This Aint Packers Talk v69

[AlexGreen#20]

8 minutes ago, Rainmaker90 said:

Not true. 

The three most recent high profile shootings have been:

George Floyd Shooting: Arrested and Charged

Atatiana Jefferson Shooting: Arrested and Charged

Botham Jean Shooting: Arrested and Charged

 

Am I missing one?

 

[Dubz41]

14 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Based on what? 

In almost every instance of these high profile shootings, the officer is minimally charged, in most cases convicted, and in almost every instance fired. 

Lord knows a bunch of these issues are still out there, but to say that nothing is being done is just inconsistent with the examples we're seeing. 

 

There is nothing being done to rectify the problem.  They are treating the symptoms, though somewhat reluctantly, but not moving forward with any meaningful actions to treat the injustice of the underlying problem.  Plus, what made this especially egregious is that there was NO gun, No shooting and the split-second defense is not available here.  This was murder.

[AlexGreen#20]

15 minutes ago, beekay414 said:

Now let's see if he stays there...

He got arrested for Murder 3. The DA isn't going to drop the charges. He's going to end up in front of a jury. 

What else could people possibly want out of this? The government can't force a guilty verdict.

[Leader]

3 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

He got arrested for Murder 3. The DA isn't going to drop the charges. He's going to end up in front of a jury. What else could people possibly want out of this? The government can't force a guilty verdict.

If you're referring to the protestors, the policeman's arrest could very well tone things down. It would be hoped at least. 

[AlexGreen#20]

1 minute ago, Dubz41 said:

There is nothing being done to rectify the problem.  They are treating the symptoms, though somewhat reluctantly, but not moving forward with any meaningful actions to treat the injustice of the underlying problem.  Plus, what made this especially egregious is that there was NO gun, No shooting and the split-second defense is not available here.  This was murder.

What should be done???

The dude was charged with murder. It was a heinous and awful murder.

I don't know how much louder of a message you want the police department to send to it's officers than, "if you are involved in something like this, you will immediately be fired and we will bring in the federal government to investigate the incident."

[AlexGreen#20]

1 minute ago, Leader said:

If you're referring to the protestors, the policeman's arrest could very well tone things down. It would be hoped at least. 

Yeah, the protest may very well die down, but it's likely not going to stop the rioting and looting. The point of the rioting and the looting is the rioting and the looting, it isn't about bringing attention to injustice.

[Leader]

8 minutes ago, Dubz41 said:

There is nothing being done to rectify the problem.  They are treating the symptoms, though somewhat reluctantly, but not moving forward with any meaningful actions to treat the injustice of the underlying problem.  Plus, what made this especially egregious is that there was NO gun, No shooting and the split-second defense is not available here.  This was murder.

IMO that would almost be impossible to prove in a court of law. I'm unsure the exact wording in the law, but think the highest up the charge ladder this could go would be manslaughter.

[Leader]

Just now, AlexGreen#20 said:

Yeah, the protest may very well die down, but it's likely not going to stop the rioting and looting. The point of the rioting and the looting is the rioting and the looting, it isn't about bringing attention to injustice.

Perhaps not. Thats what the law enforcement/national guard is there for.

 

[Rainmaker90]

12 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

The three most recent high profile shootings have been:

George Floyd Shooting: Arrested and Charged

Atatiana Jefferson Shooting: Arrested and Charged

Botham Jean Shooting: Arrested and Charged

 

Am I missing one?

 

It’s about being convicted . Justice being served. 
The murders of Trayvon Martin and Freddie Gray both acquitted ( there’s many more ) 

Eric Gardner’s murderers , not even charged. 
 

Too often justice is not served. 

[Dubz41]

17 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

What should be done???

The dude was charged with murder. It was a heinous and awful murder.

I don't know how much louder of a message you want the police department to send to it's officers than, "if you are involved in something like this, you will immediately be fired and we will bring in the federal government to investigate the incident."

First, this should have been done two days ago.  That 'blue line' bull**** has gone on too long.  IF it had been done expeditiously it would possibly have saved Millions of dollars of damage.  This goes much deeper than looking at this as an isolated instance.  You're wanting to treat this as a single instance ignores the reason it keeps happening, it is social injustice.

Second, throw out the 'qualified immunity' that has protected the bad apples in blue.  Here is a G. Will article outlining the problem more eloquently than I can:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/will-the-supreme-court-rectify-its-qualified-immunity-mistake/2020/05/12/05659d0e-9478-11ea-9f5e-56d8239bf9ad_story.html

 

 

Edited May 29, 2020 by Dubz41

[Packerraymond]

Can you link that article and not post it please? Not supposed to post an entire article.

[Leader]

The Floyd family has released a statement welcoming the arrest - but calling for a first degree murder charge.

I think a first degree murder charge would be an overcharge as it requires some proof about intent and premeditation be proven in a court of law  -  beyond a reasonable doubt?

I think this cop guilty. The cause of Floyd's death. I just dont think they'll be able to prove intent in a court of law and run the risk of an acquittal.

[Packerraymond]

A murder charge would result in an innocent verdict and then mass riots again.

What happened was manslaughter, I get that everyone is mad about what happened, but you can't just charge someone with the most severe charge because of emotions.

[AlexGreen#20]

5 minutes ago, Dubz41 said:

First, this should have been done two days ago.  That 'blue line' bull**** has gone on too long.  IF it had been done expeditiously it would possibly have saved Millions of dollars of damage.  This goes much deeper than looking at this as an isolated instance.  You're wanting to treat this as a single instance ignores the reason it keeps happening, it is social injustice.

