Abuse of Power Thread (Cops, Governments, Etc.) - Part 2

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]495093[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]476501[/split]

 

[Mike_D202]

And he's a cop who went after poor black women. He certainly knew how the system (usually) works in his favor.

There's a lot of people that go after poor people in general to get what they want, him being a cop he promised them clean records and not to take them to jail. If he we working a different profession he would have done it some other way, he's a predator and predators will try and get what they want regardless of profession. The guy probably date raped a lot of women in college.

 

[Lencho01]

There's a lot of people that go after poor people in general to get what they want, him being a cop he promised them clean records and not to take them to jail. If he we working a different profession he would have done it some other way, he's a predator and predators will try and get what they want regardless of profession. The guy probably date raped a lot of women in college.

And? That doesn't change the fact that race is a factor. Again, part of the reason why some people thought this case would end up in his favor.

 

[Lencho01]

Edit.

 

[Golgo-13]

Poor people with records (or that have had trouble with the law) was definetely a factor for this sicko, as i can see him probably doing this to trailer park, meth head/street walking white girls too; the girls being black was a plus for him; not only because the law would believe him over them, but also because there's still this no snitching - 'handle **** ourselves' -mentality in the black community that's still very much in place.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Not gonna lie, the fact this thread made it to its 3rd one in a relatively short amount of time is kind of disturbing.

 

[Wylie Times]

Poor people with records (or that have had trouble with the law) was definetely a factor for this sicko, as i can see him probably doing this to trailer park, meth head/street walking white girls too; the girls being black was a plus for him; not only because the law would believe him over them, but also because there's still this no snitching - 'handle **** ourselves' -mentality in the black community that's still very much in place.

I get so sick of people perpetuation this nonsense. Often black people are AFRAID to call the police.

I'm black, grew up and have lived in black communities for most of my life that "no snitching" stuff only exists among the criminal element and they make up a VERY small portion of black communities.

Criminals not going to the police and not "snitching" isn't unique to black criminals either.

Do you honestly think NONE of the the other cops knew what Daniel Holtzclaw was doing? How many times have we see incidents where a cop claimed one thing but something else completely different happened but none of their peers turned them in for misconduct?

How often do we see instances at other institutions (colleges, businesses, government agencies) where misconduct goes on and the people aware of it look the other way and say nothing?

Usually when people don't call the police when a crime has happened it's out of fear, not a need to "hand ****" themselves. With Black people there's the added fear that the cops will shoot and kill someone for a major crime or that they'll be arrested or beaten even though they called the cops.

There was a situation just a year or so ago where a black woman called the cops to help her son who suffered from schizophrenia and needed medical attention. The cops showed up, saw he had a screwdriver and shot the man dead right in front of his mother.

Even if someone has committed a crime most decent people don't want to see someone possible shot and killed over a non violent theft or drug deal.

 

[Teelie]

UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own

Go, go copyright insanity! Seriously. Objects in photographs can require a license for more than a century after whoever designed them dies and the government could not care any less about the impact this stupidity has on society.

Changes to UK copyright law will soon mean that you may need to take out a licence to photograph classic designer objects even if you own them. That's the result of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, which extends the copyright of artistic objects like designer chairs from 25 years after they were first marketed to 70 years after the creator's death. In most cases, that will be well over a hundred years after the object was designed. During that period, taking a photo of the item will often require a licence from the copyright owner regardless of who owns the particular object in question.

The UK government is holding a consultation into when this change should enter into force: after a six-month, three-year, or five-year transitional period. An article in The Bookseller puts the starting date as October 2016 without citing a source. In any case, the change is definitely coming, and it'll likely be quite soon.

Similar to the recent announcement that it is once again illegal to make private copies of music you own, it is unlikely the public will pay much attention to this latest example of copyright being completely out of touch with how people actually use digital technology. But for professionals, the consequences will be serious and not so easily ignored.

Photographers, for example, will need to worry about whether any of the objects in a picture they are taking is covered by copyright, in which case it may be necessary to obtain a licence to include them in the photo. And judging by its comments in the document accompanying the consultation on this issue, the UK government is not very sympathetic to the plight of photographers. "The Government considers that photographers and image libraries already bear costs for time and administration when assessing whether they need to obtain clearance when photographing other artistic works such as sculptures or paintings." In other words, tough.

