| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And yet, I notice you offer no practical solutions.
Because how dare I suggest you only arrest people that are, you know, guilty of actual wrongdoing. What makes what i said not practical?
If it was your s@*# being stolen and burned, I'm sure your tune would change right quick.
I'd be sitting there with coffee, doughnuts, a sign that said "blacks are americans too"....and a shotgun.
And yet, I notice you offer no practical solutions.
Because how dare I suggest you only arrest people that are, you know, guilty of actual wrongdoing. What makes what i said not practical?
If it was your s@*# being stolen and burned, I'm sure your tune would change right quick.I'd be sitting there with coffee, doughnuts, a sign that said "blacks are americans too"....and a shotgun.
good Point.
This isn't an either/or dichotomy.
Also, breaking the curfew might be illegal, but it's still not violent. Joseph Kent was a well known and respected voice for non-violence in the movement. Keeping the non-violent leaders off the streets is not how you avoid violence.To the uniformed authorities, such distinctions are not made. As far as the cops were concerned, Kent is one of THEM. A non-uniformed person that was breaking the law.That's a generous interpretation.
A less generous one is that he was targeted precisely because he was a non-violent leader.
When they're targeting everyone, or to be more accurate everyone of a non-white skin color, it's hard to argue for specific targeting.
Then again to a cop, non-violent leader translates to mob rabble rouser.
Except they don't seem to have been targeting everyone. If you listen to the interview he did after getting out, IIRC he talks about being with one group of protesters and talking to a white shirt cop about how to get over to a group in another area. He was on his way when he got grabbed. Now, it's certainly possible it was just opportunistic - "lone guy, we can get one more off the street with no trouble", but they weren't just arresting everyone.
He doesn't suggest he was specifically targeted, but the first thought that came to my mind listening to it was "Set up".
The idiot on CNN, who needs his teeth forcibly removed via blunt force, trying to set the scene, did not help.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because how dare I suggest you only arrest people that are, you know, guilty of actual wrongdoing. What makes what i said not practical?
And yet, I notice you offer no practical solutions.
Again you skirt the question.
What is your practical solution for arresting dozens or hundreds of people at once, rather than going for the FAR more practical "If there's nobody on the streets at night, they can't commit a crime" solution for now?
That is the question I've asked you. Twice now.
And twice you've come back with "B-b-but it's not fair! They're punishing the non-criminals too with the curfew!"
Well, no s+#* Sherlock, anybody with a pair of eyes can see that.
So what's your ALTERNATIVE? Start even BIGGER riots by trying nab a hundred people at once? Escalate to the point people are actually being injured and killed in the process of "punishing only the criminals"?
Or just ignore it and let them riot, loot, burn, and kill?
Is there a 4th option here you can come up with? Since the latter two are obviously unacceptable, and the one that was used isn't palatable to your delicate sensibilities.
I'd be sitting there with coffee, doughnuts, a sign that said "blacks are americans too"....and a shotgun.
Ah, yes. Shooting people is certainly a better solution than making sure people stay off the streets at night.
And certainly not likely to also inflame the rioters into committing more vicious crimes. Starting with you, most likely.
Good plan. Great plan.
I understand the catharsis of planning violent retribution on those who've wronged you, but the middle of a riot is not the best place to finally decide to act on your juvenile revenge fantasies.
Again you skirt the question.
What is your practical solution for arresting dozens or hundreds of people at once, rather than going for the FAR more practical "If there's nobody on the streets at night, they can't commit a crime" solution for now?
You don't. You arrest the looters, you leave everyone else alone because torn up streets are a small price to pay compared to tearing up the constitution. If you can't do that, you don't stop the looting.
That is the question I've asked you. Twice now.
And you're so stuck in your own paradigm that order must be maintained at any cost that you've missed the answer right in front of you. You arrest who you can. You have to live with the rest.
Thinking its ok to treat everyone in a certain area like a bunch of criminals is a big part of how we got to this point.
And twice you've come back with "B-b-but it's not fair! They're punishing the non-criminals too with the curfew!"
If you don't have a better argument than putting words in my mouth with your stutter then reconsider your position.
So what's your ALTERNATIVE? Start even BIGGER riots by trying nab a hundred people at once? Escalate to the point people are actually being injured and killed in the process of "punishing only the criminals"?
Be slightly more pro active than baltimore but don't go full furgeson (which is STILL getting violence out of their military style crackdown)
Or just ignore it and let them riot, loot, burn, and kill?
Anybody die yet?
