If shooting an unarmed person in the back doesn't qualify as malice under US law that's truly sad!... Especially as, for instance, DWI fatalities not uncommonly result in 2'nd degree homicide convictions -- While I've no sympathy for intoxicated or otherwise distracted vehicle operators - my point remains -- to wit: negligence≠malice... While Crutcher's death may not have been an 'execution', are the videos to be credited, it was murder nonetheless!

Best regards
HP

In other words you don't have a rational.

 

In other words you don't have a rational.

On the contrary! I stated it quite clearly -- To wit: "Shooting an unarmed person in the back..." -- Now that that's cleared up, might I ask why you're so keen to minimize the enormity of Shelby's actions? Honestly now? Are/were you a law enforcement officer? -- Truth be told I've never experienced unfair treatment by law enforcement - quite the opposite - then too I've spent very little of my life in major (US) metropolitan areas... --- To be clear it is neither my assertion nor my belief that all - or even 'many' - LEOs are 'bad' -- merely that, based upon the videos, Shelby is...

With genuine respect
HP

 

If shooting an unarmed person in the back doesn't qualify as malice under US law that's truly sad!...

And why is it sad? You are making assumptions that I disagree with. In the moment, an uncooperative suspect with unknown motives makes what could be interpreted as an aggressive move. Malice in this case has no impact. Cold-blooded, fear for your life emotions take over. No one shot the victim when he started to walk away, ignoring their commands. No one shot the victim as he walked to his car. Only when it appeared as if he was reaching for a weapon (and yes. I've seen the video of the closed window. That is why I used the word "appeared") only then was lethal force used. What is sad is that US society has gravitated to a society of blame. That is what's sad

 

In the moment, an uncooperative suspect with unknown motives makes what could be interpreted as an aggressive move.

I predict that's what the jury will ultimately decide, and she'll go free. Was her mistake beyond reasonable doubt? Not from what we know now.

 

Until due process is done, all everyone is doing is violating the officers rights under the Constitution.

Yes, being charged, passing the grand jury stage when evidence is reviewed, the trial may begin.

From the video I saw, the person was against the van, open windows, open moon roof, prior to the shot.

We shall see what becomes of this.

Michael Brown was hyped in the media as hands up, but evidence revealed something different.

Even the out for blood justice department's investigation didn't bring charges.

I'm allowing due process and not let partial evidence play with my emotions.

 

On the contrary! I stated it quite clearly -- To wit: "Shooting an unarmed person in the back..." -- Now that that's cleared up, might I ask why you're so keen to minimize the enormity of Shelby's actions?
...
Honestly now? Are/were you a law enforcement officer?
...
With genuine respect
HP

I've never worked with or have been a member of US law enforcement. I did apply once for a local FBI technical position but found employment elsewhere.

That's not a legal rational for a charge of murder and you know it. If the person is dead that's a Homicide. There are at least three types of Homicide. Self-defense (Homicide is not always a crime), voluntary manslaughter and murder.

 

Until due process is done, all everyone is doing is violating the officers rights under the Constitution.

Only the government can violate her rights, not me.

 

But you can be the leader of a conspiracy systematically calling for the government to do something.....

People are acting like there are no reviews when a cop discharges his weapon.

 

But you can be the leader of a conspiracy systematically calling for the government to do something.....

That's usually called being an involved citizen.

 

It's also a lynching....mob rule.

 

That's usually called being an involved citizen.

I was just learning about the founding and funding of BLM. "Involved citizen" is an extremely generous term for that ilk. They may be both involved and citizens, but they openly seek to overthrow our government.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/22/us/charlotte-protests/index.html

Charlotte, North Carolina (CNN)The family of Keith Lamont Scott, after watching two police videos, said they couldn't say what was in his hands when he was shot and killed by a Charlotte police officer.

"It is impossible to discern from the videos what, if anything, Mr. Scott is holding in his hands," attorney Justin Bamberg said.

Now, what would be a good reason to keep the exculpatory evidence secret?