Another group likely to be hit by this major copyright extension—publishers of books with pictures of design objects—is also being told to like it or lump it. The Digital Reader spoke with Natalie Kontarsky, associate director for legal and business affairs at the well-known art publisher Thames & Hudson, and she did not mix messages. "The government has actually said ‘you are collateral damage’ in a very sanguine, offhand way. The dark end of the spectrum would be to take books out of circulation and have to pulp. Obviously no one wants to look at that."

Unfortunately, the alternative isn't much better. "Licensing images retrospectively is likely to be a very expensive prospect—in terms of actual licence fees to rightsholders, working out who actually owns the rights and the cost of getting picture researchers involved and people like me on the legal side," Kontarsky told the Reader.

It seems like the UK government really wants to reduce red tape except when it comes to copyright. Then, it's happy to increase the burden on thousands of companies and professionals—and to see millions of UK citizens become law-breakers without really knowing or caring. So the next time you get the family picture album out, beware. Those old snaps might just show you're now breaking the law.

Ars Technica

 

[Teelie]

Chicago police killing of unarmed teen unjustified, fired investigator says

I'm a bit late on this one but I don't see it mentioned in the search history either. The cops initially tried to pin the murder on two innocent men a few blocks away to hide their crime.

This is only part of the much longer article posted at the link below.

The police shooting of a 17-year-old on a South Side street corner nearly three years ago was captured on five cameras and was unjustified, according to a former investigator who has seen the videos.

Cedrick LaMont Chatman died just feet from the bus stop where his mother caught the bus to work every day. The city's Independent Police Review Authority, which investigates all police-involved shootings, concluded the shooting was justified.

But Lorenzo Davis, the original IPRA supervising investigator on the case, came to the opposite conclusion and says he was fired in July when he refused to change his report.

The video "shows a shooting that should not have occurred," Davis says. "In my point of view, if you do not have to kill a person, then why would you?"

Davis examined the shooting for months and determined it was not justified.

IPRA assigned another investigator and in a new report called Davis "glaringly biased," saying there was a "significant discrepancy" between Davis' findings and "what the facts of the investigation actually show."

Five cameras captured all or part of the January 7, 2013, shooting of Chatman: one at a school across the street, two at a food market and two placed atop light poles by police. The school video captured the entire incident, according to court documents.

A federal judge said Wednesday he will rule January 14 whether the videos should be released to the public.

"I know there's a lot of public interest in this, and for good reason," U.S. District Court Judge Robert Gettleman said during a brief hearing. "It certainly informs. ... It's definitely relevant."

The city has fought release of the videos, just as it did in the now-infamous police shooting of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald, who was shot 16 times.

That officer was charged with first-degree murder late last month, the first time since 1968 an on-duty Chicago officer has been charged with murder in a police shooting. The officer's attorney has said his client feared for his life because McDonald resisted arrest and had a knife in his hand.

Facing mounting pressure on police shootings, the city on Monday released video showing another officer shooting 25-year-old Ronald Johnson on October 12, 2014, just eight days before the killing of McDonald. The prosecutor decided not to pursue charges in that case, saying Johnson was armed with a loaded gun and that the officer was not in the wrong to shoot.

The death of Cedrick Chatman occurred more than 20 months before those two killings and raises troubling questions.

In the police account of the shooting, Chatman ditched a stolen car and ran from two officers. As the officers pursued on foot, the 5-foot-7, 133-pound Chatman turned toward them. Officer Kevin Fry told investigators he feared for his partner's life and fired four shots.

Fry said he believed Chatman was armed.

It turned out he was carrying a box containing an iPhone.

"The video supports Officer Fry's observation that (Chatman) was pointing a firearm at Officer Toth," the final IPRA report said, adding that the "use of deadly force was in compliance with Chicago Police Department policy."

Davis said the videos provide a much different account from the police version of the shooting: Chatman was running for his life and never turned toward the officers.

Davis grew up on the gritty South Side and spent two decades as a police officer. He trained future officers on the use of deadly force at the city's police academy. He began working at IPRA in 2008, eventually becoming a supervising investigator in 2010.

"If Officer Fry believed his life was in danger, then his fear was unreasonable," Davis says. "(He) should not have taken this young man's life."

IPRA found Fry justified in the shooting; he remains on the force. He has had 30 complaints lodged against him over the years, including 10 allegations of excessive use of force. The police department found every complaint against Fry to be unwarranted.

In one case in 2007, Fry and his partner shot a 16-year-old black male in a school alcove after seeing a shiny object around his waist and fearing for their lives. The object wasn't a weapon, but a "shiny belt buckle," according to the IPRA report from the time. The shooting was deemed justifiable, but CNN has learned the city settled with the teen and his family for $99,000. There was no admission of guilt as part of the settlement.

