Verdict GUILTY

This is not or at least it should not be a Republican/Democrat issue... it is a societal/civil rights issue. Is people that believe that a certain segment of the population is beyond reproach and should never ever be held accountable that are the problem. The idolization of militaristic/police enforcement in this country is something that baffles me.

We should held our police to the highest of standards, they should be absolute transparency and accountability for every action the police take agains a citizen. Every interaction, every stop, every traffic stop, every action that culminates in use of force of any kind should be subjected to the highest of scrutiny.

Our rights should be protected, all of our rights, don’t matter where your political ideology is.

a reply to: rickymouse

If he is found guilty of Murder, lots of police will just walk away from their jobs since they are liable if anything happens when arresting a criminal, even if the criminal starts it.

Let's hope so. There's no place for racists and killers in a civilized police force.

a reply to: Bunch
Who started the KKK? Democrats.
Who made the Jim Crow laws? Democrats.
Who fought school intigration in the 60s? Democrats.

Do you see a pattern starting to from here?

I do not care what group they belong to but one group has a history of oppression of minorities. Biden helped with that third one.

a reply to: beyondknowledge

Which basically further my point. This shouldn’t be a Democrat/Republican issue.

Interesting how a court case verdict discussion turned to elephant and donkey....or maybe not?

Our version of justice is in progress.
There is still sentencing and perhaps appeals.

12 of his peers spoke today, that is how it works here.

a reply to: Bunch
Could you please try to explain that to the Democrats. They are the ones profiting politically and financially from the situation as it is.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: rickymouse

If he is found guilty of Murder, lots of police will just walk away from their jobs since they are liable if anything happens when arresting a criminal, even if the criminal starts it.

Let's hope so. There's no place for racists in a civilized police force.

The cops I know that will quit or retire are not racist and this does not have to do only with race. Their job often causes them to need to make decisions to stay safe and protect others. This trial sets precedence that officers can be charged with serious crimes for doing their job if the criminals press charges against them if they get hurt in the struggle. There are people out there who would love to rile up a cop and get a settlement in a lawsuit. This is not limited to race, it is a precedent for charges brought on any cop if they try to protect themselves and hurt someone in the process. It sets the stage for criminals to resist and the cops cannot arrest them.

If I was a cop I would retire or quit, and I know quite a few of the best and nicest cops that don't want to get into a situation where they get charged with a crime for trying to uphold the law. The nicest cops are the ones that will quit or retire, the jerks out there will just lie and cheat to protect themselves and make sure there are no witnesses to testify against them. II would demand a hundred grand a year raise plus an insurance policy that protects me if I was a cop and wanted to continue, with this precedence a cop can be sued himself, it takes the cities off of the hook if they are self insured.

a reply to: shooterbrody
Twelve people did what they thought they had to do because they were pressured by precieved and possibly real threats to their families and their city.

Are you OK with justice being controlled that way?

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: shooterbrody
Twelve people did what they thought they had to do because they were pressured by precieved and possibly real threats to their families and their city.

Are you OK with justice being controlled that way?

You have evidence that they were pressured into their decision?
Please, by all means present such.
I will wait.

If not, please do not disparage regular people with enough intestinal fortitude to do their civic duty.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: Bunch
Could you please try to explain that to the Democrats. They are the ones profiting politically and financially from the situation as it is.

I speak about this to whomever is willing to listen and reflect on it and I invite you to just think about this without the politics of it. A healthy and robust scrutiny of law enforcement agencies is a win for all of us.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
Twelve people did what they thought they had to do because they were pressured by precieved and possibly real threats to their families and their city.

Prove it

a reply to: rickymouse

Your comment about people looking to interact with police to get a settlement is utterly laughable. The same way I think no police officer wakes up in the morning looking to kill someone I also believe that people don’t want to get entangled with police for a settlement. I don’t think any sane person non criminal or criminal wants to have any interaction with police other than what’s absolutely necessary.

a reply to: BrokenCircles

I think it was only about 10 hours of actual deliberating.

Because it was obvious as hell he was guilty.

Except to a lot of people on here

a reply to: rickymouse

This trial sets precedence that officers can be charged with serious crimes for doing their job if the criminals press charges against them if they get hurt in the struggle.

In fevered right-wing imaginations, perhaps. Not in real life.

If you think this is a problem, support a firearms ban.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: shooterbrody
Twelve people did what they thought they had to do because they were pressured by precieved and possibly real threats to their families and their city.

Are you OK with justice being controlled that way?

Or,

It was extremely obvious he was guilty

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: shooterbrody
Twelve people did what they thought they had to do because they were pressured by precieved and possibly real threats to their families and their city.

Are you OK with justice being controlled that way?

Maybe you're just wrong.

a reply to: shooterbrody
It is not the jurys fault that the judge did not sequester them from the beginning.

The whole trial has been set up to fail. I see the three overlapping / contradictory charges, the way the jury was mishandled and the Watters problem getting the whole trial thrown out on appeal. It was a show to stop the looters for a while. When the trial is thrown out, they will have had a chance to pressure cook for a while then the lid will blow worse than if they rioted now.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: shooterbrody
It is not the jurys fault that the judge did not sequester them from the beginning.

The whole trial has been set up to fail. I see the three overlapping / contradictory charges, the way the jury was mishandled and the Watters problem getting the whole trial thrown out on appeal. It was a show to stop the looters for a while. When the trial is thrown out, they will have had a chance to pressure cook for a while then the lid will blow worse than if they rioted now.

So no actual evidence of your claim?
So will you recant your besmirchment of the regular people that did their civic duty in jury service?

a reply to: Bunch

A healthy and robust scrutiny of law enforcement agencies is a win for all of us.

I entirely agree with this. There are many problems with all parts of law enforcement that need to be fixed in some way. The problem is politicians have a vested interested in keeping up the unreast so they will not allow any meaningful improvement.

Almost all people want this dealt with but many influential people do not, Al Sharpton for one. Without the racial unrest, he has no job, no power, no influence.