Another cop shooting

[Victorian Gray]

small update:


South Carolina Department of Public Safety later released another version of the dashboard camera video, which is almost an hour long, in which Groubert tells an individual, who appears to be his supervisor, his own version of the incident. His account appears to be in stark contrast of the footage recorded by the camera.

“Before I could even get out of my car he jumped out, stared at me, and as I jumped out of my car and identified myself, as I approached him, he jumped head-first back into his car … he jumped out of the car. I saw something black in his hands.”


http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/trial-verdict-extended-ex-south-carolina-cop

Just how stupid do you have to be to tell a story so obviously different than what was recorded by the dash cam? Sheesh!

 

[doubledeluxe]

I hope this asshole gets the full 20 years.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Naw, the solicitor wants a 270 day delay, probably wants everyone to forget about it so they can let him off with a slap on the wrist. All the evidence is already here, no reason to delay for 9 months.

But like Merg says, it's only a few bad apples, and cops never lie. Except when they do. He already got fired, so to Merg, that is enough punishment already I am sure. No need for jail time right?

 

[The Merg]

Naw, the solicitor wants a 270 day delay, probably wants everyone to forget about it so they can let him off with a slap on the wrist. All the evidence is already here, no reason to delay for 9 months.

But like Merg says, it's only a few bad apples, and cops never lie. Except when they do. He already got fired, so to Merg, that is enough punishment already I am sure. No need for jail time right?

That's not what I've said and you know that. My belief is that there are bad cops out there without doubt. Due to the Internet and media today, incidents of police abuse come to the forefront more quickly and go viral a lot easier. I don't think that the number of bad cops out there is as great as some people insist it is. Due to the number of cops in this country and the number of contacts that police have with cops everyday, I would think that the news/Internet would be overloaded everyday with incidents if that was the case.

As for lying, I didn't say they never or don't lie. I said that they have an incentive to not lie since most departments will terminate them if they are caught in a lie. I've seen it happen to officers at a department in my area numerous times over the past few years. They are even starting to hold officers accountable for incidents that they were already punished for 15-20 years ago by deeming those violations as being truthfulness issues now.

Obviously, this is something we disagree over and unless somehow we can get some concrete numbers, neither one of us is going to change our minds.

Just because a cop works with a bad cop, that doesn't make that other cop guilty by association. Even if the other cop thinks the bad cop is dirty, what do they do if they have no proof? I would suppose that bad cops stick together and are not going to try to do things that would not make them stand out when around the good cops. It's one thing to know that a cop is bad, but another to think that and not know for sure. Would you want to be responsible for starting an investigation on a co-worker just because you "think" they are dirty.

If what this cop did is determined to be criminal and he is found guilty (or pleads guilty), he should be sentenced to whatever the court determines is appropriate.

- Merg

 

[zanejohnson]

Obviously he shouldn't have complied so hard.
I'm convinced the people who defend the police in these threads, are just trolling, nobody is really that ignorant or morally corrupt. Contrarians and weasels yes? But it's just shtick.

It's like the people who justified removal of, and/or fingered jewish neighbors in nazi Germany if not.

"We didn't know where they were taking them, honest!"

 

[zanejohnson]

If what this cop did is determined to be criminal and he is found guilty (or pleads guilty), he should be sentenced to whatever the court determines is appropriate.

- Merg

What if he's obviously guilty but because of rampant corruption he doesn't get charged?

or does 2+2+5 because THEY SAID SO.

 

[The Merg]

What if he's obviously guilty but because of rampant corruption he doesn't get charged?

or does 2+2+5 because THEY SAID SO.

There's not much I can do about that. I trust the system to work. Does it always? No, but when it doesn't there are usually remedies or avenues that you can take. No system is 100% effective or flawless.

If everyone believes the system doesn't work, you end up with anarchy. And a nation won't last very long if its basis is anarchy.

- Merg

 

[zanejohnson]

There's not much I can do about that. I trust the system to work. Does it always? No, but when it doesn't there are usually remedies or avenues that you can take. No system is 100% effective or flawless.

If everyone believes the system doesn't work, you end up with anarchy. And a nation won't last very long if its basis is anarchy.

- Merg

so it's denial.

we've seen evidence the system is corrupt..i dont want it to be that way but we're not making this stuff up, we're just calling it how we see it..it has happened in many nations before ours, and it will happen again.

 

[The Merg]

so it's denial.

we've seen evidence the system is corrupt..i dont want it to be that way but we're not making this stuff up, we're just calling it how we see it..it has happened in many nations before ours, and it will happen again.

What denial? I'm saying the system is not perfect. Does that mean the entire system is corrupt? No, it doesn't.