Is there a 4th option here you can come up with? Since the latter two are obviously unacceptable, and the one that was used isn't palatable to your delicate sensibilities.
You're the one overreacting to a little mayhem.
I find everything except the fire a better alternative than stopping people from protesting.
Ah, yes. Shooting people is certainly a better solution than making sure people stay off the streets at night.
And certainly not likely to also inflame the rioters into committing more vicious crimes. Starting with you, most likely.
The coffee and doughnuts generally make that unnecessary.
I understand the catharsis of planning violent retribution on those who've wronged you, but the middle of a riot is not the best place to finally decide to act on your juvenile revenge fantasies.
SUFFER THE SWEET REVENGE OF MY BOSTON CREAM!
wait.. what...?
I'd be sitting there with coffee, doughnuts, a sign that said "blacks are americans too"....and a shotgun.Ah, yes. Shooting people is certainly a better solution than making sure people stay off the streets at night.
And certainly not likely to also inflame the rioters into committing more vicious crimes. Starting with you, most likely.
Good plan. Great plan.
I understand the catharsis of planning violent retribution on those who've wronged you, but the middle of a riot is not the best place to finally decide to act on your juvenile revenge fantasies.
except you asked him what he would do in a situation where his stuff was at risk of being burned or himself being attacked. He is making a defensive move from this, no more. If he started shooting at anyone who showed up, that would be different.
In many ways, bnw is being american.
Coffee and donuts in one hand.
Shotgun in the other.
Which would you prefer? /DRESDEN
Obviously we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.
I think the protection of other people's property (and welfare, though as of YET nobody has been hurt) is more important than you being able to continue protesting all through the night.
I certainly think it's a better alternative than coming in with teargas and billy clubs to arrest large groups of people at once.
You disagree.
Obviously we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.
I think the protection of other people's property (and welfare, though as of YET nobody has been hurt) is more important than you being able to continue protesting all through the night.
I certainly think it's a better alternative than coming in with teargas and billy clubs to arrest large groups of people at once.
You disagree.
possibly. Though I think this is more a matter of method than ideology. I don't think anyone wants to see people get hurt or riots breaking out.
Glad we can agree to disagree.
I normally really enjoy being argumentative but I don't like to do it in the political threads as much.
Feels wrong. Too much subjectivity around it. I'm probably just reacting this strongly because I recently lived there, and still have friends that do.
I think we can all agree that the officers involved in this death deserve to be punished, which is really all that matters.
Last I heard all 6 of them were being charged with a plethora of crimes, from murder and manslaughter on down to unlawful arrest, which is good.
|
So what you are saying is that the protesters image and credibility were destroyed by a few violent individuals?There is such a thing as peaceful protesting but it hasn't been what is happening lately. Curfews were put into place to stop the RIOTING, not the protests. The protests just get screwed because they now have to stop protests at a certain time due to the curfew put into place because of the VIOLENT RIOTING. If the police don't enforce the curfew then everyone ignores it and houses, businesses, cars, etc. get trashed by the RIOTING.
2 main differences in the different groups: Protesters can get change enacted by demonstrating to the government (local or higher) that they aren't going to be ignored by having peaceful protests for however long is needed until they are heard. Rioters are people looking to cash in on misery by using an excuse of injustice as a means to lash out at the community, government, and police under a hopeful guise of mob anonymity to try to avoid responsibility for their actions. Rioters undermine a good peaceful protest.
I do think that what happened to the man is a horrible tragedy and really hope that those responsible are brought to justice, but violent protesting that destroyed property, injured a couple dozen police officers who probably have 0 to do with the case and are just as innocent as any peaceful protester, and undermined the way protests are viewed by the general public was a really stupid way to try to enact change.
A peaceful protest would have accomplished the same result without being hurtful to innocent people, innocent people's property, and to the view society has of protests.
You said destroyed, I said undermined. I stand by the thought that Peaceful protests work, it takes longer sometimes but it is just as effective as violence. I don't understand how people can attack people who didn't do anything wrong and that is what people think gets change to happen. If people allow violence to become the way change is done....also what if the police were innocent and there was no racial issue, illegal procedures, harmful actions, etc....we have violent protests that have no basis in what actually happened. I don't like the idea that an uninformed mass can decide that there is wrongdoing, violently protest and harm police officers, and be held up as examples of how change is done.
