I'm sorry you don't get prosecutors follow the law, and the law is what it says. If you want change, you have to change the law first. And when you change the law to a police officer cannot use his or her gun for self-defense unless they are shot first, good luck finding cops to do the job, because I sure as hell wouldn't go near it.
Well, since being a cop involves more skills than "Driving in a straight line", it might be above you anyway.
Here's the thing. I have no problem with a cop shooting someone who pulled a gun on him. The cases I get upset about is when they just shoot someone for being a scary black person.
The prosecutor presented forensic evidence. I know you think forensic scientists are in this conspiracy of yours, but even eye witnesses (who were black) testified that the big clown was running towards the officer.
His hands being up is nothing but a lie. How do we know, it's simple: take a pen and hold it to somebody in the chest or stomach but don't touch the shirt. Now have them lift their arms up. Notice what happens to the shirt?
That kind of proves nothing. If you have your hand straight up, yeah, you'll pull the shirt up. If you have your hands up with your arms paralell to your shoulders and just the forearms up. (the way most people would do it), then not so much. And I'm pretty sure those arms would go down once the first bullet hit you.
Most of the witnesses said that he had his hands up, but those werent' the ones the prosecutor called. He did call a delusional racist woman to the stand, though.
How is it a cover up when they had an enhanced video of the entire event? And no, the gun was found on the ground where the kid dropped it. The Grand Jury found that the testimony of the officers was inline with the video and forensic evidence.
The Grand Jury that was presented a lot of whitewashed evidence and then never took a vote. that grand jury?
Guy, we've been over this a million times. Loehmann shot a kid playing with a toy. Deal with it.
Lots of covering up in your world Joe, isn't there. In fact it seems that anybody who disagrees with you is involved in a coverup. But no, you don't have any mental issues.
Yeah, when you have payoffs and hide tapes and ignore witnesses, and it takes four years to convict a guy who IS CAUGHT ON TAPE DOING EXACTLY WHAT HE IS ACCUSED OF, that's a cover up. But all those folks are out of jobs now, so the next guys aren't going to be too keen to lose their jobs for a thug with a badge.
Nobody covered up anything. A prosecutor simply presents a case and it's the judge or jury that makes the decision--not the prosecutor.
Except that's not what happened. IN Furgeson, the Prosecutor acted like a defense attorney. In Cleveland, the prosecutor called a grand jury AFTER a judge had already ruled that there was enough evidence to take Loehmann directly to trial. In Chicago, the prosecutor sat on the tape for a year, until a judge ordered it released, and they took the case away from her and gave it to a special prosecutor before we voted her ass out.
Well when we wake up in your commie world, then they have no business there. But when we wake up in my free America world, everybody has the right to free speech.
Um, no. Not an issue of free speech. It's an issue of an organizations ability to discipline and police their own being disrupted by a union that protects misconduct.
I find it amusing that in any other industry, you hate when unions protect working folks, but man, when it comes to cops that shoot black kids, you are all for unions protecting them.