- Merg

 

[zanejohnson]

What denial? I'm saying the system is not perfect. Does that mean the entire system is corrupt? No, it doesn't.

- Merg

i'd say it's just corrupt enough that it's causing nationwide violent civil unrest, there is riots in over half of the United States as we're debating.

 

[The Merg]

i'd say it's just corrupt enough that it's causing nationwide violent civil unrest, there is riots in over half of the United States as we're debating.

So because Wilson was not indicted that means the system is corrupt? The GJ heard ALL of the evidence available and determined that a crime did not occur. Isn't that the way the system is supposed to work? Just because the outcome is not what you wanted, doesn't mean the system is corrupt or broken. If he had been indicted, I'm sure Wilson supporters would be upset, but that doesn't mean the system didn't work.

- Merg

 

[zanejohnson]

So because Wilson was not indicted that means the system is corrupt? The GJ heard ALL of the evidence available and determined that a crime did not occur. Isn't that the way the system is supposed to work? Just because the outcome is not what you wanted, doesn't mean the system is corrupt or broken. If he had been indicted, I'm sure Wilson supporters would be upset, but that doesn't mean the system didn't work.

- Merg

I do see your point. I guess the real question is then, whether these protests are going to change anything, are we seeing civil rights movement 2.0, or is it going to just dissipate, very interesting time to be in our little corner of the galaxy, that's for sure

 

[Lil Frier]

I tried to have this discussion with someone last night, it didn't really have a conclusion, and I don't expect that it usually will. Like is said, the system is imperfect. However, imperfection and occasional corruption doesn't quite justify dismantling of the system. The dismantling of all police forces over these incidents leaves society with an "every man for himself" justice system, where justice is sought out with no real logic, precedence of reasonable punishment, or order.

To give the best analogy I can for the situation: No system is perfect, like I said. If you go to McDonald's, and you get the wrong order, do you demand the dismantling of the entire McDonald's chain of restaurants? Obviously, getting Diet Coke instead of Dr. Pepper (something that's happened to my cousin multiple times) isn't the same as unjustly getting shot, but my point is to say that the failures of few should not negate the proper actions of the many.

Oh, and since it was mentioned, and there's a clear correlation between the two incidents: I support the grand jury's decision, regarding Darren Wilson. There is reasonable evidence to support probable cause for the shooting, and while that might ultimately be the wrong conclusion, you can't simply throw a guy in jail because a bunch of celebrities are on Twitter calling it a travesty. "Innocent until proven guilty," might let criminals off due to lack of evidence, but I would much rather have that than a chaotic, "guilty until proven innocent" system, where you could be jailed for a crime you didn't commit because you can't PROVE each and every outlandish claim against you.

In this case, the cop deserves some serious jail time. I don't know about 20 years, that seems excessive, but overreacting and reverting to your training, even in an egregiously stupid way like this, shouldn't completely ruin and essentially end the guy's life. 5-10 years seems sufficient, though it's also hard to argue that nearly killing a man because you're a trigger-happy loon has a "fair" punishment.

Last point I just thought about while typing: Not to defend the cop's actions in any way (more an attempt to figure out why he reacted this way), but they DID mention a previous engagement where he was in a shootout. Perhaps this incident (stopped the guy, he got out, then reached back into the car) triggered some mental issue related to that previous encounter, and he violently overreacted, thinking the guy was pulling a gun. If that's the case, then I'd say that the system screwed up in not figuring out that h e was emotionally scarred from that event, but he would certainly still need to pay for his crime.

 

[The Merg]

I do see your point. I guess the real question is then, whether these protests are going to change anything, are we seeing civil rights movement 2.0, or is it going to just dissipate, very interesting time to be in our little corner of the galaxy, that's for sure

If this is Civil Rights 2.0, I don't want that update.

I think this is far beyond what MLK would have wanted.

I don't mind change and don't mind fixing what's broke. But, tearing things down at the expense of others (i.e. rioting/looting) is not what should be done.

- Merg

 

[Linux23]

What is AX Cop?

Racist reflex? Never heard of that before.

As for why I think it's panic is because of his physical reaction. That was the definition of panic. You also never hear him make one comment that would insinuate the issue was race related. Even after the subject was shot, the officer goes over to make sure he's okay and requests an ambulance. While that doesn't make up for shooting the subject, it does show some of the cop's mindset.

- Merg

he told the wounded victim to put his hand behind his back before realizing he fucked up and then called an ambulance.

 

[The Merg]

he told the wounded victim to put his hand behind his back before realizing he fucked up and then called an ambulance.

Generally, if a cop uses force on someone they handcuff the person and then address any medical issues.

- Merg

 

[Linux23]

Generally, if a cop uses force on someone they handcuff the person and then address any medical issues.