You said destroyed, I said undermined. I stand by the thought that Peaceful protests work, it takes longer sometimes but it is just as effective as violence. I don't understand how people can attack people who didn't do anything wrong and that is what people think gets change to happen. If people allow...So what you are saying is that the protesters image and credibility were destroyed by a few violent individuals?There is such a thing as peaceful protesting but it hasn't been what is happening lately. Curfews were put into place to stop the RIOTING, not the protests. The protests just get screwed because they now have to stop protests at a certain time due to the curfew put into place because of the VIOLENT RIOTING. If the police don't enforce the curfew then everyone ignores it and houses, businesses, cars, etc. get trashed by the RIOTING.
2 main differences in the different groups: Protesters can get change enacted by demonstrating to the government (local or higher) that they aren't going to be ignored by having peaceful protests for however long is needed until they are heard. Rioters are people looking to cash in on misery by using an excuse of injustice as a means to lash out at the community, government, and police under a hopeful guise of mob anonymity to try to avoid responsibility for their actions. Rioters undermine a good peaceful protest.
I do think that what happened to the man is a horrible tragedy and really hope that those responsible are brought to justice, but violent protesting that destroyed property, injured a couple dozen police officers who probably have 0 to do with the case and are just as innocent as any peaceful protester, and undermined the way protests are viewed by the general public was a really stupid way to try to enact change.
A peaceful protest would have accomplished the same result without being hurtful to innocent people, innocent people's property, and to the view society has of protests.
they already have them(or at least one) on falsifying a report with respect to the number of stops made. the law has already been broken.
The law does not recognize guilt by association. With an exception or two for gang type stuff, each person accused of a crime is required to be individually suspected of committing the crime, not just part of a group containing people who committed the crime. The law also does not recognize collective punishments or denial of 1st Amendment rights without due process. There is a chance that the curfew and many resulting arrests will be found to be unlawful, although many years may pass before any of this gets settled. It is even more likely that charges will be dropped, and there will be a monetary settlement, with no admission of wrongdoing on behalf of the city of Baltimore. Again, what is "legal" often takes years and years to determine.
Mass arrests are very contentious, and their legality can't be summed up in one sentence or two. The short version is that the police are required to make some effort to separate the law breakers from the other members of the crowd, but they are not required to do a very good job of it. They are also generally required to order people to disperse, and give them an opportunity to do so. There is a fairly large gap between a legal arrest that does not hold up in court, and a wrongful arrest. Wrongful arrest requires that the police officer not have had a "reasonable assumption that the suspect was committing the crime".
If anyone cares, I could link some legal documents. I had the pleasure of arguing this exact issue last year in New York State Court for the largest class action settlement in protest history.
EDIT: I should point out that I was not really successful in the arguments, but I tried.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.
I think the protection of other people's property (and welfare, though as of YET nobody has been hurt) is more important than you being able to continue protesting all through the night.
I certainly think it's a better alternative than coming in with teargas and billy clubs to arrest large groups of people at once.
You disagree.
You're being disingenuous.
In all cases that I've seen, riots form from protests AFTER police are called in in riot gear. They escalate. Sure, maybe there's some excess littering or traffic is inconvenienced or even a rare car bashed up, but it doesn't warrant ESCALATING the situation with police violence.You'll note that the curfew doesn't just affect protesters. You're abridging individuals' rights because of what someone else has done. Unacceptable.
Obviously we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.
I think the protection of other people's property (and welfare, though as of YET nobody has been hurt) is more important than you being able to continue protesting all through the night.
I certainly think it's a better alternative than coming in with teargas and billy clubs to arrest large groups of people at once.
You disagree.
You're being disingenuous.
In all cases that I've seen, riots form from protests AFTER police are called in in riot gear. They escalate. Sure, maybe there's some excess littering or traffic is inconvenienced or even a rare car bashed up, but it doesn't warrant ESCALATING the situation with police violence.
Except there was no (reported, to cover all the bases) police violence from the riot police, before or after they showed up, that I know of.
And "they called in the police, we should riot!" sounds like a flimsy excuse to me. If the police merely showing up instigates theft and property destruction, the place was already set to blow.
You'll note that the curfew doesn't just affect protesters. You're abridging individuals' rights because of what someone else has done. Unacceptable.
Yes. That is generally what happens when a large group of people does something and would like to continue doing something.
If you cannot identify and single out every individual rioter, then a blanket curfew is a good idea.
If the police hadn't done it you know there'd be just as many people (maybe even you same people) sitting here griping about how the police aren't doing anything to contain the situation.
Obviously we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.
I think the protection of other people's property (and welfare, though as of YET nobody has been hurt) is more important than you being able to continue protesting all through the night.