In the case of Chatman, there is one final twist: One of his friends and another acquaintance were charged with his murder. The two weren't even at the scene of the shooting when Fry opened fire.

CNN sought comment from police, IPRA and the prosecutor's office about the Chatman case and the allegations levied by Davis. None of the offices has responded.

CNN

 

[Teelie]

Cop who wanted to photograph teen’s erection in sexting case commits suicide
Cop accused of unrelated pedophilia charges but lauded for his "contributions."

It turns out he was also a pedophile.

The Virginia police officer who wanted to photograph a 17-year-old boy's erect penis in connection to a juvenile sexting case committed suicide Tuesday as authorities went to arrest him on pedophilia-related charges. Those charges were not connected to last year's sexting case that received global media coverage.

Detective David Edward Abbott, a member of the Northern Virginia-Washington DC Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, last year had obtained a warrant to inject a young boy with a drug that would cause an erection. Abbott wanted to photograph that erection and compare it with photos found on a 15-year-old girl's phone. Amid a public outcry, the Manassas City police eventually decided against doing that. The 17-year-old boy got a year of probation for sexting his teen girlfriend.

Abbott then sued the boy's attorney. He claimed Jessica Foster caused him "severe emotional distress" when The Washington Post reported that "Foster said Detective Abbott told her that after obtaining photos of the teen's erect penis he would use 'special software to compare pictures of this penis to this penis. Who does this? It's just crazy.'"

The story only gets more twisted.

The authorities went to arrest Abbott, 39, on Tuesday. The local Virginia youth hockey coach was facing four charges: two counts of indecent liberties by a custodian and two counts of using a communication device to solicit sexual offenses with a young boy. For at least two years, Abbott had an inappropriate relationship with a boy, now 13, police alleged. He was accused of soliciting sexual acts on the phone, via text messages and social media. Abbott was also accused of having an "inappropriate relationship with a second male victim" affiliated with the Prince William County hockey league.

The Manassas City Police Department, Abbott's employer, lauded the officer, saying in a statement:

This is a tragic and sad day for the Abbott family, the juvenile victims and their families, the Manassas City Police Department, and our community. In spite of these recent developments regarding the serious allegations against him, we are grateful for the contributions Det. Abbott made during his time with Manassas City Police, to include the prosecution and conviction of hundreds of criminals. His family and peers request privacy during this time as we grieve and struggle to accept the realities of such a loss.

When a group of detectives converged Tuesday on the officer's Gainesville, Virginia, home to arrest Abbott, he refused to surrender. Instead, he pulled out a gun and shot himself, police said.

Ars Technica

 

[Teelie]

The killing of Laquan McDonald: The dashcam video vs. police accounts

This case just shows how much the cops are willing to lie and lie for fellow officers. The full article details all the discrepencies in the claim versus what appeared to actually happen.

Newly released documents in the Laquan McDonald shooting show how elaborately police appear to have fabricated their version of that moment and how officers stood by each other in verifying the details.

The documents shed new light on just how crucial the release of last month's video was and how it contradicts nearly everything police said happened when veteran police officer Jason Van Dyke shot and killed the 17-year-old McDonald around 10 p.m. on October 20, 2014.

CNN

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

UPDATE: Grand Jury Will Not Indict Cleveland Cops For Killing 12-Year-Old Tamir Rice

In a decision that was grimly inevitable, a grand jury has declined to indict the Cleveland police officer who shot and killed 12-year-old Tamir Rice at a park in November of last year, and his partner, Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Timothy McGinty announced in a press conference this afternoon.

McGinty told the press that he recommended to the jury that the cops not be indicted, and they followed his lead.

The city has worked overtime to wash its hands of Rice’s death in the 13 months since it happened. It almost certainly leaked Rice’s father’s arrest history just days after the boy was killed, and in response to a wrongful death suit argued that Rice was responsible for his own death. Though a coroner ruled his death to be a homicide and a local judge found probable cause to charge the responding cops, the Cuyahoga County prosecutor’s office commissioned several reports that unsurprisingly found Rice’s killing to be “reasonable.” Two reports commissioned by Rice’s attorneys disagreed with those findings. In his press conference today, McGinty says that Rice should not have been playing with a toy gun because he “looked older.”