- Merg

Which is absurd in my opinion. You already shot someone and they are wounded and bleeding out. What else could possibly happen when the other person is wounded?

 

[The Merg]

Which is absurd in my opinion. You already shot someone and they are wounded and bleeding out. What else could possibly happen when the other person is wounded?

It's not possible for someone to continue to fight or resist after being shot? It sure is possible.

- Merg

 

[realibrad]

Which is absurd in my opinion. You already shot someone and they are wounded and bleeding out. What else could possibly happen when the other person is wounded?

They could have another weapon. Did you really not think your comment through. Im all for this cop getting fired, and put into jail, but its pretty obvious why the procedure is to handcuff the person even after they have been shot.

 

[Linux23]

They could have another weapon. Did you really not think your comment through. Im all for this cop getting fired, and put into jail, but its pretty obvious why the procedure is to handcuff the person even after they have been shot.

Yes, hand cuff someone who is bleeding out on the ground. :thumbsup:

How about searching the bleeding perp, assess a medical need, and then call an ambulance?

 

[The Merg]

Yes, hand cuff someone who is bleeding out on the ground. :thumbsup:



How about searching the bleeding perp, assess a medical need, and then call an ambulance?

You can only search them incident to an arrest, which means you would handcuff them first.

And once again, just because they are shot does not mean they don't have another weapon or can't still hurt the cop or someone else.

- Merg

 

[Chiropteran]

Yes, hand cuff someone who is bleeding out on the ground. :thumbsup:

How about searching the bleeding perp, assess a medical need, and then call an ambulance?

Even when a guy is on the ground bleeding through multiple holes, he might still be able to distract you and knock you down, punch you so hard you lose all your teeth, and then crush your skull.

 

[realibrad]

Yes, hand cuff someone who is bleeding out on the ground. :thumbsup:

How about searching the bleeding perp, assess a medical need, and then call an ambulance?

Some people are crazy. A person might want to die, and take a cop with them. Its not like once a person is shot, they turn into a saint. Suicide by cop happens quite often by unstable people. A person who has justly been shot by a cop, loses the courtesy of safety. If the shooting was unjustified, thats different. Your view only works when someone wants to live, and is sane. What happens when you meet someone unstable?

 

[ivwshane]

Some people are crazy. A person might want to die, and take a cop with them. Its not like once a person is shot, they turn into a saint. Suicide by cop happens quite often by unstable people. A person who has justly been shot by a cop, loses the courtesy of safety. If the shooting was unjustified, thats different. Your view only works when someone wants to live, and is sane. What happens when you meet someone unstable?

Good cops control the situation, they don't make it worse.

http://www.kob.com/article/stories/s3393423.shtml#.VHaoc9m9LCQ

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=40ihDTHpHs8

 

[Meghan54]

So because Wilson was not indicted that means the system is corrupt? The GJ heard ALL of the evidence available and determined that a crime did not occur. Isn't that the way the system is supposed to work? Just because the outcome is not what you wanted, doesn't mean the system is corrupt or broken. If he had been indicted, I'm sure Wilson supporters would be upset, but that doesn't mean the system didn't work.

- Merg

About the bolded part....no, that's not how it works.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, explained what the role of a grand jury has been for hundreds of years.

It is the grand jury's function not to 'enquire ... upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,' or otherwise to try the suspect's defenses, but only to examine 'upon what foundation [the charge] is made' by the prosecutor. (Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 346 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (6th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the subject under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.

...requiring the prosecutor to present exculpatory as well as inculpatory evidence would alter the grand jury's historical role, transforming it from an accusatory body that sits to assess whether there is adequate basis for bringing a criminal charge into an adjudicatory body that sits to determine guilt or innocence. Because it has always been thought sufficient for the grand jury to hear only the prosecutor's side, and, consequently that the suspect has no right to present, and the grand jury no obligation to consider, exculpatory evidence, it would be incompatible with the traditional system to impose upon the prosecutor a legal obligation to present such evidence.

In other words, defendants rarely, if ever, get to present "their side of the story" during a grand jury. The DA's job is to present all evidence that supports an indictment and let the GJ determine if there's probable cause.




In contrast, McCulloch allowed Wilson to testify for hours before the grand jury and presented them with every scrap of exculpatory evidence available. In his press conference, McCulloch said that the grand jury did not indict because eyewitness testimony that established Wilson was acting in self-defense was contradicted by other exculpatory evidence. What McCulloch didn’t say is that he was under no obligation to present such evidence to the grand jury. The only reason one would present such evidence is to reduce the chances that the grand jury would indict Darren Wilson.



Essentially, McCulloch made an end-run around the legal system by trying the case before the grand jury. Grand juries nearly always decide to indict. Or at least, they nearly always do so in cases that don’t involve police officers.