abuse, which requires reform, and suggests a trivial solution requiring nothing more than a policy change.
That's all I'm saying.
I did say that I'd tolerate a conviction if reform were not forthcoming, as the citizenry deserve some disincentive for police to abuse this possibility. Perhaps I should not have said that, as you and Skid have latched on to it like a dog to a bone, and use it – manipulatively due to its sensational overtones – as a straw man for my actual argument, so that you can ignore it entirely, and focus your attention on destroying what you wish my argument was.
+1 To the adults.
Sorry, but I'm thick as three bricks. Guess you'll have to spell it out for me - please use short words. And type slowly 'cause I don't read too fast.
stay safe.
"He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man
Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.
It is no accident that I make every attempt to avoid jumping to conclusions. I neither apologize nor make excuses for the officer. So too do I not subscribe manufactured details regarding the lady, her reasons, thought process or reactions. I have sincere reservations and questions as to what transpired that day, but hold them in abeyance for now. Whether I express them or not at a later time will be my choice alone.
You redirect the point to being about you and your preference of not "playing trial". What I objected to rather strenuously was that you chose to belittle Skidmark and I for allegedly siding with the officer -we were described as being "so intent on being apologists for this cop" - amongst other negative and inaccurate conclusions.
I have repeatedly expressed both my general concern and my intent to maintain public neutrality. It is to the latter that my quoted reply above relates..........not to your intents.
Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time.
Yata hey
And there's a possibility that you are a fool. Policy, especially public policy, should not be altered on the possibility that someone did/might do something criminal. But if you really believe your assertion I will be more than happy to demonstrate the consequences you would incur.
In spite of your "not wanting to play trial" the rest of us have agreed to the notion that when such is the case we turn the matter over to a trier of facts - the jury (unless the defendant is willing to take a chance with the judge being both judge and jury). What you are saying is that we should not try the facts. Instead we should glom onto a position based on emotionalism and whip it for all it's worth.But we don't know that. From what we do know, she was guilty of nothing beyond the allegations made by her killer, for which we must trust his word.
Sure, making cops turn on their dash cameras at the start of shift and keep it on till end of shift might offer additional information which might also be useful as evidence. But what you really seem to want to is videographer who can move about and select the best camera angle as the dynamic situation evolves. How are you going to pay for that? And what if the videographer does not get "the" best angle to show what's taking place?And, unlike Joe Citizen, her killer uses his duty as a defense, a duty which also happens to provide him with the video recorder he ought to have been required to turn on (knowing in advance he was going to make a contact) to back up his claim. This creates both a possibility for abuse, which requires reform, and suggests a trivial solution requiring nothing more than a policy change.
Also - I ask you to show me how the proferred defense is any different from that Joe Citizen has access to. Yes, there is a perception, based on something that is not quite "data", that he will get a more tolerant acceptance of that defense based on his position as a cop. Except that he has been thrown under the bus already.
Hoist by your own petard.That's all I'm saying.
Again, you would accept a manufactured conviction in order to punish the defendant criminally, in the hope that doing so would then lead him and his supervisors, and through them "the system", to penalties that might be so egregious as to compel them to enact some "reform" in order to avoid a repetition of the egregious penalty.I did say that I'd tolerate a conviction if reform were not forthcoming, as the citizenry deserve some disincentive for police to abuse this possibility. Perhaps I should not have said that, as you and Skid have latched on to it like a dog to a bone, and use it – manipulatively due to its sensational overtones – as a straw man for my actual argument, so that you can ignore it entirely, and focus your attention on destroying what you wish my argument was. ....
But did you forget that there is a mandatory monetary cap on civil damage awards, and that localities can generally afford paying that amount without batting an eye? Did you forget that if it is shown that the cop was acting outside his assigned and lawful duties his supervisors and the Town are excused from any civil suit? Did you forget that punishing someone to "make a point" is a violation of the 8th Amendment and they can mount an appeal with a more than fair chance of reversal because of that?
stay safe.
PS - have you ever been aware that I have never posted my thoughts about what I hope and wish and pray the outcome of the trial will be? That I have all along been advocating for following the established policies and the existing case law unless a convincing argument can be advanced why that line of reasoning needs to be changed?
"He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man
Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.
Posting Permissions
