Destroy the Police

[WOTR]

Lastly the crazy amount of petty laws -ever increasing- and economic downturn has forced police to enforce more and more petty laws

Best not move to Taber, Alberta. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/alberta/no-spitting-swearing-or-yelling-allowed-in-alberta-town/article23397078/

In addition to the police being allowed to legally demand that a gathering of three individuals (or more) disperse there are a number of other laws now.

"The next time you are in Taber, Alta., remember not to spit or it will cost you $75. If you get caught and yell and curse in anger, you will receive another fine, that one for $150.  And if that is the second time you have been caught yelling or cursing in public in Taber, then you will be labelled a serial offender, and the fine for that is $250."

I'm sure this has nothing to do with revenue generation and that it is strictly for the protection of the public.  Don't get me wrong- I don't care for lots of cursing in public- but a $250 fine and the police can now legally demand that seating in the doughnut shop be limited to two patrons per table? :

[PB the Deplorable]

These cops made the same stupid rookie mistake that Wilson made with Brown in Ferguson; they put themselves in a close-up threat zone with a potentially violent person, leaving themselves with no place to go but for their Glock. He came to the door with the screwdriver; I saw it instantly and you probably did too.  But niether cop budged to put more space between him and them. Incompetence.  Deadly incompetence.  Professionals my ass.

The police are required to act perfectly in all circumstances, regardless of whatever situation they find themselves in.  If they don't, it's because they're a bunch of racist ogres.  And Big Media and the various 'advocacy' groups get to sanctimoniously decide - after the fact - from their safe, air-controlled, office environment perches.

But it's ok for criminals and anyone else to do whatever they want, break any law, commit any crime, threaten or attack the police or the general public, they are never responsible for what happens.  Once caught, they get to lawyer up, get treated with kid gloves, have a team of experts pore over the detail to see if there is any technicalities to let them off on - usually so they can go terrorize someone else.

An citizen, any victim, any cop, the taxpayers, we can all just go stick it.  I can't be the only one tired of this.

[NowhereInTime]

The police are required to act perfectly in all circumstances, regardless of whatever situation they find themselves in.  If they don't, it's because they're a bunch of racist ogres.

Or they're poorly trained.  Or they have that pathetic "us against them" mentality too many develop.  Often, they don't live in the community they serve.

And Big Media and the various 'advocacy' groups get to sanctimoniously decide - after the fact - from their safe, air-controlled, office environment perches.

New rules:  you may only judge police actions a) before they happen because, how dare you "after the fact" and only either b) sitting in sauna or c) an icebox!

But it's ok for criminals and anyone else to do whatever they want, break any law, commit any crime, threaten or attack the police or the general public, they are never responsible for what happens.

Looks like Papes drank his way through another Law & Order marathon...

Once caught, they get to lawyer up,

Or: assert their 6th amendment rights.

get treated with kid gloves,

Or: assert their 4th, 5th, and 8th amendment rights.

have a team of experts pore over the detail to see if there is any technicalities to let them off on

How dare they exploit the "weakness" in our Constitution!  Everybody knows it was written to codify the rights of white property owners only, not "inner city people"!

- usually so they can go terrorize someone else.

They usually rush over to Papes' apartment and do doughnuts on the grass.

An citizen, any victim, any cop, the taxpayers, we can all just go stick it.  I can't be the only one tired of this.

Hyperbole, thy name is: Paper*Boy!

[VtaGeezer]

The police are required to act perfectly in all circumstances, regardless of whatever situation they find themselves in.  If they don't, it's because they're a bunch of racist ogres. 

"Perfectly"?  Get serious. They screwed up and the result is a man dying on his own doorstep, but you just roll on with your good little rightwinger's rationalizations. The Dallas cops who killed that guy shame decent cops who make an effort to deal with people as human beings and use their training positively.  And again, only rightwingers have brought up race in this Dallas killing. Why is that?

Check out the cop in the story below. I doubt he'll ever be involved in a questionable incident. He embodies the cop image that too many incompetent or power-high cops just hide behind as cover for their failures. 
http://www.today.com/news/police-officer-helps-kentucky-woman-who-lost-200-pounds-cross-2D80564164

[albrecht]

Best not move to Taber, Alberta. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/alberta/no-spitting-swearing-or-yelling-allowed-in-alberta-town/article23397078/

In addition to the police being allowed to legally demand that a gathering of three individuals (or more) disperse there are a number of other laws now.

