6 Police Officers Across the US Were Charged with Murder This Week, Proving Strength of Protests

[bucs90]

"Indictments mean nothing"??? How stupid you are. An indictment means there is probable cause of a crime. That's a lot.

LOL, now tell that to Mudwhistle because he's the one who said it dick hole

You repeated it. And I know the retarded brain your skull hosts and how it works. So I know your context. To you...an indictment truly is nothing. We should indict you on child porn. Post it all over the world's media. THEN analyze your computer...to see if we have a case or not.

 

[bucs90]

By cops? yes

By everyone else? No

You seem to be very wrong.
Baltimore Murders Pass Last Year's Total With Four Months to Go

You said Crime, not Baltimore crime. Your bad

That is an example where cops have been charged. Doesn't seem to be going so well.

Are you still talking about one locations crimes or what? You're all over the place

They seem to be up in lots of places, which is my point.
Police rattled by spike in violent crimes across US

This movement seems to help criminals and not really anyone else.

Yep. But "police" aren't rattled. Police chiefs are...because they answer to mayors and councilmen and politicians. I guarantee....go to these higher crime areas...and talk to officers ranked Sgt or below. They are hiding out somewhere drinking coffee and watching preseason football. They could care less if 1000 murders or 0 murders happen. It's what happens to street cops when morale tanks. And liberals have made sure morale tanks.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

6 Police Officers Across the US Were Charged with Murder This Week, Proving Strength of Protests

After months of sustained #BlackLivesMatter protests, there have been a seemingly unprecedented six indictments of police in the last four days. This signals a stunning departure from the long trend of non-indictments, most notably in the cases of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, and Tony Robinson.

The uptick in police indictments is not unique to this week, either. In fact, the rate of indictments has increased by 5 times over the course of the last 5 months, according to data compiled by criminal justice professor Philip Stinson.

The sharp rise in indictments isn’t the only change following the anti-police violence protests sweeping across the country. Americans’ confidence in police is at a 22-year low, according to a Gallup poll conducted last month.

The six indictments that took place since Monday include two former East Point, Atlanta officers charged with murdering an already handcuffed black man. Two Albuquerque police were indicted for killing a homeless man who had surrendered. A former Fairfax, Virginia officer was charged with murder for shooting a man who’d had his hands up—in his own home. Just today, a Maryland officer was charged with attempted murder for shooting an unarmed suspect who had already surrendered. Following his surrender, the police officer called him a “piece of shit” and shot him in the groin.

In related news included in this story is this

The Shocking Number of Cops Recently Indicted for Murder

The Number of Cops Indicted for Murder Spikes Upward

If prosecutors and grand juries are to be trusted, cops murder or unlawfully slaughter an extraordinary number of people. And while it may be that the five-month period we’re in now will look like just an unusual cluster, if the rate at which cops are indicted for killings continues at this pace, then we’re witnessing a sharp disjuncture with the recent past.

An indictment simply means enough evidence exists to go to trial. Don't be to quick to condemn them just yet.

 

[ClosedCaption]

"Indictments mean nothing"??? How stupid you are. An indictment means there is probable cause of a crime. That's a lot.

LOL, now tell that to Mudwhistle because he's the one who said it dick hole

You repeated it. And I know the retarded brain your skull hosts and how it works. So I know your context. To you...an indictment truly is nothing. We should indict you on child porn. Post it all over the world's media. THEN analyze your computer...to see if we have a case or not.

I also said

Yep, indictments mean nothing now. Anything else you'd like to unilaterally declare means nothing? The world is on the edge of their seats

I bet you think I mean indictments mean nothing and I really give a shit about his declarations. I bet you think the world is on the edge of their seats right? Right?

Dumbass

 

[bucs90]

"Indictments mean nothing"??? How stupid you are. An indictment means there is probable cause of a crime. That's a lot.

LOL, now tell that to Mudwhistle because he's the one who said it dick hole

You repeated it. And I know the retarded brain your skull hosts and how it works. So I know your context. To you...an indictment truly is nothing. We should indict you on child porn. Post it all over the world's media. THEN analyze your computer...to see if we have a case or not.

I also said

Yep, indictments mean nothing now. Anything else you'd like to unilaterally declare means nothing? The world is on the edge of their seats

I bet you think I mean indictments mean nothing and I really give a shit about his declarations. I bet you think the world is on the edge of their seats right? Right?

