Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
She pulled the wrong “weapon.” That was an accident. The charge of manslaughter consisting of an element of “recklessness” shouldn’t have even been brought. It should have been tossed by the court, as a matter of law. The conviction cannot be based on the facts AND the correct law. It ought to be overturned on appeal. (That doesn’t mean it will be.)It was NOT an accident like a fender bender. She did commit manslaughter. If you or I did what she did, we should be charged tried and found guilty. But the question is whether as a law enforcement officer, she should have criminal BUT NOT CIVIL immunity. Does convicting her make good people less willing to become cops? Imo, yes it does, and that's bad.
Mostly agree with that.Imo she should have been fired for cause and with a loss of benefits, but immunity from civil charges for negligent, and non-intentional harms should not be prosecuted against law enforcement. The only justification for manslaughter is to give the family revenge and deter future conduct by others, and neither really is appropriate here.
And it's an "accident" IF you or I are cleaning a rifle and shoot and kill somebody. And it's manslaughter. The question is simply whether as a cop, she should get some immunity from going to rape you prisonShe pulled the wrong “weapon.” That was an accident. The charge of manslaughter consisting of an element of “recklessness” shouldn’t have even been brought. It should have been tossed by the court, as a matter of law. The conviction cannot be based on the facts AND the correct law. It ought to be overturned on appeal. (That doesn’t mean it will be.)
Marvelous ^ incoherency.And it's an "accident" IF you or I are cleaning a rifle and shoot and kill somebody. And it's manslaughter. The question is simply whether as a cop, she should get some immunity from going to rape you prison
Imo she should have been fired for cause and with a loss of benefits, but immunity from civil charges for negligent, and non-intentional harms should not be prosecuted against law enforcement. The only justification for manslaughter is to give the family revenge and deter future conduct by others, and neither really is appropriate here.
It was NOT an accident like a fender bender. She did commit manslaughter. If you or I did what she did, we should be charged tried and found guilty. But the question is whether as a law enforcement officer, she should have criminal BUT NOT CIVIL immunity. Does convicting her make good people less willing to become cops? Imo, yes it does, and that's bad.
Did Potter have qualified immunity?Again, the problem here is everything that led up to that mistake. They didn't pull him over for just cause, they pulled him over for a DWB Bullshit offense of not having tags. Then they escalated with another bullshit offense of the air-freshener hanging off the mirror. In short, the stupidity compounded itself.
Police already have qualified immunity for their conduct. Their conduct has to be especially egregious for their behavior to be held liable.
So here's an idea. How about instead of the cities having to pay for the bad cops, the police unions have to.
How is not having your vehicle registered and taxes paid a BS charge?Again, the problem here is everything that led up to that mistake. They didn't pull him over for just cause, they pulled him over for a DWB Bullshit offense of not having tags. Then they escalated with another bullshit offense of the air-freshener hanging off the mirror. In short, the stupidity compounded itself.
Police already have qualified immunity for their conduct. Their conduct has to be especially egregious for their behavior to be held liable.
So here's an idea. How about instead of the cities having to pay for the bad cops, the police unions have to.
100percentfedup.com
100percentfedup.com
Some who attack jury verdicts do so based upon blatant ideological bias, certainly not a superior grasp of the circumstances and details with which the jury has been intimately acquainted or the motivation to achieve a fair decision.That thug wasn’t obeying cops and she had every right to plug him full of lead.
How is not having your vehicle registered and taxes paid a BS charge?
If there are no consequences for not registering your vehicle and paying your taxes, why pay them?
continuing on with the concept of accidental and intentional: This truck driver sentenced to over 100 years for his brakes failing and four maybe more people died as a result of the accident.
One of the Kardashians and the victims' families intervened and asked for a lighter sentence so his sentence was reduced to ten years. The sentence was wrong in the first place so how do you feel about this 'intrusion' into the process.....public opinion? to change a sentence? is there no legal process to set these things right??
Colorado Gov Reduces Sentence Of 22-Yr-Old Truck Driver Who Killed Four From 110 Yrs to Only 10 Yrs After Outcry From Kim Kardashian and Victim's Families * 100PercentFedUp.com * by Patty McMurray
In 2019, 22-yr-old Cuban immigrant Rogel Lazaro Aguilera-Mederos was involved in a fiery crash when his brakes went out while […]
But somebody has to pay for accidents in the leftists' minds...unless of course the accused IS a leftist...then...pffft
Colorado Gov Reduces Sentence Of 22-Yr-Old Truck Driver Who Killed Four From 110 Yrs to Only 10 Yrs After Outcry From Kim Kardashian and Victim's Families * 100PercentFedUp.com * by Patty McMurray
In 2019, 22-yr-old Cuban immigrant Rogel Lazaro Aguilera-Mederos was involved in a fiery crash when his brakes went out while […]
go after the deeper pockets.
She is still not sentence yet.It was the judge who was the criminal in that case.
There can never legally be something ,like a "mandated sentence" as the judge claimed.
The constitution prohibits mandated sentences, and always requires judicial discretion based on mitigating circumstances.
The judge must have known that, but pass the ridiculously high sentence anyway.
Some who attack jury verdicts do so based upon blatant ideological bias, certainly not a superior grasp of the circumstances and details with which the jury has been intimately acquainted or the motivation to achieve a fair decision.
Police are sometimes confronted with rapidly-unfolding situations where they have the responsibility of making quick judgments.
When the deceased, among a mob of violent goons, persisted in smashing windows and advancing on police, it's remarkable that more of the aggressors were not met with lethal force.
View attachment 583035
"Those who made this attack on our government need
to be identified and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Their actions are repugnant to democracy."
Lindsey Graham (R) calls for prosecution of rioters
She is still not sentence yet.
ooohJuries tend to be rubber stamps.
That is because the defense lawyers are often inexperienced and suppressed by an oppressive judge.
And most jurist incorrectly think that if it appears the defendant is 51% guilty, that ypu should then render a guilty verdict.
That is not the case.
Beyond reasonable doubt is intended to imply more like 98% probability of guilt before voting for a guilty verdict.
I was referring to the truck driver who got over 100 year sentence, that Calypso Jones brought up.
I do not understand how anyone could believe mandated sentences could possibly be legal in a democratic republic?
