White Officer Just Indicted By SC Jury For Killing Unarmed Black Man

a reply to: Phage

Actually it seems like common sense to me and should be mandatory. Conflict of interest exists for a reason... perhaps it's time we include into law that prosecutors are to be considered having conflict of interest if prosecuting/investigating any lawmakers/enforcers in their jurisdiction... cops, local politicians, judges... whatever.

originally posted by: FeistyFemme
a reply to: xuenchen

That's great that justice was served but taking 3 freakin years to reach a verdict over an unarmed man who simply complained about a ticket? First of all it shouldn't take that damn long, secondly, being that the deceased went to the police station to complain then there has to be plenty of video footage in the station and maybe even outside the station. I'm so sick and tired of hearing these asshole cops saying they feared for their life when really the civilian is fearing for their lives being bullied by cops with multiple weapons. Cops not only have guns, but tasers, batons, pepper spray...WTF man...

I was never proud to be an American with it's horrific genocide history. I just despise this country and a majority of it's ignorant, narcissistic citizens.

# THE US

Good to get things off your chest.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Kali74

Finally people aren't looking away from injustice.

You mean "finally the MSM is paying attention?" Because it's been going on for a long time, cops being indicted and cops not being indicted.

But you are ignoring some pretty huge elephants in the room if you think people have nothing to fear or protest about or that the justice system doesn't privilege cops.

Did I say any of those things? It is good that attention is being brought to the situation? Of course it is. Now what? What changes? Take the benefit of doubt away from cops when there is lacking and/or contradictory evidence? Like I said, I'm not sure that would be a real benefit.

Why can you say that? why should any police officer not be creative about anything mundane to deadly, and when it comes to someones death by their hand it can become even more creative. Same goes for felons, how long did the mafia get away with deadly stuff before the come uppance, only to be caught on something entirely unrelated, while other individuals fried for their crimes.
In a court anything can make a difference totally unrelated to actual events.
Like Ferguson, Officer Darren Wilson said he shot at Michael Brown twice from the car and was of the opinion that he Hit Michael Brown at least once, while being in fear of Michael Brown and that Officer Darren Wilson's own weapon could be turned on himself, yet elsewhere officer Darren Wilson also says his car's engine was running. Does that make sense? why did the Grand Jury not pick up on that? what sort of car was he driving, a puddle hopper or a glorified blowlamp?
When I look at at what happened in Ferguson, there is no way any officer should be given the benefit of the doubt in the matter of killing someone unarmed.

a reply to: smurfy

When I look at at what happened in Ferguson, there is no way any officer should be given the benefit of the doubt in the matter of killing someone unarmed.

He should have just let him run away? He should have done nothing as Brown advanced toward him?
Maybe, but neither you nor I were there or in his position.

a reply to: xuenchen

There's plenty more to get off my chest...

a reply to: Kali74

perhaps it's time we include into law that prosecutors are to be considered having conflict of interest if prosecuting/investigating any lawmakers/enforcers in their jurisdiction... cops, local politicians, judges...

So, a special prosecutor for any government employee or official. Wide net, but I'm not sure it's wide enough to be constitutional.

Prosecutors are elected officials in all but three states. Shouldn't the voters be trusted to select them?

a reply to: FeistyFemme

You know, unlike some other countries you can leave America anytime you like...

originally posted by: xuenchen
Looks like some Grand Juries do in fact indict police .....

This story is pointing out media "silence".

Hmmm.

Different?

Med ia Silent as White Officer Just Indicted By SC Jury For Killing Unarmed Black Man

Ignore the political slant in the article.

In May 2011, Bernard Bailey, a 54-year-old African American, came to the Eutawville (population 300) police department to complain about his daughter’s recent taillight ticket. When Police Chief Richard Combs, 35, attempted to arrest Bailey for obstruction of justice, Bailey refused and marched outside to his truck. Combs pursued Bailey to his truck and attempted to turn off the ignition, which resulted in a physical struggle between the two, ending with Combs shooting Bailey twice in the chest.

Though Combs claimed that his arm was tangled in the steering wheel and feared for his life should Bailey drive away, prosecutors said Combs had initiated the struggle that led to Bailey’s death.

Wednesday, an Orangeburg County grand jury agreed with the prosecutors, indicting Combs for murder, which carries a 30 years to life sentence—a far harsher penalty than the original “misconduct in office” charge brought by prosecutors, carrying a 10-year maximum prison sentence.

Three and a half years later they decide to indict???? Sounds like the sacrificial lamb. When did the Grand Jury take this up for decision, right after the Ferguson shooting? They already paid out in August.