I certainly think it's a better alternative than coming in with teargas and billy clubs to arrest large groups of people at once.
You disagree.
You're being disingenuous.
In all cases that I've seen, riots form from protests AFTER police are called in in riot gear. They escalate. Sure, maybe there's some excess littering or traffic is inconvenienced or even a rare car bashed up, but it doesn't warrant ESCALATING the situation with police violence.Except there was no (reported, to cover all the bases) police violence from the riot police, before or after they showed up, that I know of.
And "they called in the police, we should riot!" sounds like a flimsy excuse to me. If the police merely showing up instigates theft and property destruction, the place was already set to blow.
You'll note that the curfew doesn't just affect protesters. You're abridging individuals' rights because of what someone else has done. Unacceptable.Yes. That is generally what happens when a large group of people does something and would like to continue doing something.
If you cannot identify and single out every individual rioter, then a blanket curfew is a good idea.
If the police hadn't done it you know there'd be just as many people (maybe even you same people) sitting here griping about how the police aren't doing anything to contain the situation.
It clearly wasn't a blanket curfew however, as the media were permitted to remain.
Man, can you IMAGINE how much people would b%+%@ if the media were sent off too?
You already have people spinning conspiracy theories about how the curfew only exists to shut down protests. Throw some jet fuel on that fire with "Oh my god! The government is censoring the media! Let me quote some passages from 1984 in horror!"
Man, can you IMAGINE how much people would b~~+@ if the media were sent off too?
You already have people spinning conspiracy theories about how the curfew only exists to shut down protests. Throw some jet fuel on that fire with "Oh my god! The government is censoring the media! Let me quote some passages from 1984 in horror!"
I agree it would make things worse (for city officials) if media were included in the curfew; however, let's not delude ourselves by declaring it a "blanket" curfew, or suggesting that the police are incapable of making distinctions about who goes to jail in a situation and who doesn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Great Scott, you're right!
Someone arrest the police too, they're out after curfew!
The media are there doing their job, as are the police (which, as I recall, is a specific exception to the curfew).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And telling the government enough is enough is an americans job. The right to free speech is just as important as the freedom for the institutionalized press. They search and detain people without warrants or probably cause. They gun people down on little to no provocation they beat people to death and everything's fine because its done in an orderly fashion so it doesn't affect the real americans.
If you lost your rights the second they got mildly inconvenient they wouldn't be rights.
And telling the government enough is enough is an americans job.
Show me your most recent paycheck then.
Setting up an "Us" vs "Them" narrative is counterproductive. As-is, funnily enough, hurting innocent people in the name of stopping the police from hurting innocent people.
Because the latter forces some kind of response. And when the police get involved, some rights are, by nature, abridged. Your right to "peaceably assemble" is severely curtailed while in jail, for instance.
It has worked this way since the Constitution was first drafted.
Great Scott, you're right!
Someone arrest the police too, they're out after curfew!
this cracked me up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And telling the government enough is enough is an americans job.Show me your most recent paycheck then.
Setting up an "Us" vs "Them" narrative is counterproductive.
When the polices marching orders include terms like "combatants" and "the enemy" that narative has already been set. That's before you start with the beatings, arrests, and teargas.
As-is, funnily enough, hurting innocent people in the name of stopping the police from hurting innocent people.
Why? Because its doing the cops job for them because they're the ones that are supposed to be hurting innocent people in the name of protecting innocent people?
Because the latter forces some kind of response. And when the police get involved, some rights are, by nature, abridged. Your right to "peaceably assemble" is severely curtailed while in jail, for instance.
The right to assemble is being abridged simply for being used, on any available basis.
It has worked this way since the Constitution was first drafted.
There is an entire laundry list of the way the founders did not live up to their professed ideals.
As-is, funnily enough, hurting innocent people in the name of stopping the police from hurting innocent people.Why? Because its doing the cops job for them because they're the ones that are supposed to be hurting innocent people in the name of protecting innocent people?
If you can't answer the question of "Why is it bad to hurt people?" by yourself, I'm not sure we should be talking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man, can you IMAGINE how much people would b**$@ if the media were sent off too?
You already have people spinning conspiracy theories about how the curfew only exists to shut down protests. Throw some jet fuel on that fire with "Oh my god! The government is censoring the media! Let me quote some passages from 1984 in horror!"
Thus far, the media has done an excellent job of staying so far away from reality that there's been no need to push them out.
They're much more concerned with celebrating themselves and having painfully short, sheltered memories.
Also, this is a drive by post, so don't bother getting upset by it.
