Originally Posted by
Bob21
I’m still missing your point mission146. I have said numerous times there are bad police officers that should be help accountability and punished under our criminal justice system. Please reread some
of my posts. You seem to ignore these parts.
You don’t need to keep providing links to cases where a policeman did something wrong. I get it, there are some bad police officers out there.
I’ll repeat one more time. There are close to a million police officers in America. It is impossible to make everyone perfect. Out of a million people there are going to be some bad apples. That’s just basic stats. That is true in any society, with any race, and with any profession.
That’s why we have our criminal justice system. To deal with this, bad apples in our society.
So you say the protesters are protesting against police brutality and for social justice. Can you name me one person who is for police brutality and against social justice? I can’t find anyone. So these protesters are basically protesting against something where there is nobody on the other side.
Look, I get it, this is much more than that. This is the Left seeing an opportunity to take advantage of the situation and move us more to socialism. And I understand most the people protesting are puppets and don’t even know that.
You asked what my reforms would be and that's what my point is. There is no possible world, if you watched that video, that the guy should get off for murder charges. There was clear intent and premeditation to kill, he gave the kid instructions that were all but impossible to perfectly follow in the first place, then shot him when he failed to follow them. The officer clearly wanted any excuse in the world to shoot him.
I think one thing that I would do is that trials for cops in the line of duty would be bench trials (no jury, just a judge) in a completely separate venue (location). You would also have some sort of court that ONLY does those types of trials, in terms of the judge. I don't care to discuss practicality because it would require a Constitutional Amendment, due to the fact that they would be losing the right to trial by jury. I think juries are often inherently biased in favor of the police where a judge who only handles those types of cases, not only understands the laws, but is more likely to be objective.
It only takes one juror with a pro-police bias, who is smart enough not to admit that he has such a bias, for a guilty verdict to not be possible in a particular trial. Shit, for all we know, the juror is a deliberate ringer.
Another thing you have to consider in trials involving cops is that maybe jurors are concerned with the possibility of police action against them if they find one of the boys in blue guilty of murder. I mean, in this case, here you have a cop who wanted nothing more on this planet than to have an excuse to shoot that kid----is there any reason not to fear that something is going to happen to you if you find him guilty? Are you really going to trust that police department?
But, seriously, watch the video if you haven't. I want to know how that cop gets off. Shouldn't even be possible.
Some police, if not in favor of police brutality, certainly don't seem to have a great problem with it. Most of them do, of course.
The legitimate protesters are looking for organizational change and empathy training, or whatever the hell it's called. They want increased training so that cops are less likely to employ deadly/continued force unless it is absolutely necessary, which I think is a perfectly legitimate position for them to take. The people who are doing the rioting and looting are, as a result, criminals, and therefore, are not, "Protesting," anything. Destroying/Stealing stuff is not a protest, it's just destroying and stealing stuff...and those people should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. In fact, what the legitimate protestors are protesting, and any points they would otherwise be making, are getting totally buried underneath all of these illegal acts.