"The next time you are in Taber, Alta., remember not to spit or it will cost you $75. If you get caught and yell and curse in anger, you will receive another fine, that one for $150.  And if that is the second time you have been caught yelling or cursing in public in Taber, then you will be labelled a serial offender, and the fine for that is $250."

I'm sure this has nothing to do with revenue generation and that it is strictly for the protection of the public.  Don't get me wrong- I don't care for lots of cursing in public- but a $250 fine and the police can now legally demand that seating in the doughnut shop be limited to two patrons per table? :

I've only been to Canada a couple times and have no idea of the laws or Court opinions there but I would've thought that that type of law would be thrown out. Arguably the "no spitting" laws could be enforced for a health reason (I think lots of US cities might still have that "on the books" due to the TB outbreak in the past- another reason one doesn't see cuspidors around anywhere anymore) but the no cursing? Doubt it would hold up here unless it was directed at a particular person (than could be an assault (criminal) or even maybe libel (civil tort.)) In any regard, I agree with you on cursing (and spitting) in public (don't do it, it is impolite) but the police should have more serious things to deal with.

[WOTR]

...But it's ok for criminals and anyone else to do whatever they want, break any law, commit any crime, threaten or attack the police or the general public, they are never responsible for what happens.  Once caught, they get to lawyer up, get treated with kid gloves, have a team of experts pore over the detail to see if there is any technicalities to let them off on - usually so they can go terrorize someone else.

It must be interesting to live in your world.  Yes, some criminals go free- but how may cops who kill (out of the hundreds each year) are ever convicted?  It seems to be a level playing field in terms of walking free.

It seems to me that we pay officers (in many cases $75 000+ each year) to be professionals. Yes, I demand to be allowed to hold them to a higher standard than the criminal element in terms of their behavior and scrutinizing their responses.  Shooting dead unarmed citizens, saying "I felt threatened", keeping your good paying job with good pension and then repeating is not really acceptable (to me) anymore than allowing criminals to walk free because they have a good lawyer.

[PB the Deplorable]

Or they're poorly trained.  Or they have that pathetic "us against them" mentality too many develop.  Often, they don't live in the community they serve...

Yes, it's all true - at least in some cases - and more.

And between the two, in general, I'm still going to support the cops and not the criminals. 

If police shootings of unarmed non-aggressive young black men - not people with screwdrivers lunging at them, not people grabbing for their guns, not criminals being chased who stop and reach into their pants - are so common, why don't we hear about those cases instead of these red herrings?

And by the way, the cops shoot more whites than blacks, but we don't hear much about that because there are no political points to be scored

... Or: assert their 6th amendment rights.

Or: assert their 4th, 5th, and 8th amendment rights...

Do you mean the Constitution, or the ACLU version of the Constitution?  They are different you know.


Another way of looking at all this - and using your logic - is to claim the police are simply 'testing the Constitutional limits' of police work.  Getting away with whatever they can is good for the country.  All they are doing is setting precedent for future police actions. 

Isn't that your defense of Obama when he's well beyond the limits to his office?   

[PB the Deplorable]

It must be interesting to live in your world.  Yes, some criminals go free- but how may cops who kill (out of the hundreds each year) are ever convicted?  It seems to be a level playing field in terms of walking free.

It seems to me that we pay officers (in many cases $75 000+ each year) to be professionals. Yes, I demand to be allowed to hold them to a higher standard than the criminal element in terms of their behavior and scrutinizing their responses.  Shooting dead unarmed citizens, saying "I felt threatened", keeping your good paying job with good pension and then repeating is not really acceptable (to me) anymore than allowing criminals to walk free because they have a good lawyer.

Well, that's why they carry guns.  Because they deal with dangerous violent criminals, instead of the rest of us being on our own.

Your question about "how many cops who kill (out of the hundreds each year) are ever convicted?"  Well, I dunno, how many of those killings were unjustified?  Because the ones being brought to national attention lately have not been crimes, they've been responses to physical threats or the appearance of a threat against them

Don't want to be shot by the cops?  Don't be an aggressive violent criminal.