Video of the incident shows officers Timothy Loehmann and Frank Carmback driving their car into a Cleveland park just feet from where Rice is standing. Two seconds later, Loehmann fired at Rice, striking and killing him. Loehmann testified that he demanded Rice show his hands three times in those two seconds. Rice’s hands were empty, and he was left to die on the ground as Loehmann and Carmback went to tackle and subdue his sister.

http://gawker.com/grand-jury-will-not-indict-cleveland-cops-for-killing-1-1749965906

This is absolute BS

 

[Victarion]

100% agree with you DJ. This case seemed pretty cut and dry.

 

[Docker2.0]

It's crazy how some people are viewing this case. There's no way those cops should have gotten off. But you go to other sites into the comments sections and you see some of the most racists comments supporting the cops. God forbid it happens to their kids! There were so many things wrong with how it was handled. I hope the family sues that city and states ass off! This country has gone race crazy! I remember when Obama won the election people kept saying that racism is over with because we have a black President but it seems once he won, everything that was under the surface has seemed to boil over big time! People are now hating black people, Latinos(seems that they are all here illegally, even the Puerto Ricans let some tell it)Chinese(they are taking all the jobs)and any other race. It's like we went backwards over night!

 

[Wylie Times]

it should be noted that John Crawford was shot and killed in a similar situation in Ohio.

Crawford was in a Walmart, picked up a bb gun that was sold in the store, someone called the cops and lied saying Crawford was pointing it at people, the cops showed up and killed him.

The Cops claimed they came into the store, Crawford pointed the gun at them so they opened fire. The grand jury bought their story and let them off, afterward they released video show the cops were absolutely lying. Crawford was seen in the story walking around (not pointing the gun at anyone), the cops show up, Crawford immediately dropped the gun and dove for cover, the cops basically chased him down and shot him.

The only thing that shocks me about these incidents is how people react to them. There should be no surprise that the cops get off. Cops RARELY go to trial when things go to a grand jury, once the words "grand jury" are uttered that means the cop is getting off. I'm also shocked that people continue to think things like this JUST started happening, this has been happening to black people in particular for decades upon decades, the only difference is that now there's video of it happening.

 

[Phish]

So would the cops have shot an open or concealed carry(legal in Ohio) white person with a REAL gun in a similar situation?

I think not. And that is the main point for me. White people get the benefit of the doubt and get a chance to surrender even after they have killed people. See the planned Parenthood nut and the Batman movie killer as prime examples.

 

[Docker2.0]

So would the cops have shot an open or concealed carry(legal in Ohio) white person with a REAL gun in a similar situation?

I think not. And that is the main point for me. White people get the benefit of the doubt and get a chance to surrender even after they have killed people. See the planned Parenthood nut and the Batman movie killer as prime examples.

Dude that guy at Planned Parenthood shot cops and other civilians and was taken alive. How is that possible? Anyone who says that race isn't a factor is either living in fantasy land or...............there is no other alternative.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

it should be noted that John Crawford was shot and killed in a similar situation in Ohio.

Crawford was in a Walmart, picked up a bb gun that was sold in the store, someone called the cops and lied saying Crawford was pointing it at people, the cops showed up and killed him.

The Cops claimed they came into the store, Crawford pointed the gun at them so they opened fire. The grand jury bought their story and let them off, afterward they released video show the cops were absolutely lying. Crawford was seen in the story walking around (not pointing the gun at anyone), the cops show up, Crawford immediately dropped the gun and dove for cover, the cops basically chased him down and shot him.

The only thing that shocks me about these incidents is how people react to them. There should be no surprise that the cops get off. Cops RARELY go to trial when things go to a grand jury, once the words "grand jury" are uttered that means the cop is getting off. I'm also shocked that people continue to think things like this JUST started happening, this has been happening to black people in particular for decades upon decades, the only difference is that now there's video of it happening.

I posted that story in one of the already 2 closed threads that this thing has turned into. I had no idea how quickly these would pass, it's sad. I don't even post everything I come across these days. If you find any stories feel free to post them here.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