Dumbass

You said "Indictments mean nothing now". That's where you are so wrong. But...you are too dumb to know why. You're even quoting yourself to prove it...and you don't get it. Tard.

 

[Asclepias]

"Indictments mean nothing"??? How stupid you are. An indictment means there is probable cause of a crime. That's a lot.

LOL, now tell that to Mudwhistle because he's the one who said it dick hole

You repeated it. And I know the retarded brain your skull hosts and how it works. So I know your context. To you...an indictment truly is nothing. We should indict you on child porn. Post it all over the world's media. THEN analyze your computer...to see if we have a case or not.

I also said

Yep, indictments mean nothing now. Anything else you'd like to unilaterally declare means nothing? The world is on the edge of their seats

I bet you think I mean indictments mean nothing and I really give a shit about his declarations. I bet you think the world is on the edge of their seats right? Right?

Dumbass

You said "Indictments mean nothing now". That's where you are so wrong. But...you are too dumb to know why. You're even quoting yourself to prove it...and you don't get it. Tard.

Youre the one that doesnt get it. Its amazing you can type and breathe at the same time. How is it you missed it that badly?

 

[ClosedCaption]

"Indictments mean nothing"??? How stupid you are. An indictment means there is probable cause of a crime. That's a lot.

LOL, now tell that to Mudwhistle because he's the one who said it dick hole

You repeated it. And I know the retarded brain your skull hosts and how it works. So I know your context. To you...an indictment truly is nothing. We should indict you on child porn. Post it all over the world's media. THEN analyze your computer...to see if we have a case or not.

I also said

Yep, indictments mean nothing now. Anything else you'd like to unilaterally declare means nothing? The world is on the edge of their seats

I bet you think I mean indictments mean nothing and I really give a shit about his declarations. I bet you think the world is on the edge of their seats right? Right?

Dumbass

You said "Indictments mean nothing now". That's where you are so wrong. But...you are too dumb to know why. You're even quoting yourself to prove it...and you don't get it. Tard.

I also said the world was on the edge of their seat. And your dumbass instead of understanding context, you're looking for the biggest chair in the world

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

6 Police Officers Across the US Were Charged with Murder This Week, Proving Strength of Protests

After months of sustained #BlackLivesMatter protests, there have been a seemingly unprecedented six indictments of police in the last four days. This signals a stunning departure from the long trend of non-indictments, most notably in the cases of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, and Tony Robinson.

The uptick in police indictments is not unique to this week, either. In fact, the rate of indictments has increased by 5 times over the course of the last 5 months, according to data compiled by criminal justice professor Philip Stinson.

The sharp rise in indictments isn’t the only change following the anti-police violence protests sweeping across the country. Americans’ confidence in police is at a 22-year low, according to a Gallup poll conducted last month.

The six indictments that took place since Monday include two former East Point, Atlanta officers charged with murdering an already handcuffed black man. Two Albuquerque police were indicted for killing a homeless man who had surrendered. A former Fairfax, Virginia officer was charged with murder for shooting a man who’d had his hands up—in his own home. Just today, a Maryland officer was charged with attempted murder for shooting an unarmed suspect who had already surrendered. Following his surrender, the police officer called him a “piece of shit” and shot him in the groin.

In related news included in this story is this

The Shocking Number of Cops Recently Indicted for Murder

The Number of Cops Indicted for Murder Spikes Upward

If prosecutors and grand juries are to be trusted, cops murder or unlawfully slaughter an extraordinary number of people. And while it may be that the five-month period we’re in now will look like just an unusual cluster, if the rate at which cops are indicted for killings continues at this pace, then we’re witnessing a sharp disjuncture with the recent past.

Those aren't protests. They're mobs.
You need desperately to watch this movie...

 

[ClosedCaption]

1943.....man please lol

 

[MikeK]

Valid point. Enforcement of weed and other petty shit may just not be worth it. I've always been a proponent for shrinking the mission of law enforcement. Weed should be legal. Petty shit like loosie cigarette sales....not worth it. Of course...big government libs are the ones who PASS these laws....then get pissed when law enforcement...enforces the laws that they pass. They say cops shouldn't forcefully enforce the petty shit if people resist...but if compliance is voluntary then it's not worth being a law.

If I were a cop the only drug collar I would make is distribution to kids. That's it. Other than that someone could have a satchel full of smack or meth and a pocket full of needles and pipes -- and that would remain his problem. As long as he's not harming anyone, or posing a serious public hazard, I'd turn my back to him.