[NowhereInTime]

Yes, it's all true - at least in some cases - and more.

And between the two, in general, I'm still going to support the cops and not the criminals.

Me too, but I really wish the cops would stop rough housing so many people.  This just happened here in New Haven.  The girl in the video is 15, and is being held on suspicion of possessing a knife and using pepper spray.  In Buffalo Wild Wings. 


Saint Patrick's Day Parade New Haven CT.!!! Police violently slam 15 year old female!!!

If police shootings of unarmed non-aggressive young black men - not people with screwdrivers lunging at them, not people grabbing for their guns, not criminals being chased who stop and reach into their pants - are so common, why don't we hear about those cases instead of these red herrings?

http://gawker.com/video-cops-shot-12-year-old-two-seconds-after-arriving-1663814827

I don't post this to be snide; it was the first case that popped into my head upon reading your remark.

And by the way, the cops shoot more whites than blacks, but we don't hear much about that because there are no political points to be scored

Agreed, and its shameful.

Do you mean the Constitution, or the ACLU version of the Constitution?  They are different you know.

Only to conservatives.

Another way of looking at all this - and using your logic - is to claim the police are simply 'testing the Constitutional limits' of police work.  Getting away with whatever they can is good for the country.  All they are doing is setting precedent for future police actions.

I'm surprised you are in support of a police state. 

Isn't that your defense of Obama when he's well beyond the limits to his office?

Specious linkage.  Obama isn't throwing 15 year old girls down or shooting 12 year old kids. 

[PB the Deplorable]

...  The girl in the video is 15, and is being held on suspicion of possessing a knife and using pepper spray.  In Buffalo Wild Wings...

We don't see what went on before the camera came on.  15 y/o girls can be pretty nasty and out of control.  When someone has a gun or knife and cops are called, then are required to do something.  Why did she have a knife and pepper spray, and why was it out where people could see it?

At minimum, the girl with the knife was clearly resisting.  Reading thru the article of the 12 y/o being shot - he was at a playground with a BB gun, pointing it at other kids.  The cops don't know if it's real or not.  He's probably lucky a parent called the cops instead of kicking his ass, it was his choice to not put it down when the police came

A lot of this is people out earning Darwin Awards.

... Only to conservatives...

Not quite.  Most people think the 'law' bends way too far in favor of criminals.

That's why Dukakis' admission that he was a 'card carrying member of the ACLU' hurt him.  Elections are decided by swing voters.  The 'Conservatives' were never going to vote for him, but simply stating he sided with ACLU positions in general doomed him with those swing voters.  So why is that?

... I'm surprised you are in support of a police state.

I was merely demonstrating the silliness of your logic

... Specious linkage.  Obama isn't throwing 15 year old girls down or shooting 12 year old kids.

Oh it's specious logic alright.  On your part.

No he's not out killing kids, he's out destroying our republic.  And the future for all our kids

[Gd5150]

Looking forward to seeing this story run 24/7 for weeks to come on CNN and MSNBC of the police using restraint and doing their jobs to avoid any unnecessary deaths. Last weekend in Sacramento.

"Sacramento police said Kenneth Smith, 22, approached them and said, "I have a gun". Officers tell him to get on the ground but he runs. He reached into his waistband and pulled out what officers identified as a cellphone. News10/KXTV"

And there's video proof of the avoided incident. Darn, guess this one won't make CNN and MSNBC after all. No way to create a fake organized protest after this story darn it!

http://www.news10.net/story/news/local/sacramento/2015/04/06/mom-says-suspect-wanted-suicide-by-cop/25368021/

[VtaGeezer]

Another...
http://www.tmz.com/2015/04/07/south-carolina-cop-officer-charged-murder-video-shooting-unarmed-man/

[WOTR]

I heard of that one.  I kind of wish they would skip the racial slant unless there is a reason (it is bad enough that a cop shot any unarmed citizen in the back 5 times.)  It almost says if it were a black cop it would have been ok, or if a white cop shot an unarmed white guy it would be fine (I wonder about an Asian cop shooting a Hispanic male?) 

I know there will be those who claim that if you run from police you should be shot- but it appears that somebody disagrees (at least in this case.)