Second, throw out the 'qualified immunity' that has protected the bad apples in blue.  Here is a G. Will article outlining the problem more eloquently than I can:

Will the Court rectify its 'qualified immunity' mistake?

 

By George Will

 

WASHINGTON ? The table around which the Supreme Court justices gather for conferences might groan Friday beneath the weight of cert petitions ? requests for the court to accept 13 cases arising from lower court decisions involving plaintiffs seeking redress for violations of their civil rights. In 11 of the cases ? in all but one, the government defendants were in law enforcement ? the civil rights claims were dismissed because courts granted the defendants qualified immunity. In two cases the courts denied immunity.

 

The Supreme Court's consideration of this avalanche of petitions suggests that the court is reconsidering its mistake in creating qualified immunity. This doctrine has essentially nullified accountability for law enforcement and other government officers even in cases where violations of constitutional rights are indisputable. Friday's cases include:

 

A police officer, eager to administer an alcohol breath test to a man on misdemeanor probation, parked his patrol car in front of the man's house with its siren roaring for over an hour, covered the house's security camera with tape and repeatedly circled the house, knocking on windows. A lower court held that this warrantless invasion violated the Fourth Amendment but granted the rogue officer immunity from civil liability because no "clearly established law" forbade his behavior. Meaning there were minor factual differences between this case and prior cases in the circuit.

 

A court granted immunity to officers who stole $225,000 in cash and rare coins while executing a search warrant because this behavior was not covered by any previous decision, involving virtually identical facts and circumstances, within

 

that court's circuit. Because of trivial factual distinctions from earlier cases, a court granted immunity to a deputy sheriff who, while repeatedly attempting to shoot a pet dog that posed no threat, shot a 10-year-old child lying on the ground. For similar reasons a court granted immunity to officers who used tasers ? nine times, and fatally? on an unarmed man having an acute mental-health episode.

 

A court granted immunity to state investigators who, without notice or a warrant, entered a doctor's office and searched the medical records of 16 patients. Again immunity was justified by there being no "clearly established law." A dissenting judge noted that qualified immunity amounts to "unqualified impunity, letting public officials duck consequences for bad behavior ? no matter how palpably unreasonable ? as long as they were the first to behave" in a distinctively egregious way.

 

The Supreme Court's conference table might splinter beneath the weight of public records of hundreds of comparably appalling episodes that raise questions of qualified immunity. Since 1982, this doctrine has become a major impediment to the protection of constitutional rights because of three inappropriate words.

 

In the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act, Congress said that government officials who violate a citizen's constitutional rights "shall be liable to the party injured." In 1967, however, the court began subverting Congress's clear intent by diluting the right to civil remedies. In 1982 the court almost nullified the right by holding that the official's conduct must be measured against ? here are the three words ? "clearly established law."

 

This was in no meaningful sense an "interpretation" of the 1871 statute. In effect, law is "clearly established" only regarding single instances, hence it is

 

hardly law. Trivial factual distinctions between indisputably unconstitutional behavior in case A and such behavior in a prior case B in the same circuit can mean that the official in case A has immunity even though the violation of a plaintiff's rights is clear.

 

Perversely, the more gross the unconstitutional behavior is, the harder it is to persuade courts to deny immunity, because what the perpetrator did does not precisely fit the fact pattern of any prior case. In its last 30 cases, the Supreme Court, applying its "clearly established law" doctrine, has denied immunity only twice.

 

Clark Neily and Jay Schweikert of the Cato Institute's Project on Criminal Justice, joined by amicus (friend of the court) briefs representing an astonishing ideological diversity, have helped to bring qualified immunity's consequences to the attention of the court that, in creating it, created "a culture of near-zero accountability for law enforcement." Its victims include not just those whose civil rights have been violated, but the overwhelming majority of law-abiding law enforcement officers and other public officials who are tainted by the unpunished unconstitutional behavior of a few. On Friday, the court can serve civil rights and law enforcement by deciding to rethink the mistakes it made regarding qualified immunity.

 

Why should it have been two days ago? Are you going to have the local jurisdiction, who the guy is a part of, do the investigations and the arrest? He was fired. He had no more authority. Unless he was a trigger happy nut as an officer, who you were worried about being a danger to others, it absolutely made sense to involve the Feds and let them handle it.

They're the ones that are going to be investigating and prosecuting in all likelihood. If the Feds need a second day to make sure that everything is absolutely correct and that nothing is going to slip by, it makes all the sense in the world to let them have that day. 

+++

Regarding qualified immunity, it's been under review by SCOTUS since before this murder. It's not like it's been ignored. 

The examples you're citing all appear to be currently appealed cases, though I might be wrong about that. The most egregious cases all seem to come from SEC country where local juries give the benefit of the doubt to the cop in all instances. Local courts badly applying laws doesn't necessarily make them bad laws.

Qualified Immunity exists for a reason. It's to stop every arrest from turning into an assault charge. 

A balance needs to be stuck between holding officers accountable and allowing them to do their jobs. Qualified Immunity definitely oversteps that, but the people advocating that officers be treated like regular citizens are missing the boat. 

[AlexGreen#20]

37 minutes ago, Rainmaker90 said:

It’s about being convicted . Justice being served. 
The murders of Trayvon Martin and Freddie Gray both acquitted ( there’s many more ) 

Eric Gardner’s murderers , not even charged. 
 

Too often justice is not served. 

Should guilty until proven innocent be the new standard if the victim is black?

That's the only way you could have prosecuted these cases successfully.