If only more cops would understand how and why this drug war is primarily responsible for the rising disfavor they are experiencing they might wise up and start being the kind of cops the People want them to be and will revere them for being.

Briefly stated -- ignore the bullshit! Stop wasting time on it. Make serious collars -- people who hurt other people.

Are you familiar with L.E.A.P.? If not, please go here: http://www.leap.cc/

 

[bucs90]

Valid point. Enforcement of weed and other petty shit may just not be worth it. I've always been a proponent for shrinking the mission of law enforcement. Weed should be legal. Petty shit like loosie cigarette sales....not worth it. Of course...big government libs are the ones who PASS these laws....then get pissed when law enforcement...enforces the laws that they pass. They say cops shouldn't forcefully enforce the petty shit if people resist...but if compliance is voluntary then it's not worth being a law.

If I were a cop the only drug collar I would make is distribution to kids. That's it. Other than that someone could have a satchel full of smack or meth and a pocket full of needles and pipes -- and that would remain his problem. As long as he's not harming anyone, or posing a serious public hazard, I'd turn my back to him.

If only more cops would understand how and why this drug war is primarily responsible for the rising disfavor they are experiencing they might wise up and start being the kind of cops the People want them to be and will revere them for being.

Briefly stated -- ignore the bullshit! Stop wasting time on it. Make serious collars -- people who hurt other people.

Are you familiar with L.E.A.P.? If not, please go here: http://www.leap.cc/

Yes I am.

As for drugs....100% agree on weed. Legalize it.

But heroine and meth? No. I've seen the worst of the worst drug holes. And those hard drugs are poison to a civil society. The addiction itself leads to so much more crime and social chaos. It's just a toxic substance. Same way as we say a person can't own an RPG rocket grenade. Sure...they aren't hurting anyone. But the potential for damage if everyone had access...well...you're a smart guy so I don't have to explain the concept. I see the same with heroine and meth. If legal...sure. drug companies would sell "safer" versions with very low potency. But the black market is always there.

That said...going after the dealer is the key. Not the user. If users would snitch more we'd end the problem.

 

[bucs90]

"Indictments mean nothing"??? How stupid you are. An indictment means there is probable cause of a crime. That's a lot.

LOL, now tell that to Mudwhistle because he's the one who said it dick hole

You repeated it. And I know the retarded brain your skull hosts and how it works. So I know your context. To you...an indictment truly is nothing. We should indict you on child porn. Post it all over the world's media. THEN analyze your computer...to see if we have a case or not.

I also said

Yep, indictments mean nothing now. Anything else you'd like to unilaterally declare means nothing? The world is on the edge of their seats

I bet you think I mean indictments mean nothing and I really give a shit about his declarations. I bet you think the world is on the edge of their seats right? Right?

Dumbass

You said "Indictments mean nothing now". That's where you are so wrong. But...you are too dumb to know why. You're even quoting yourself to prove it...and you don't get it. Tard.

I also said the world was on the edge of their seat. And your dumbass instead of understanding context, you're looking for the biggest chair in the world

No. You aren't making any sense. The world is not on the edge of their seats. And if you said it sarcastically than you're an idiot...BECAUSE Liberals are indeed on the edge of their seats. Salivating and praying for cops to be jailed or even killed. Well...maybe not praying...you all don't pray to anything except Obama and gay sex.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

1943.....man please lol

1885. And it's just as valid as a constitution written a century earlier.

 

[ClosedCaption]

he world is not on the edge of their seats. And if you said it sarcastically

finally the light bulb comes on

 

[MikeK]

Valid point. Enforcement of weed and other petty shit may just not be worth it. I've always been a proponent for shrinking the mission of law enforcement. Weed should be legal. Petty shit like loosie cigarette sales....not worth it. Of course...big government libs are the ones who PASS these laws....then get pissed when law enforcement...enforces the laws that they pass. They say cops shouldn't forcefully enforce the petty shit if people resist...but if compliance is voluntary then it's not worth being a law.

In the Eric Garner example a superior officer was present (a female sergeant) and was ultimately responsible for deciding to make the arrest. The real problem rests in the fact that none of the eight cops present knew how to properly apply the necessary force -- exemplified by the fact that two of them nearly took Garner through a plate-glass store window. I was surprised to see that New York City cops are so poorly trained.