If you can't answer the question of "Why is it bad to hurt people?" by yourself, I'm not sure we should be talking.
You're asking the wrong question. The question is are more ore less people hurt by stopping the police from hurting innocent people. You seem to assume that using the police automatically means less hurt people. That seems at best arbitrary and at worse contradicted by the evidence. Baltimore so far has a lower serious injury rate than furgison (including the woman that was shot in the head by police and then used as an excuse to clear out the crowds), so go team laisez faire.
You're asking the wrong question. The question is are more ore less people hurt by stopping the police from hurting innocent people. You seem to assume that using the police automatically means less hurt people. That seems at best arbitrary and at worse contradicted by the evidence. Baltimore so far has a lower serious injury rate than Ferguson (including the woman that was shot in the head by police and then used as an excuse to clear out the crowds), so go team laisez faire.
If you can't answer the question of "Why is it bad to hurt people?" by yourself, I'm not sure we should be talking.
...But the police got involved faster in this case, did they not?
And "are more or less people hurt by stopping the police from hurting people" isn't really relevant to the discussion of the curfew, since it's an anti-riot measure specifically designed to keep the police as hands off as possible.
You're asking the wrong question. The question is are more ore less people hurt by stopping the police from hurting innocent people. You seem to assume that using the police automatically means less hurt people. That seems at best arbitrary and at worse contradicted by the evidence. Baltimore so far has a lower serious injury rate than Ferguson (including the woman that was shot in the head by police and then used as an excuse to clear out the crowds), so go team laisez faire.
If you can't answer the question of "Why is it bad to hurt people?" by yourself, I'm not sure we should be talking....But the police got involved faster in this case, did they not?
And "are more or less people hurt by stopping the police from hurting people" isn't really relevant to the discussion of the curfew, since it's an anti-riot measure specifically designed to keep the police as hands off as possible.
That just happens to quell the dissent.
Part of the right to assemble is to deliberately make it harder to shoo you away. If the police HAVE to escalate to tear gas, tanks and dogs it generates sympathy for your side and builds support.
Make up your mind.
Should we generalize and justify all actions taken against a group of people because of the actions of some of them or not?
The media are there doing their job.
That's questionable at best.
But how many folks are being stopped from going to work by this curfew? How many business closed early or otherwise had to change hours because of the curfew? In short, what the hell does doing your job have to do with it? There's a curfew? Your ass should not be out here. I don't care if you have a damn camera.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One comment. I understand that the police officers in the Gray case have been charged with homicide. It should be noted that a perverse way for the prosecutor to attempt to protect the officers is to overcharge them so that when the case goes to trial an acquittal results because the evidence doesn't support the charge. Given that I don't have all the information I would like I can't say for sure that is what is happening here. But it is possible that could be happening here.
|
The media are there doing their job.That's questionable at best.
But how many folks are being stopped from going to work by this curfew? How many business closed early or otherwise had to change hours because of the curfew? In short, what the hell does doing your job have to do with it? There's a curfew? Your ass should not be out here. I don't care if you have a damn camera.
Well I work the night shift at the casino. And until they lift the curfew I not heading anywhere in the city. But to put it lightly I don't like my job so net positive for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One comment. I understand that the police officers in the Gray case have been charged with homicide. It should be noted that a perverse way for the prosecutor to attempt to protect the officers is to overcharge them so that when the case goes to trial an acquittal results because the evidence doesn't support the charge. Given that I don't have all the information I would like I can't say for sure that is what is happening here. But it is possible that could be happening here.
The adage not to mistake incompetence for malice goes doubly so for civil servants.
And not because of a lack of malice.
One comment. I understand that the police officers in the Gray case have been charged with homicide. It should be noted that a perverse way for the prosecutor to attempt to protect the officers is to overcharge them so that when the case goes to trial an acquittal results because the evidence doesn't support the charge. Given that I don't have all the information I would like I can't say for sure that is what is happening here. But it is possible that could be happening here.
the death has been ruled a homicide. Only one of the officers has been charged with murder in the second degree. the others have been charged with false arrest, manslaughter, and misuse of police authority.
One comment. I understand that the police officers in the Gray case have been charged with homicide. It should be noted that a perverse way for the prosecutor to attempt to protect the officers is to overcharge them so that when the case goes to trial an acquittal results because the evidence doesn't support the charge. Given that I don't have all the information I would like I can't say for sure that is what is happening here. But it is possible that could be happening here.the death has been ruled a homicide. Only one of the officers has been charged with murder in the second degree. the others have been charged with false arrest, manslaughter, and misuse of police authority.