[Gd5150]

Another...
http://www.tmz.com/2015/04/07/south-carolina-cop-officer-charged-murder-video-shooting-unarmed-man/

Yep this one is outrageous. Fortunately the family is being incredibly reasonable so far and remaining quite calm. May as well leave that officer a rope in his cell, his life is done.

[AZ/CO]

I heard of that one.  I kind of wish they would skip the racial slant unless there is a reason (it is bad enough that a cop shot any unarmed citizen in the back 5 times.)  It almost says if it were a black cop it would have been ok, or if a white cop shot an unarmed white guy it would be fine (I wonder about an Asian cop shooting a Hispanic male?)

Thank you for saying this wotr1, I agree with you.  First comes race, then comes the story.  And reporting like this came way before Ferguson, et al.

[qaddisin]

Thank you for saying this wotr1, I agree with you.  First comes race, then comes the story.  And reporting like this came way before Ferguson, et al.

So, the cop shoots an unarmed man in the back that was running from him, cuffs the man that has just been shot in the back five times, goes back and picks up the taser from where he is standing when he shot the unarmed man and drops it next to his body, then two other cops show up and do nothing but hover over the body, and later file a report stating that the man took the officer's tazer as why he needed to use deadly force on a man running away, and that medical assistance and CPR was attempted on the man as soon as the other officers arrived on the scene, before knowing all of this had been caught on video, and your outrage is that news agencies report on the race of the cop and the unarmed man?

[someguy]

Best not move to Taber, Alberta. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/alberta/no-spitting-swearing-or-yelling-allowed-in-alberta-town/article23397078/

In addition to the police being allowed to legally demand that a gathering of three individuals (or more) disperse there are a number of other laws now.

"The next time you are in Taber, Alta., remember not to spit or it will cost you $75. If you get caught and yell and curse in anger, you will receive another fine, that one for $150.  And if that is the second time you have been caught yelling or cursing in public in Taber, then you will be labelled a serial offender, and the fine for that is $250."

I'm sure this has nothing to do with revenue generation and that it is strictly for the protection of the public.  Don't get me wrong- I don't care for lots of cursing in public- but a $250 fine and the police can now legally demand that seating in the doughnut shop be limited to two patrons per table? :

this isn't that serious because I can't think of one reason why anybody would ever want or need to go to Taber

[FightTheFuture]

Yep this one is outrageous. Fortunately the family is being incredibly reasonable so far and remaining quite calm. May as well leave that officer a rope in his cell, his life is done.

He'll get 30 - life. Do every minute of it with the child molesters and snitches.

[AZ/CO]

So, the cop shoots an unarmed man in the back that was running from him, cuffs the man that has just been shot in the back five times, goes back and picks up the taser from where he is standing when he shot the unarmed man and drops it next to his body, then two other cops show up and do nothing but hover over the body, and later file a report stating that the man took the officer's tazer as why he needed to use deadly force on a man running away, and that medical assistance and CPR was attempted on the man as soon as the other officers arrived on the scene, before knowing all of this had been caught on video, and your outrage is that news agencies report on the race of the cop and the unarmed man?

I'm not 'outraged'.  So much of the narrative you described should be leading the story, not the color of the people involved. 

[VtaGeezer]

The kudos being given to N Charleston SC because the cop was quickly arrested and charged are offset by the fact that, until the video by a passing citizen appeared, their Police Dept was justifying the killing because (surprise, surprise) a trained, experienced and armed cop "felt threatened" by an unarmed, 50+, overwgt guy; never mind the five bullet holes in his back.

[albrecht]

The kudos being given to N Charleston SC because the cop was quickly arrested and charged are offset by the fact that, until the video by a passing citizen appeared, their Police Dept was justifying the killing because (surprise, surprise) a trained, experienced and armed cop "felt threatened" by an unarmed, 50+, overwgt guy; never mind the five bullet holes in his back.

