The Chief of
But that's probably only because the protestors wouldn't be cops. Otherwise, it'd be peachy.
One Bad Lie Deserves Another
1 hour ago
Saturday, May 23, 2015
In Ohio, It is Legal to Jump on the Hood of a Car and Shoot the Car's Occupants Dead
But only if you're a cop.
The Chief ofExecutioners Police of Cleveland has announced that violent protests won't be tolerated.
But that's probably only because the protestors wouldn't be cops. Otherwise, it'd be peachy.
The Chief of
But that's probably only because the protestors wouldn't be cops. Otherwise, it'd be peachy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
The judge said the prosecution hadn't proven that the dude who jumped on the car fired the bullets that killed the two occupants of the car, that they may have been dead before the cop jumped on the hood and started firing. In which case he should have found the cop guilty of corpse abuse, I suppose... Sigh.
Moral of the story: Don't run from the police and you likely won't get shot. Those two were architects of their own demise.
Yeah, that whole Constitution thingy, that says that courts, not police officers, are supposed to punish perps for crimes? Just a piece of paper, right, Murphy?
It wasn't "punishment". It was merely officers reacting to the perceived threat posed by the two deceased. Like I said, don't lead the police on high-speed pursuits and endanger them and the public at large with your car and you probably won't get shot by them. But play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Perceived threat by people who are unarmed and immobilized. Sure. Pull the other one, won't ya?
Deal is these cops were *pissed*, and eager to deal out punishment. And they did.
The Constitution is just a piece of paper, after all, right?
Not to say that the deceased weren't morons. They were. But I'm not interested in morons who are no longer cluttering the gene pool. I'm interested in cops who view the Constitution as just a piece of paper irrelevant to them.
Running from the cops isn't a death penalty offense. Shooting 137 rounds at two unarmed people and killing them is, in most of the civilized world, an act of murder, if not at least manslaughter. Confusing the sound of a backfiring car with gunfire would get a civilian tossed into jail. Not for the well-trained Boys in Blue. They're given license to panic and shoot like a mob of child-soldiers.
But see, since so many cops shot at those two, it became a version of Murder on the Orient Express, call it Murder on the Hood of a Car.
I'm not saying that the police here did everything right, however I cannot begin to ascribe motives to them and claim to "know" that the officers were "pissed" and "eager to deal out punishment". That sounds like projection to me. And please recall that AT THE TIME, the officers believed that these two WERE armed. The standard in self-defense shootings is the reasonable-person standard, and what a reasonable person would believe. This is true for both regular citizens and police officers, although there are mother differences between the two; citizens do not have a duty to engage and stop dangerous criminals. The police do, and as such, I'm willing to grant them a bit more latitude, especially when acting under pressure and based on facts known or believed to be true at the time.
Post a Comment