The outcome of that debacle was the charge that Garner died as the result of a "choke-hold." But wrapping an arm around someone's neck is not necessarily a "choke" or a "strangle" hold unless it is deliberately applied to compress the carotid artery and close the trachia. What the cop applied to Garner is properly called a rear leveraged take-down. It, by itself, was not responsible for Garner's death. Garner died in an ambulance en-route to a hospital. He was not choked or strangled to death. He died from the effect the strenuous arrest activity had on his serious medical condition.

The bottom line in the whole affair is it occurred as the result of a bullshit complaint and the inability of those small, poorly-trained cops to properly constrain Garner. In effect, everybody, including Garner, was responsible for his death.

 

[bucs90]

Valid point. Enforcement of weed and other petty shit may just not be worth it. I've always been a proponent for shrinking the mission of law enforcement. Weed should be legal. Petty shit like loosie cigarette sales....not worth it. Of course...big government libs are the ones who PASS these laws....then get pissed when law enforcement...enforces the laws that they pass. They say cops shouldn't forcefully enforce the petty shit if people resist...but if compliance is voluntary then it's not worth being a law.

In the Eric Garner example a superior officer was present (a female sergeant) and was ultimately responsible for deciding to make the arrest. The real problem rests in the fact that none of the eight cops present knew how to properly apply the necessary force -- exemplified by the fact that two of them nearly took Garner through a plate-glass store window. I was surprised to see that New York City cops are so poorly trained.

The outcome of that debacle was the charge that Garner died as the result of a "choke-hold." But wrapping an arm around someone's neck is not necessarily a "choke" or a "strangle" hold. Unless it is deliberately applied to compress the carotid artery and close the trachia. What the cop applied to Garner is properly called a rear leveraged take-down. It, by itself, was not responsible for Garner's death. Garner died in an ambulance en-route to a hospital. He was not choked or strangled to death. He died from the effect the strenuous arrest activity had on his serious medical condition.

The bottom line in the whole affair is it occurred as the result of a bullshit complaint and the inability of those small, poorly-trained cops to properly constrain Garner. In effect, everybody, including Garner, was responsible for his death.

This is why I enjoy debating with you. You are fair and honest...even of we disagree.

Yes...excellent points. They were definitely quick to resort to hands on. But a taser would've looked just as bad. You had a 6'3 350 pound man refusing to comply with arrest. Really....not much was gonna go well. Maybe a 2 hour verbal negotiation. But if that was the norm....Police wouldn't even function because they'd spend all day negotiating while hundreds of 911 calls go unanswered.

 

[MikeK]

Yes I am.

As for drugs....100% agree on weed. Legalize it.

But heroine and meth? No. I've seen the worst of the worst drug holes. And those hard drugs are poison to a civil society. The addiction itself leads to so much more crime and social chaos. It's just a toxic substance. Same way as we say a person can't own an RPG rocket grenade. Sure...they aren't hurting anyone. But the potential for damage if everyone had access...well...you're a smart guy so I don't have to explain the concept. I see the same with heroine and meth. If legal...sure. drug companies would sell "safer" versions with very low potency. But the black market is always there.

That said...going after the dealer is the key. Not the user. If users would snitch more we'd end the problem.

I'm surprised you are receptive to the standard drug-warrior mantra which has managed to sustain what for nearly four decades has been the most destructive mistake our society has ever made. While it all sounds very impressive, and while it has successfully deluded the naive and gullible faction of easily scammed Americans, its obvious flaw is the simple, plainly visible, indisputable fact that in spite of all the wasteful, wholly counterproductive effort put forth by legions of self-deluded drug-warriors of every stripe, recreational drugs of every kind are as readily available today as they were when this drug war debacle was escalated by Ronald Reagan in 1982. The only real effect it has had are the world's foremost prison census, the denigration of the civilian law-enforcement establishment, the ruin of millions of lives, and the waste of trillions of dollars.

That simple fact pulls the rug out from under whatever logic your stated belief manages to pose. What you've said makes perfect sense -- until it's examined in the clear light of day and weighed by a measure of simple common sense. The part of your statement that makes valid sense is that drugs are indeed a problem. But it's not a problem that law-enforcement should have such control over. That is a fact which is made readily visible by nearly four decades of complete and absolute, devastating failure!

 

[bucs90]

Yes I am.

As for drugs....100% agree on weed. Legalize it.