Yeah without a video what would've happened? A justified shooting with a grieving family and some children who wouldn't even get what the guy owed them. Hopefully the children, and ex-wife, will at least get the money the dead guy refused to pay them. Then again these days it is not hard to fake a video. Eye-witness testimony is notoriously highly unreliable**, Hollywood wouldn't exist these days if not for CGI and clever video manipulation, and even DNA evidence can be faked*. And police labs, even the FBI's, have proven to be, at times, corrupted, mistaken laden, etc.*** So...how will will get to the truth about these things? Especially once good lawyers get involved, in front of a jury that might be uneducated or not of his peers? Of course if people who so ordered pay child support, maintain a vehicle to standards proscribed by law, and not run if pulled over- they also might not get shot and just get a ticket and forced to make some payments to their kids. Lots of bad stuff going on here. Hope cop doesn't get away with it. The other cop should also be charged with something if he is claiming he didn't see the throw-down stungun (if that is what the video shows.)

*http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html
**http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/trialevidence/articles/winterspring2012-0512-eyewitness-testimony-unreliable.html
***http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/federal-review-stalled-after-finding-forensic-errors-by-fbi-lab-unit-spanned-two-decades/2014/07/29/04ede880-11ee-11e4-9285-4243a40ddc97_story.html

[VtaGeezer]

Yeah without a video what would've happened? A justified shooting with a grieving family and some children who wouldn't even get what the guy owed them. Hopefully the children, and ex-wife, will at least get the money the dead guy refused to pay them. Then again these days it is not hard to fake a video. Eye-witness testimony is notoriously highly unreliable**, Hollywood wouldn't exist these days if not for CGI and clever video manipulation, and even DNA evidence can be faked*. And police labs, even the FBI's, have proven to be, at times, corrupted, mistaken laden, etc.*** So...how will will get to the truth about these things? Especially once good lawyers get involved, in front of a jury that might be uneducated or not of his peers? Of course if people who pay child support, maintain a vehicle to standards proscribed by law, and not run if pulled over- they also might not get shot and just a ticket and forced to make some payments to his kids. Lots of bad stuff going on here. Hope cop doesn't get away with it. The other cop should also be charged with something if he is claiming he didn't see the throw-down stungun (if that is what the video shows.)

*http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html
**http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/trialevidence/articles/winterspring2012-0512-eyewitness-testimony-unreliable.html
***http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/federal-review-stalled-after-finding-forensic-errors-by-fbi-lab-unit-spanned-two-decades/2014/07/29/04ede880-11ee-11e4-9285-4243a40ddc97_story.html

And maybe the guy with the phone cam is actually a New Black Panther time traveler with a CGI video he made in the 24th Century. As usual, you obfuscate the issue and then straddle it.

[albrecht]

And maybe the guy with the phone cam is actually a New Black Panther time traveler with a CGI video he made in the 24th Century. As usual, you obfuscate the issue and then straddle it.

I'm just saying, as any good leftist and progressive should know, reality is a social-construct and depends also on the cultural biases and hegemonic system in which our perceptions operate. And who, really, is to say what "truth" is or what really happened as, "truth", or at least perception, which is dependent on one's gender-identity or ethnic/racial identity (and capitalistic lenses by which our view is obscured via corporately controlled media in our Western culture) can vary.

Plus, the other points about DNA, CGI and video manipulation, eye-witness testimony, and jury manipulation by clever lawyers are all true but you ignore (but, really, what are "facts" but artifacts of a Western-oriented version of a patriarchal system based on false-dichotomies and false choices of good/evil that seek to reinforce the capitalist, racist system?)

ps: I hope both cops go down for long-terms (if it can be proven that the second cop knew about the "throw-down") and people also pay for their kids, pay their warrants or petty tickets, and keep their vehicle up to safety standards as set by law. And then have no cause to run from bad cops and get killed. I also I don't buy into the claims of "nationalizing" the police forces as Sharpton apparently has claimed. Look how that works in countries and history. Just more thugs, with more power and less over-sight, to push people around; or worse.

[qaddisin]

I'm not 'outraged'.  So much of the narrative you described should be leading the story, not the color of the people involved.

You're right, they buried the lede. And maybe 'outraged' is too strong a word to describe your feelings. But anyone that is more 'disappointed' about how the media sells the story over the story itself has other issues to address.

[qaddisin]

Yeah without a video what would've happened?