Does anyone with a bit more knowledge of the law know the likely sentences for each of these if they're convicted?
I know voluntary manslaughter is a step down from second degree murder, but how much of one?
One comment. I understand that the police officers in the Gray case have been charged with homicide. It should be noted that a perverse way for the prosecutor to attempt to protect the officers is to overcharge them so that when the case goes to trial an acquittal results because the evidence doesn't support the charge. Given that I don't have all the information I would like I can't say for sure that is what is happening here. But it is possible that could be happening here.the death has been ruled a homicide. Only one of the officers has been charged with murder in the second degree. the others have been charged with false arrest, manslaughter, and misuse of police authority.Does anyone with a bit more knowledge of the law know the likely sentences for each of these if they're convicted?
I know voluntary manslaughter is a step down from second degree murder, but how much of one?
I can't say for most of the charges, but in the cases that I've read, voluntary manslaughter averages around 7 or 8 years. 12 or 13 if the judge wants to make a point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
It's also possible to undercharge. Recently a judge cleared Chicago police officer Dante Servin on manslaughter charges, ruling that he should have been charged with murder.
There are a lot of potential complications and the laws in each state are slightly different. I am no expert on this sort of thing by any stretch of the imagination. In some states "Lesser Included Offenses" are automatically considered as a matter of course. Other states you only get to bring one charge. The case you cited strikes me as bizarre, but that's the legal system for you. The main consideration of which appears to be guaranteeing the full time employment of lawyers, with "justice" being at best a secondary concern.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One comment. I understand that the police officers in the Gray case have been charged with homicide. It should be noted that a perverse way for the prosecutor to attempt to protect the officers is to overcharge them so that when the case goes to trial an acquittal results because the evidence doesn't support the charge. Given that I don't have all the information I would like I can't say for sure that is what is happening here. But it is possible that could be happening here.The murder charge is "“second-degree depraved heart murder", which is my new favorite legal phrase.
Means that officer wasn't necessarily trying to kill him, but was acting with malice and a reckless indifference to whether he died or not. Beyond criminal negligence, since there was intent involved, but not normal second degree murder since the intent wasn't necessarily to kill.
I don't think she overcharged in this case. It's still going to have to go through a grand jury, which should be a formality if the prosecutor actually wants charges, but is often where charges against officers go to die.
It's also possible to undercharge. Recently a judge cleared Chicago police officer Dante Servin on manslaughter charges, ruling that he should have been charged with murder.
that case made me vomit with rage.
that case made me vomit with rage.
It's also possible to undercharge. Recently a judge cleared Chicago police officer Dante Servin on manslaughter charges, ruling that he should have been charged with murder.
... if someone had written that up for cheliax I would have called them a hack. Holy.. .what the...You get drunk, use an off duty weapon to shoot at someone holding a cel phone, miss, shoot two people that you weren't even aiming at... and you're innocent because you weren't charged with first degree murder, and you're innocent of first degree murder because it wasn't planned...
what... how....
I'm starting to think there aren't nearly enough buildings on fire for the problem.
Synergistic weirdiosity: This article was making the rounds on my Facebook feed yesterday. Tried to link it, but the Paizo site was wonky and I had to go to a wedding:
"The cop who rallies for collective bargaining today will be protecting Goldman Sachs tomorrow."
that case made me vomit with rage.It's also possible to undercharge. Recently a judge cleared Chicago police officer Dante Servin on manslaughter charges, ruling that he should have been charged with murder.
... if someone had written that up for cheliax I would have called them a hack. Holy.. .what the...You get drunk, use an off duty weapon to shoot at someone holding a cel phone, miss, shoot two people that you weren't even aiming at... and you're innocent because you weren't charged with first degree murder, and you're innocent of first degree murder because it wasn't planned...
what... how....
I'm starting to think there aren't nearly enough buildings on fire for the problem.
Someone just didn't even bother trying to cover up the smell of b%%*%&*% there...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.
I think the protection of other people's property (and welfare, though as of YET nobody has been hurt) is more important than you being able to continue protesting all through the night.
I certainly think it's a better alternative than coming in with teargas and billy clubs to arrest large groups of people at once.
You disagree.
S%&$ can be rebuilt. Freedom is much harder to repair.
Something i forgot to point out...
For some people being arrested is no big deal. Its just you're in and you're out of jail. But when your department is torturing people they arrest to death and blatantly getting away with it then every arrest becomes a mortal threat.