Bailey’s family reached a $400,000 wrongful death settlement with the city in August.

originally posted by: Bone75
The article sounds like its missing a really big chunk of information.

I'd like to know how the dead guy went from complaining about his daughter's ticket, to being charged with obstruction of justice. How does that happen?

Probably just going in an complaining about it.

I was at mayors court once and openly disagreed with the cops judgment.....and wow by the reaction of everyone there I could tell they were not used to that. Although I was under the impression that it happened every day.....that's why we have court ect.

a reply to: xuenchen

They threw everyone a bone. So he was indicted. If he goes to trial, if he is convicted and sentenced and IF he does any actual time I will be amazed.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: smurfy

When I look at at what happened in Ferguson, there is no way any officer should be given the benefit of the doubt in the matter of killing someone unarmed.

He should have just let him run away? He should have done nothing as Brown advanced toward him?
Maybe, but neither you nor I were there or in his position.

In Wilson interview, if I heard him right, he said that Brown was wounded and still coming at him. That's not going to have anything near a reasonable ending.

a reply to: Phage

I'm not sure it would be unconstitutional to for special prosecutors to be appointed in all cases involving lawmakers/enforces... the justice part is the same, it's just under the direction of someone unrelated.

And yes, Wilson should have let Brown 'get away' but that's for a different thread.

a reply to: Kali74

I'm not sure it would be unconstitutional to for special prosecutors to be appointed in all cases involving lawmakers/enforces... the justice part is the same, it's just under the direction of someone unrelated.

Who? All attorneys are "related." They all deal with law enforcement. They all deal with judges. They are all "related" in some way because they are all involved in the legal system. Do you think an attorney who may have reason to be prejudicial against law enforcement, one who holds a grudge maybe, would be a better option? More fair?

Like I said, I'm not an attorney much less a constitutional one. I just see a blanket condition like that as implying inequality under the law. The cops have to have their own special legal system because they are cops, no other reason? The implication that they are guilty until shown to be innocent?

I'm not saying that there aren't bad cops. I'm not saying that bad cops or cops who act in a manner outside their responsibilities should not be held accountable. I'm saying that I don't think applying special legal rules to them because they are cops would ensure justice or be a good idea.

a reply to: Kali74

An Indictment is a very long way from a conviction. I will agree it is a step forward to at least a resemblance of justice however it is politically expedient for prosecutors who hold elected office to push for indictments then when a case goes to trial to use the jury as the excuse that a conviction was not obtained. We shall have to wait and see how a jury of peers sees these cases.

a reply to: Phage

To avoid corruption, yeah.

"Related"... to law, yeah... personally, no.

a reply to: Kali74

To avoid corruption, yeah.

Ah. So it is worth taking the risk of incarcerating innocent people. I thought you said it wasn't.
Or do you just assume cops are guilty? So much for our legal system.

a reply to: Phage

Why would a cop be a greater risk of incarceration from a special prosecutor?

a reply to: Kali74

Why would a cop be a greater risk of incarceration from a special prosecutor?

Prosecutors don't incarcerate anyone, I was talking about the legal system in general.
But I wasn't clear on what your "yes" was in response to, I guessed it was the first question I had asked. Was it the second one?

a reply to: Phage

I'm not even sure why you're so determined to argue as if I'm seeking unfair prosecution of law enforcement. I want fair justice for everyone. I believe that prosecutors that act as defense attorney's for cops (when they do, which seems to be the norm) aren't even trying to participate in fair justice, they're circumventing it. Let's go back to McCulloch and Ferguson PD. McCulloch's job depends on Ferguson PD making arrests for violations of the law. He has to actively work with any given officer in that department at any given time, does camaraderie never develop? If he has to bring a cop to a grand jury and the grand jury indicts what happens to any of the cases they may be involved in together? Isn't interest created there?

It makes much more sense to appoint a special prosecutor to determine if there's a question whether a cops actions were legal or not and then decide where to go from there if they feel the answer could be no.

a reply to: Kali74

I'm not even sure why you're so determined to argue as if I'm seeking unfair prosecution of law enforcement. I want fair justice for everyone.

Justice for everyone is a great ideal. The problem is, how do you get it? By creating special rules for some people?

McCulloch's job depends on Ferguson PD making arrests for violations of the law.

No. McCulloch's job depends upon being re-elected by the citizens of the county.

It makes much more sense to appoint a special prosecutor to determine if there's a question whether a cops actions were legal or not and then decide where to go from there if they feel the answer could be no.

A special prosecutor from where? The public defender's office? You think they are more likely to be fair when their "job depends" on finding people innocent? Including police officers?