In the News
Dec 6, 2014 18:09:35 GMT
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2014 18:09:35 GMT
But it is so easy to indict a suspect, all you need is probable cause.
With the Ferguson case, the testimonies might have been enough to establish probable cause. However, their testimony was conflicting and the evidence seemed to be in favor of Wilson's testimony so it shouldn't have been surprising that he didn't get an indictment. I still think in a trial, lawyers could have poked holes through the stories of Wilson as well as those who would testify against him but I think Wilson was in the right here. As for whether there was any racial discrimination going on here, I cannot say anything and I hate jumping into conclusions when it comes to these type of things.
However, with the Garner case I can't help but think the wrong decision was made. But please clarify, does the "reasonable force" rule override the NYPD's rules regarding chokeholds. Because by not following his department's policy, he technically committed homicide. Looking at that video, I'm not sure he was resisting arrest in a way that warranted a cop breaking his own rules. He wasn't being aggressive, unlike Michael Brown's case. Regardless, I think there is enough evidence here to at least get an indictment and go to a trial.
But why was he even being arrested? He had allegedly broken up a fight, but due to his past history he was being harassed by the police. Do people get arrested for questioning police officers? It should have been a citation rather than an arrest. And no cigarettes were found so what was their probable cause for arresting him?
The ambiguity is doing what it's supposed to do. Protect officers. We should hold our officers to higher standards because we're supposed to trust them. I have a few friends from highschool that have gone on to become officers. So I acknowledge that they are people doing their jobs, but I question how some of these guys became officers because frankly, I wouldn't trust some of them with that job. The officer who applied the chokehold seems to have had prior history and just as the officers chose to judge Garner based on his past, I think it's only fair we hold the officer's past against him.
I find these protests interesting because they seem to be joining up. I'm hesitant to jump to the conclusion that all these cases are racially motivated, but I do think police brutality exists and something needs to be done about it. I'm not expecting much though. What does it matter if cops get a body camera, if they can't even get an indictment which is not the same as being sentenced. Is there a conflict of interest between the DA and the police in these cases? I don't know but something is wrong here in my opinion.
With the Ferguson case, the testimonies might have been enough to establish probable cause. However, their testimony was conflicting and the evidence seemed to be in favor of Wilson's testimony so it shouldn't have been surprising that he didn't get an indictment. I still think in a trial, lawyers could have poked holes through the stories of Wilson as well as those who would testify against him but I think Wilson was in the right here. As for whether there was any racial discrimination going on here, I cannot say anything and I hate jumping into conclusions when it comes to these type of things.
However, with the Garner case I can't help but think the wrong decision was made. But please clarify, does the "reasonable force" rule override the NYPD's rules regarding chokeholds. Because by not following his department's policy, he technically committed homicide. Looking at that video, I'm not sure he was resisting arrest in a way that warranted a cop breaking his own rules. He wasn't being aggressive, unlike Michael Brown's case. Regardless, I think there is enough evidence here to at least get an indictment and go to a trial.
But why was he even being arrested? He had allegedly broken up a fight, but due to his past history he was being harassed by the police. Do people get arrested for questioning police officers? It should have been a citation rather than an arrest. And no cigarettes were found so what was their probable cause for arresting him?
The ambiguity is doing what it's supposed to do. Protect officers. We should hold our officers to higher standards because we're supposed to trust them. I have a few friends from highschool that have gone on to become officers. So I acknowledge that they are people doing their jobs, but I question how some of these guys became officers because frankly, I wouldn't trust some of them with that job. The officer who applied the chokehold seems to have had prior history and just as the officers chose to judge Garner based on his past, I think it's only fair we hold the officer's past against him.
I find these protests interesting because they seem to be joining up. I'm hesitant to jump to the conclusion that all these cases are racially motivated, but I do think police brutality exists and something needs to be done about it. I'm not expecting much though. What does it matter if cops get a body camera, if they can't even get an indictment which is not the same as being sentenced. Is there a conflict of interest between the DA and the police in these cases? I don't know but something is wrong here in my opinion.