In my opinion, the greatest breach of trust in this entire story is not the officer's shooting, but the system's response to it. For anyone who is unfamiliar with how the Grand Jury system works, let me explain:
A Grand Jury decides whether or not to indict someone for a crime and move on to the full jury trial with the prosecution vs. defense setup. The Grand Jury is supposed to be just a tool of the prosecution. The Grand Jury gets to see the prosecutor's evidence, look it over, and then make their determination of whether or not the defendant should go on to trial -- it's a method of preventing the court system's time from being wasted.
But in this case, the Prosecutor (Timothy McGinty) not only failed to do his job, he worked to actively sabotage the Grand Jury process. Remember, in this trial, the officer is the defendant and is being prosecuted by the state. However, rather than putting prosecutorial evidence before the Grand Jury like he was supposed to do, McGinty instead brought forth evidence against his own side to the Grand Jury. He hired and brought in numerous "experts" to give testimony in support of the defense, allowed the defendant to give statements on his own behalf, vigorously cross-examined the other witnesses who actually agreed with his side, etc.
It was a straight up betrayal of the Grand Jury process and his job as County Prosecutor.
Quote from Cleveland.com:
The Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office released three reports from national experts in police use of force that each found the boy's shooting was tragic but reasonable because the officers did not know Tamir's age or that the gun was fake. The experts also concluded that a reasonable officer responding to a report of a man with a gun would have considered Tamir's movements around his waist to pose a "threat" to their safety. They also concluded the use of deadly force would be legally appropriate.
The reports drew ire from lawyers representing Tamir's mother, Samaria Rice, in a wrongful death lawsuit against the officers and the city. The lawyers accused the experts of being too deferential to law enforcement. The attorneys eventually released reports from three of their own experts, two policing experts and a bio-kinetics expert, who concluded that the shooting was unreasonable and that Tamir's hands were actually in his jacket pockets when Loehmann fired.
The lawyers, community activists and a group of rabbis and pastors had called for months for McGinty to allow a special prosecutor to take over the investigation. They accused McGinty of harboring a bias in favor of law enforcement because his office works with police officers to build cases, and seeking expert reports that would exonerate the officers.
EDIT: More info from the letter sent to the District Attorney:
Last week, after taking the unusual step of asking the crime victim’s family to gather evidence to present to the grand jury (when that should be the prosecutor’s job), the prosecutors put the expert witnesses located by Tamir’s family on the stand. But, instead of allowing them to explain their findings to the grand jury, the prosecutors immediately launched into an improper cross-examination that included smirking and mocking the experts, pointing a toy gun in an expert’s face, and suggesting that the experts were not sufficiently concerned with preserving the police officers’ “liberty interest.” This treatment of the expert witnesses who Tamir’s family had to find after the prosecutor refused to do so made it clear that these prosecutors are not engaged in a search for truth or justice, but rather are conducting a charade process aimed at exonerating the officers.
EDIT #2: Said letter in its entirety: http://www.ecbalaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Rice-Letter.pdf
It's written by Tamir Rice's family, but given that the prosecutor is arguing the defense, this letter is the only voice we have arguing the prosecution.
EDIT #3: /u/soliddraft123 pointed out that usually the prosecutor himself opens up the grand jury investigation. So why did McGinty open the investigation only to stomp all over it? Here's what happened in Ohio:
As of six and a half months after the shooting, the Prosecutor's office had yet to 'decide' whether or not to take the case before a Grand Jury. The investigation had dragged on for months, with very few witnesses actually being interviewed or evidence being gathered. However, there is an interesting twist in Ohio law that allows citizens to petition a judge to have a case brought before a Grand Jury, which is exactly what happened. Quoting Wikipedia:
In response to a petition from citizens, on June 11 Municipal Court Judge Ronald Adrine agreed that "Officer Timothy Loehmann should be charged with several crimes, the most serious of them being murder but also including involuntary manslaughter, reckless homicide, negligent homicide and dereliction of duty." Judge Adrine also found probable cause to charge Officer Frank Garmback with "negligent homicide and dereliction of duty." His opinion was forwarded to city prosecutors and Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Timothy McGinty, who as of that date had not yet come to a decision on whether to present the evidence to a grand jury.
In other words, McGinty was forced into taking into the Grand Jury a case he had been doing his best to put aside. So, instead, he simply sabotaged it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/3yk0fp/prosecutor_says_officers_wont_be_charged_in/

Found this on Reddit and thought it was very telling

 

[Mike_D202]

You guys do know that these cases go through months of evidence, testimonies and/or footage that the jury deliberates over and over and over before coming to a conclusion, right? Most of the time there's evidence and legal factors that go into a case that are not released to the public. To you guys it may be "cut and dry" to charge the officers, but it wasn't to the jury. Your innocent until proven guilty, this is no different. The gun wasn't bright yellow or pink or even orange tipped, it looked like a hand gun and he pulled it out as the cops pulled up. It's an unfortunate situation for everybody involved. Maybe if they would have went after a different charge towards the officers that was less than intended they would have been charged. But everybody wants to go straight for the jugular in cases like this because of media hype. There are no winners here.

