Good shoot, but I doubt the guy gets to walk around with the gun, if they even give him a chance to grab it, if he were black.
Famed CTE researcher Dr. Bennet Omalu performed an independent autopsy on Clark’s body. Omalu said on Friday, a day after Clark’s funeral, that he was struck by eight bullets, six of which hit him in the back. Police, by contrast, had said Clark was approaching officers when he was shot. Imagine that.
What are you talking about? The officer fired on the man when he pulled. The officer then took cover behind the car, radioed for backup, then came around the other side of the car and put him down.
So he’s calling the police officer a racist based off of some fictitious scenario? That doesn’t make any sense
And not saying the guy is racist for not pulling the trigger fast enough on a white man, history shows that usually cops are trigger happy when it comes to black men. It’s kind of fucked up that mister used this example to prove this point
Huh? Was that officer in another shooting where he shot a black man before he was able to pull a weapon? Assuming this officer would shoot someone bc they are black and appear as a threat to him just because of his occupation makes zero sense to me.
I am often on your side man, i think you should take a step back. There is no point for you to argue with people on a message board about things that they will never experience. No matter how you make your points, no matter the logic behind it you will never win the popular opinion. And you are right on this one, you can’t assume he is racist just because he acted the right way.
How many black man get shot because the officer did not see their hands? How many times unarmed black man get shot for not following directions? How many shootings of unarmed blacks resulted in officers emptying their clip on the “suspects and how many times do people like you defend it by saying cops are taught to shoot until the threat stop moving? This shooting is justified but spare me the bullshit, there’s no way that a black man gets the benefit of the doubt this guy got.
You know why he could never “win” this argument, because he, just like you, are making up shit that I never said. Not once did I accuse that officer of being racist.
Implying that this man would shoot an unarmed black man bc other people from his profession have is bullshit.
They do, have you fucking been paying attention? Your mistake is assuming that I apply that comment to simply this officer, the entire fucking system is structured as hostile towards blacks.
Just a correction: this happened in probably the worst neighborhood in Sacramento. Doesn't in any way excuse what happened or the seeming lies from the autopsy report, though.
Are you for real with this shit? You actually want me to take you seriously with these bullshit? Have you had seen or heard of Asian neighborhoods getting assigned as special assignments and deemed high impact areas? “You fit the description “ is an ongoing punchline in the black community for a reason. Even if you want to ignore all the unarmed blacks being shot let’s not ignore shit like stop and frisk, who the fuck did you think that was intended for?
Yes, you did call someone out for ignoring history and then ignored history yourself when you acted as though white people aren’t treated differently by the police. I don’t care if the officer is white or black the outcome is the same because both black and white officers are part of the same racist system.
nothing new there. cops and prosecutors go hand and hand. a lot of them are actually romantic. I believe NoleNBlue actually slept with the criminal traffic supervisor for a while, Mr. Smith.
The DA fuckery in Sacramento mentioned above made me want to discuss some good news. Civil rights lawyer Larry Krasner won the DA job in Philly last year and is implementing actual reforms to the criminal justice system there. This article at The Intercept has a policy memo embedded in it that is refreshing to read. https://theintercept.com/2018/03/20/larry-krasner-philadelphia-da/ He won in a landslide and hopefully we will see more DAs get elected on platforms like his.
Yep. Are you caught up on... http://www.philly.com/philly/column...rasner-dna-testing-philadelphia-20180405.html
Idk man, I can't say I'm a fan of a DA basically writing laws by deciding what he will and won't prosecute. That's not his job. His job is to enforce the law. I'm ok with the end result bc I think locking so many people up for weed is a travesty but I can't say I'm ok with how he's gotten there. The laws need to change but one DA doing whatever he wants isn't cool bc it could just as easily go the other way. If a DA in Alabama starts going for life sentences when the law says 1 year, would we be ok with it?
I didn't read his link, but don't confuse office policy with a law. Each DA office is allowed to have their own office policies, but it obviously can't change law. For example "going for life" would mean that is the DA's offer, but if not lawful the court would deny it every time.
If a DA has a policy that all prosecutors must decline all weed charges, they are in effect changing the law and making weed legal. A law without enforcement is pointless. Again, I'm in favor of legalizing weed, but not that way. He's doing the same thing with prostitution. It's now legal there as long as the hooker doesn't have 3 convictions for other offenses. Why 3 offenses for other things? Did he just make that up? Being a hooker is ok as long as you don't have other offenses but not legal if you do? His policies have effectively legalized weed and prostitution in his city. Then, under the heading “Decline Certain Charges,” Krasner immediately instructs prosecutors to stop prosecuting marijuana possession regardless of the weight. Furthermore, he instructed prosecutors to stop charging those with marijuana with any paraphernalia crimes. Next, Krasner instructed his prosecutors to stop charging sex workers that have fewer than three convictions with any crime and drop all current cases against sex workers who also fit that description. All sex workers with three or more convictions are to be referred to Dawn Court – a special diversionary program created in 2010 specifically for sex workers with repeat offenses, the first of its kind in the nation.
A better analogy would be if a DA decided to decline every murder charge. Would we be ok with that? Of course not. I just don't like the idea of being ok with it bc we like the end result.
The lawyers on the board can correct me if I'm wrong, but the DA office can't prosecute 100% of their cases either. It's up to their discretion what they choose to go after and if they think it's not worth going after marijuana charges then I don't see how that is a problem legally.
I'm ok with that on a case by case basis. If they look at the facts of a case and feel like they don't have a case, cool. Just making a blanket policy that you aren't going to enforce the law doesn't sit well with me though. Turning a case down bc of lack of proof and turning a all cases down bc you don't like the law is two different things.
I guess it depends on your views of legal vs moral. If the law said that the penalty for marijuana possession was to execute the offender in the middle of the street, would you begrudge the officers for doing what is morally right and not what the law compels them to?
I would still say the law should be changed and the DA should do his job, which is enforce the law, not effectively change the law in his city. Again, I'm a fan of the end result, I just don't like a DA picking and choosing what laws to enforce. That's not his place.
The DA is also an elected position and he may be simply doing what he campaigned on. He himself cannot change these laws, but he can help start the process by choosing what his office makes a priority.
He's not choosing what is a priority. He's literally saying he's not going to charge someone for something that's illegal in his city. I'm not ok with that. You're only ok with this bc you don't like the law he's refusing to enforce. If he chose not to charge for rape or murder, you wouldn't be ok with that.
Holy shit you're dense sometimes. Rape and murder are criminal acts that have victims and we seek justice for those victims. Having a fucking gram of weed and a pipe in your pocket has 0 victims. The act of an adult willingly buying and consuming drugs does not have a victim, no one is harmed. The punishment in that case isn't justice for the victim, it's retribution for engaging in a vice that some have deemed to immoral to tolerate. There are like 1908123 Nazi analogies that arise from your "...well, it's what I have to do..." approach to authority and morality.
He's not keeping the criminal justice system from pursing justice, he's keeping the system from being used to punish people engaging in consensual, victim-less activities such as marijuana possession and sex work.