 

I was just learning about the founding and funding of BLM. "Involved citizen" is an extremely generous term for that ilk. They may be both involved and citizens, but they openly seek to overthrow our government.

I agree but that's their right and it's no conspiracy.

 

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-09-22-18-26-44

PHOENIX (AP) -- Three Phoenix police officers have resigned after a man alleged they forced him to eat marijuana found in his vehicle to avoid going to jail, Chief Joseph Yahner said Thursday.
...
He later told a patrol supervisor that the officers demanded he eat the marijuana, estimated to be about a gram, or go to jail.

The man reported feeling ill after ingesting the marijuana of an unknown potency, but didn't need any medical attention, a police spokesman said.

The cops cut the guy a break over pot and they get fired. The war on cops continues.

 

As I understand it, the (widely circulated) videos showing (unarmed) Crutcher walking away from the officer (Shelby) at the time of the shooting was recorded on cameras aboard the police RWA and (one or more) patrol-car 'dash-cams'...

Granting the authenticity of said 'footage', I find it nothing short of appalling that the charges against Shelby are merely that of 'manslaughter' -- How truly it's one law for Law Enforcement and another for everyone else

I must confess that I initially regarded BLM as a lot of 'Soros goaded' yobs -- In light of current events, however, I'm bound to say I'm becoming increasingly sympathetic to their anger! That said, I feel their 'moniker' is unnecessarily polarizing -- Increasingly out of control law enforcement is everyone's concern - without regard to demographics -- It would be a pity to 'soften' focus on the vital issue of law-enforcement overreach via digression into racial politics, etc...

Best regards
HP

I can only give my 2 cents worth. I think there is a lot more unarmed blacks shot by police, but I'm not sure it is racial in the classic sense. I think it is more like it works. There is also a lot more black crime so I think that is the profile. "This could be a bad dude." Doesn't make it right, but maybe explains it a bit.
My bet is that shooting was an oops. A bad oops, but not premeditated.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/22/us/charlotte-protests/index.html


Now, what would be a good reason to keep the exculpatory evidence secret?

I don't get it. Why are they going thru all this pain. Half the problem is people thinking they are hiding something.

 

How to reduce cops killing blacks? Eliminate black cops.
https://crim.sas.upenn.edu/system/files/2015-10.0_Ridgeway_PoliceShooting.pdf

Abstract: Particularly with the resurgence of concern over police use of deadly force, there is a pressing need to understand the risk factors that lead to police shootings. This study uses a matched-case control design to remove confounders of shooting incidents and identify features of officers that increased their risk of shooting. By matching shooting officers to non-shooting officers at the same scene, the analysis isolates the role of the officers’ features from the features of the incident’s environment. The study uses data from the New York City Police Department on 291 officers involved in 106 officer-involved shootings adjudicated between 2004 and 2006. Black officers were 3.3 times and officers rapidly accumulating negative marks in their files were 3.1 times more likely to shoot than other officers. Older officers who became police officers later in life were less likely to shoot. The results indicate that officer features related to discharging a firearm are identifiable.

 

My bet is that shooting was an oops. A bad oops, but not premeditated.

I feel the same... but the thing is that docs pay for their "oops", engineers pay for their "oops", and even accountants pay for their "oops" ... but seldom do cops pay for their "oops" ... maybe that's the thing that riles people the most.
They want accountability from law enforcement, but that is usually a rarity.

 

I feel the same... but the thing is that docs pay for their "oops", engineers pay for their "oops", and even accountants pay for their "oops" ... but seldom do cops pay for their "oops" ... maybe that's the thing that riles people the most.
They want accountability from law enforcement, but that is usually a rarity.

I agree. Smart phones have created another problem.

 

I feel the same... but the thing is that docs pay for their "oops", engineers pay for their "oops", and even accountants pay for their "oops" ... but seldom do cops pay for their "oops" ... maybe that's the thing that riles people the most.
They want accountability from law enforcement, but that is usually a rarity.

The problem is the difference between an oops and a good act is sometimes a razors edge wide. I think cops and docs (malpractice cases instead of purely criminal) are more alike than you think in terms of paying for their oops.