- Joined
- Aug 17, 2018
- Messages
- 20,000
- Reaction score
- 17,328
- Location
- Down the street
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
You need to stop lying and accept that you're wrong.
Sign up and go show'em how it's done.
:lamo Interesting thought. I can't help but notice that everyone currently posting (except you) is in agreement that this ex cop screwed up. Add to that his own dept has stated he screwed up. But yet here you are making up things like "he saw her point a weapon at him" when the own guys words suggest nothing of the sort. So take your own advice. Everybody here can see what you're doing.
Very sad event. Hopefully the investigation will find out exactly what happened and make recommendations for changes in police procedures.
I am also mad that the news media felt it was important to identify the race of the LEO and the victim. Seems the msm wants to keep racial tensions high. There is no mention that the LEO was influenced by the victims race. That is there is no evidence provided that the shooting was a "hate crime".
It's called "exculpatory evidence". Not admitting his statement would be illegal.
Wrong. The child can be barred from testifying by the judge. Even if the child testifies that doesn’t mean a jury is actually going to believe what he says is what happened. Not because he lied but because he’s an 8 year old kid.
Wrong. The child can be barred from testifying by the judge. Even if the child testifies that doesn’t mean a jury is actually going to believe what he says is what happened. Not because he lied but because he’s an 8 year old kid.
I have a career. And it not mot obligation to train the State on how to not kill innocent people.
Maybe if citizen had more respect for human life and a better understanding of the law they wouldn’t have such flippantly ignorant opinions.
Wrong. The child can be barred from testifying by the judge. Even if the child testifies that doesn’t mean a jury is actually going to believe what he says is what happened. Not because he lied but because he’s an 8 year old kid.
A couple of minor technical points here.
The child would not be "barred from testifying" and it would not be the judge doing it in any event.
A "child of tender years" is, at law, NOT AUTOMATICALLY deemed to be competent to testify in court because of the presumption that they do not sufficiently understand the nature of the proceedings and the nature/import of an oath. It is, however, possible to have a "child of tender years" QUALIFIED to testify as long as the judge is satisfied that the "child of tender years" DOES sufficiently understand the nature of the proceedings and the nature/import of an oath.
Once a "child of tender years" is QUALIFIED to give evidence (and that IS at the discretion of the Judge), they are subject to exactly the same rules and procedures as any other witness would be.
He probably would give testimony on a camera.
However, I don't think it matters. 1) the complete bodycam footage will provide the information, and 2) she was in her own home and has a right to have a gun and defend herself against an armed intruder.
The officer cannot get around the fact that he went into her yard without permission or probable cause, pointed a gun at the resident without provocation, never identified himself, and shot without warning.
LOL Hiding someone's race because you don't want to "keep racial tensions high" is racist in itself and will do nothing to address the complaints of the black community. You do know that if the situations were reversed things would be very different.
His statement in the police report can be admitted into evidence.
Suppressing it would be illegal and would almost guarantee a guilty verdict being overturned on appeal.
If the underlined is true, then this cop is showing less restraint than I was legally required to demonstrate in Fallujah, and everyone who wrote those regulations needs to lose their jobs, even as he needs to go to prison for murder.
He shot a legal gun owner in her home for nothing. F Him. He deserves no more protection than I would have from charges in that situation.
Thank you for the correction I didn’t realize that the assumption going on was that the child can’t testify.
The child would not be permitted to give ANY evidence, in ANY manner (including "on a camera" [and the rules governing when such is allowable don't appear to apply here]), until AFTER the COMPETENCE of the child had been established. Any tapes/transcripts that might have been made of anything that the child said BEFORE the child was QUALIFIED would not be admissible UNLESS the child was QUALIFIED (and the complete background [including anything said to the child by a "person in authority" between the shooting and the making of the tapes/transcripts] was disclosed).
There you are probably correct.
You are going to find some people who will tell you that the police officer had sort of "implied permission" to search outside of the house because they had received a report that there might be someone unlawfully inside the house.
I'd tell you what I think of that position, but the forum's "BAD WORD filter" would likely overheat and (potentially) one or more of the faint-hearted of the mods would have an attack of the vapours.
Since it appears important to you, I went and looked it up.
"Blacks" account for approximately 10% of Canada's prison population. They account for approximately 37% of America's prison population.
I spoke to some police officers about this, and they were not sympathetic to the officer. Essentially stating that he was stupid, and the mistakes were due to his inexperience. They also commented that new officers need to spend more time working with a seasoned officer before being released to work on their own - and that police departments do a poor job of this.
One offered that he had a virtually identical call - welfare check on a house where a neighbor was not supposed to be home, yet the lights were on. He parked in front of the house, and ran the plates on the car in the driveway. The results gave him a name and an address that matched the home. By that time, a second officer arrived, and they knocked on the door and announced themselves - one just to the side, and another in the yard where he could offer cover. Neither used flashlights, or drew their weapons (although they were ready to do so). The occupant came to the door, said he came home from vacation early, and gave his name (which matched the car registration). The second officer then spoke to the neighbor (who had come outside). The officers thanked the resident, the resident was grateful, and the neighbor relieved. The officers were available within 5 minutes of arriving on scene.
That's a shocking difference.
"Blacks" represent about 14% of the US population. At an incarceration rate of 37%, they are over-represented in prison by a huge factor of 2.6. This is shocking and represents the deep systemic racism in the US.
"Blacks" represent 3.5% of the Canadian population. At an incarceration rate of 10%, they are over-represented in prison by a factor of only 2.9. This is evidence of the fair minded, forward-thinking, non-racist attitudes in Canada.
Which has something to do with the FWPD situation?
What?
Have you considered that the disparity could also be due to a lack of "skilled criminality" on the parts of BOTH American and Canadian "Blacks"?
BTW, be rather leery of any statistics regarding "race" purporting to come from Statistics Canada since Statistics Canada does NOT ask for data on "racial origin" in its census forms.
Your situation and its resolution likely took less that a total of two hours of police officers' time and no fatalities.
The FWPD situation and its resolution is likely to involve more than 200 hours of police officers' time PLUS at least the same amount of lawyers' time PLUS (assuming a "Not Guilty" plea) at least 12,000 hours of judicial, court, and civilian time PLUS one fatality PLUS (assuming a conviction) around 157,788 hours of "custodial staff" time (rough total 170,000 hours of taxpayer funded time).
I can see that some people think that the FWPD situation and its resolution is the preferred way to deal with the matter. What I can NOT see is how any rational person would have that preference.
Yes, you would have a better opinion
I don't know.
You brought up the subject.
What did you have in mind?
Why would you ask what I've "considered"?
You brought up the statistics, I merely filled in a few relevant additional numbers.
If you think the stats are unreliable, why did you bring them up?
I do not consider such a callous regard for citizens rights, and such fervent boot licking for
the chicken **** murderer to be ‘better’.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?