Here's the gun he pulled out of his pants when the cop car pulled up, in case those of you whom have lost common sense in split decisions the cops have to make:

And here he is pointing it:

He wasn't out in the park playing with a squirt gun, he took the orange tip off of the gun and was pointing it at strangers. The cops were called and when they pulled up he pulled it out. I'm not sure what anybody would have expected to happen at that moment.

I think some of you are blinded by your own views and hatred of the police and justice system to think with a clear head.

 

[Teelie]

I think you are blinded by just how ineffective the judicial system is when it comes to cops breaking the laws they are meant to uphold and how infrequent they even get that far as a grand jury. I think and it is not an exaggeration that over 92% of all juries decline to indict cops. I'll reply later with the actual statistical data proving it.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

You guys do know that these cases go through months of evidence, testimonies and/or footage that the jury deliberates over and over and over before coming to a conclusion, right? Most of the time there's evidence and legal factors that go into a case that are not released to the public. To you guys it may be "cut and dry" to charge the officers, but it wasn't to the jury. Your innocent until proven guilty, this is no different. The gun wasn't bright yellow or pink or even orange tipped, it looked like a hand gun and he pulled it out as the cops pulled up. It's an unfortunate situation for everybody involved. Maybe if they would have went after a different charge towards the officers that was less than intended they would have been charged. But everybody wants to go straight for the jugular in cases like this because of media hype. There are no winners here.

Here's the gun he pulled out of his pants when the cop car pulled up, in case those of you whom have lost common sense in split decisions the cops have to make:

And here he is pointing it:

He wasn't out in the park playing with a squirt gun, he took the orange tip off of the gun and was pointing it at strangers. The cops were called and when they pulled up he pulled it out. I'm not sure what anybody would have expected to happen at that moment.

I think some of you are blinded by your own views and hatred of the police and justice system to think with a clear head.

This is absolute horse s***. They cops pulled up and shot him within 2 seconds yet the officer claimed he told him to lower the weapon 3 times in that 2 seconds. Get out of here with this garbage.

 

[Teelie]

Still looking up the exact figures on overall indictments but when it comes to killing people, it is distressingly higher.

Part of the problem is cops don't have to report their own criminal statistics to the FBI or anyone else so it's very hard to come up with an accurate number of crimes they commit since they don't report them.

Crump said 99 percent of the time police officers aren’t charged when they kill a young person of color.

With the caveat that police officers are rarely charged at all, the limited data and the opinions of criminologists back up Crump’s claim.

But there is no hard data for either the number of police officers indicted for homicide of a person of color or for the total number of people killed by police, so we cannot say with certainty whether this happens 99 percent of the time.

Politifact

 

[Wylie Times]

You guys do know that these cases go through months of evidence, testimonies and/or footage that the jury deliberates over and over and over before coming to a conclusion, right? Most of the time there's evidence and legal factors that go into a case that are not released to the public. To you guys it may be "cut and dry" to charge the officers, but it wasn't to the jury. Your innocent until proven guilty, this is no different. The gun wasn't bright yellow or pink or even orange tipped, it looked like a hand gun and he pulled it out as the cops pulled up. It's an unfortunate situation for everybody involved. Maybe if they would have went after a different charge towards the officers that was less than intended they would have been charged. But everybody wants to go straight for the jugular in cases like this because of media hype. There are no winners here.

Here's the gun he pulled out of his pants when the cop car pulled up, in case those of you whom have lost common sense in split decisions the cops have to make:

And here he is pointing it:

He wasn't out in the park playing with a squirt gun, he took the orange tip off of the gun and was pointing it at strangers. The cops were called and when they pulled up he pulled it out. I'm not sure what anybody would have expected to happen at that moment.

I think some of you are blinded by your own views and hatred of the police and justice system to think with a clear head.

Go for the Juglular?

Do you not understand what a grand jury actually is? All they do is decide if there is enough evidence for charges to be filed. It's not about determining guilt or innocence.

Nobody is saying they should just be thrown in jail or executed immediately. All anyone is saying is that they should At LEAST be charged and go trial. That's really not asking much.

The simple fact the the officers initially lied about what happened is grounds for for them charged and going to trial. People end up being charged for crimes for MUCH less than what we know those cops did.

The reason you go to trial is so a more thorough investigation can take place and a person can receive the most fair hearing possible and be judged by a jury of their peers.