But heroine and meth? No. I've seen the worst of the worst drug holes. And those hard drugs are poison to a civil society. The addiction itself leads to so much more crime and social chaos. It's just a toxic substance. Same way as we say a person can't own an RPG rocket grenade. Sure...they aren't hurting anyone. But the potential for damage if everyone had access...well...you're a smart guy so I don't have to explain the concept. I see the same with heroine and meth. If legal...sure. drug companies would sell "safer" versions with very low potency. But the black market is always there.

That said...going after the dealer is the key. Not the user. If users would snitch more we'd end the problem.

I'm surprised you are receptive to the standard drug-warrior mantra which has managed to sustain what for nearly four decades has been the most destructive mistake our society has ever made. While it all sounds very impressive, and while it has successfully deluded the naive and gullible faction of easily scammed Americans, its obvious flaw is the simple, plainly visible, indisputable fact that in spite of all the wasteful, wholly counterproductive effort put forth by legions of self-deluded drug-warriors of every stripe, recreational drugs of every kind are as readily available today as they were when this drug war debacle was escalated by Ronald Reagan in 1982. The only real effect it has had are the world's foremost prison census, the denigration of the civilian law-enforcement establishment, the ruin of millions of lives, and the waste of trillions of dollars.

That simple fact pulls the rug out from under whatever logic your stated belief manages to pose. What you've said makes perfect sense -- until it's examined in the clear light of day and weighed by a measure of simple common sense. The part of your statement that makes valid sense is that drugs are indeed a problem. But it's not a problem that law-enforcement should have such control over. That is a fact which is made readily visible by nearly four decades of complete and absolute, devastating failure!

Well....definitely not for weed enforcement. Weed should be 100% legal.

I'm open to being convinced as to why making meth and heroine legal would be the lesser of two evils. My view is simply from my experiences. I've seen what happens to a community when the presence of crack, heroine and meth increase or decrease. And everything gets better...or worse...based on that. It's poison.

But....I do accept the fact that enforcement of those drugs is ugly work. It's violent and at times tragic.

I'm open to hear your view on why it would be less destructive to just legalize all of it, but I can't help but recall what a community looked like before and after it was flooded with drugs...and then removed.

 

[MikeK]

Well....definitely not for weed enforcement. Weed should be 100% legal.

I'm open to being convinced as to why making meth and heroine legal would be the lesser of two evils. My view is simply from my experiences. I've seen what happens to a community when the presence of crack, heroine and meth increase or decrease. And everything gets better...or worse...based on that. It's poison.

But....I do accept the fact that enforcement of those drugs is ugly work. It's violent and at times tragic.

I'm open to hear your view on why it would be less destructive to just legalize all of it, but I can't help but recall what a community looked like before and after it was flooded with drugs...and then removed.

What word is often used to describe the practice of making the same mistake over and over and over and expecting different outcome? That word applies to the drug war.

Did we learn nothing from alcohol Prohibition? People want it and are willing to pay for it, so it will always be available to them. And the only way to stop it is through the most oppressive kind of police state methods.

Drug abuse is a medical problem, not a law-enforcement problem. The past thirty years have clearly demonstrated that simple reality. The way to deal with the drug problem is the same way the problem of cigarette smoking was dealt with, which is an intensive, intelligently crafted public education program, which is the way cigarette-smoking was reduced by more than 60% -- without arresting a single individual or kicking down any doors at 3AM. Nicotine is more addictive than heroin. That is a fact. I smoked cigarettes for thirty-five years. I quit in 1985 as the result of public education. Intelligently crafted and convincing facts, repetitively presented.

There still will be a percentage of Americans who will continue to use dangerous drugs regardless of what is done to discourage them. These are self-destructive personalities. They are a fact of life in our society and there is no way to eliminate them without resorting to Gestapo methods.

Legalize drugs. Educate the People. Most will respond. Some will not. But the end result will be far better than what we have done and are doing now, which is utter madness. Really, madness.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

I'm open to hear your view on why it would be less destructive to just legalize all of it, but I can't help but recall what a community looked like before and after it was flooded with drugs...and then removed.

"Removed?"

You can say you "removed" drugs from one place but, and I hope you realize this, what you did is move it from one place to another.

When you shut down dealer A, Dealer B is waiting in the wings to pick up his trade. Don't you know that? And if you do know that, what good are you doing by wasting the time, effort and money it takes to shut down Dealer A? Who benefits from it -- other than you?

Again: Recreational drugs are no less available today than they were when the drug war was initiated. That is the bottom line you need to focus on. What we are doing now, which is the law enforcement approach, obviously isn't working. So don't you think it's time to change direction?

What possible harm can it do?