Two Louisville cops shot in city’s downtown area

[Aunt Antifa]

Nice to see you're up early. Hope you had a good terrorizing your city last night.

I ****ed My wife and went to bed. Someone has to get up and work to pay for red state opioid addiction.

 

[GummyVitamins]

I ****ed My wife and went to bed. Someone has to get up and work to pay for red state opioid addiction.

Did she notice?

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Did she notice?

Oh, I’m a woman too so she came like crazy!

 

[pamak]

Maybe because it is not systemic. Have you looked at the number of police interactions and percentage of complaints regarding abuse of force?

When a police officer does wrong the public wants to see them suffer the consequences. But, they don't deserve to go to jail everytime they shoot back at people trying to kill them, like in the case of Breonna Taylor raid.

You ask them to walk dangerous streets with politically charged DAs and mayors keeping violent criminals on the streets and shielding them from consequences of their crimes. And then when they get shot at executing a warrant they defend themselves. In response, rioters kill random police officers in cold blood.

We can agree police unions, like all public unions, are highly problematic. And there should be consequences when officers do the wrong thing. But, scapegoating someone saving their life is absurd. You go serve that warrant, watch the man next to you get shot while a pair of people are standing down a hallway in defensive positions shooting down at you trying to kill you. Let me know what you would do in that split second when you are trying to save your life.

In order of having a police officer sufferring legal consequences for a crime, you need to have laws that assign responsibility (no-knock warrant laws do not), attorney generals go after cops (and such attorney generals havee a conflict of interests since they need the cooperation of the police officers in their district to prosecute cases), and a jury of usually ten people which would not include by accident any racist juror (f the crime involves a minority victim). As for the complains, you need to see how police union contracts are written to make sure that repeate offenders are not exposed.

https://www.checkthepolice.org/review

64 cities and 10 states limit disciplinary consequences for officers, for example by preventing an officer's history of past misconduct from being considered in future cases, and/or limit the capacity of civilian oversight structures or the media to hold police accountable


This includes 48 cities that let officers appeal disciplinary decisions to an arbitrator who has the power to reinstate that officer and who in many cases is selected, in part, by the accused officer or the police union.




There is also the issue of culture since the jury often makes decisions based on if a certain defendant acted as "reasonable" person r had "reasonable" fear or not. There is a clear cultural gap between what many Americans see as "reasonable" and what other Americans see as "reasonable"

 

[GummyVitamins]

In order of having a police officer sufferring legal consequences for a crime, you need to have laws that assign responsibility (no-knock warrant laws do not), attorney generals go after cops (and such attorney generals havee a conflict of interests since they need the cooperation of the police officers in their district to prosecute cases), and a jury of usually ten people which would not include by accident any racist juror (f the crime involves a minority victim). As for the complains, you need to see how police union contracts are written to make sure that repeate offenders are not exposed.

I agree wholeheartedly that there are bad police officers out there and that unions serve to support and keep bad police officers employed. There is also often a culture of supporting other police officers, but that is why there are grand juries. There is room to weaken requirements to give more variance to allow grand juries to move forward with a trial.

There is also the issue of culture since the jury often makes decisions based on if a certain defendant acted as "reasonable" person r had "reasonable" fear or not. There is a clear cultural gap between what many Americans see as "reasonable" and what other Americans see as "reasonable"

There is no solution for this beyond being able to read someone's mind. This is why body and vehicle cameras are so important. This allows the jury to see the event from the exact perspective of the police officers involved.

 

[pamak]

I agree wholeheartedly that there are bad police officers out there and that unions serve to support and keep bad police officers employed. There is also often a culture of supporting other police officers, but that is why there are grand juries. There is room to weaken requirements to give more variance to allow grand juries to move forward with a trial.



There is no solution for this beyond being able to read someone's mind. This is why body and vehicle cameras are so important. This allows the jury to see the event from the exact perspective of the police officers involved.

The problem with grand juries is that you do not hae both sides presenting their case. The grand jury will only see what the prosecutor presents and the procedure is secret, so there is a lot of room for reluctant attonery generals who do not want to endager their position with the police officers in their juristiction pull punches in grand juries when there are controversial cases involving cops