<trimmed for brevity>

ps: I hope both cops go down for long-terms (if it can be proven that the second cop knew about the "throw-down") and people also pay for their kids, pay their warrants or petty tickets, and keep their vehicle up to safety standards as set by law. And then have no cause to run from bad cops and get killed. I also I don't buy into the claims of "nationalizing" the police forces as Sharpton apparently has claimed. Look how that works in countries and history. Just more thugs, with more power and less over-sight, to push people around; or worse.

Well thanks, albrecht. My dogs are running around the house going crazy now. I'm glad you threw in that addendum that you hope the cops 'go down' for this, so it doesn't make you look completely devoid of humanity.

[albrecht]

Well thanks, albrecht. My dogs are running around the house going crazy now. I'm glad you threw in that addendum that you hope the cops 'go down' for this, so it doesn't make you look completely devoid of humanity.

You are welcome! Not sure about the devoid of humanity has to do with it? Or why that made your dogs mad (are they police dogs and miss out because the shootings keep them out of their game?) The cops should be punished if guilty, the dead guy should not have run (and also should've fulfilled financial, if not filial, obligations to his own children, and maintain a safe vehicle (far more people are killed every year in car accidents than by "bad cops" or by "terrorists" or by "youths"!)

As far as my other comments, please comment if those sources are incorrect about the infallibility of DNA evidence (or even willful manipulation), the FBI labs problems (and many State labs), the questionable veracity of eye-witness testimony, or the cleverness of lawyers. I dare you. These same problems apply when a cop is prosecuted, as anybody else.

The difference is, to me, the cop should be held to a higher standard than normal people, because they are trained and granted certain privileges. Amazingly some courts have held that police ignorance of the law is an excuse!! Crazy and certainly wrong. Besides that they often get a way beyond "benefit of the doubt" or even "get out of jail card", due to police unions, jurisdictions willing to settle cases too easily. Most of those problems are due to incorrect or inadequate training and incentives (revenue generation, quotas), us vs them attitude, no training how to handle escalating situations with mental/drug folks, reliance on weapons instead of dialogue or brute force, quotas and incentives for hiring certain people, etc. And also the more "crimes" on the books, increasingly civil actions, that now bring out the real cops that only help escalate the bad situation. Often the police, even if just in their military black-op BUD dress, escalate the situation. There also needs to be more drug testing for police (even anabolics etc.)

The "solution" to the "bad cop" problem is not to Federalize (more) crimes or Federalize cops, create more criminal statutes, to have more of a top-down approach, but the opposite. Closer to the people the police are (locally elected, live in your neighborhood, attend your church/parties/clubs/park/bbq whatever the better.) The less ridiculous laws and prisoners the better. And let police, and judges, and juries (called "jury nullification" in the extreme circumstances) work. Grand Juries, where applicable, can also expand their mandate Constitutionally and look into many things. Use it. Military experience should not be the "best" experience for police (maybe for border guards though, obviously, not under the current open-border doctrine), as the rules of engagement and attitude are diametrically opposed to "serve and protect."  Have more ride-alongs, know your police, sheriff, etc.

That doesn't exclude criminality, however. Support your kids, especially if ordered too by a judge (it shouldn't take that if they are your children but I understand there can be circumstance in which case get a lawyer or read up on the law yourself and file papers, show up in court, etc), have your vehicle in working order condition if you drive (if not fix it yourself or take a bus, get a ride, etc until you can), and don't run from police for any reason (just plain dumb, especially since now people, and even cops, often have cameras so if you are being abused, falsely arrested, etc you will at least have a chance. Getting shot 7x times makes you chances less so.) The "don't snitch", rabble rousers, and community support for drug-dealers and criminals don't help things at all.

[AZ/CO]

You're right, they buried the lede. And maybe 'outraged' is too strong a word to describe your feelings. But anyone that is more 'disappointed' about how the media sells the story over the story itself has other issues to address.

I'm going to be defensive.  I'm not dis-appointed.  I'm sadly shaking my head because, as you say, the story is sooo much more important than the sell; that was a good way to put it, thank you.  Focusing on skin color instead of training police officers Not to shoot first and ask questions later (as one example of where focus should really be) is not productive.  And I again sadly shake my head as I realize that any change in focus probably won't happen in my lifetime (50-something).

[WOTR]

You're right, they buried the lede. And maybe 'outraged' is too strong a word to describe your feelings. But anyone that is more 'disappointed' about how the media sells the story over the story itself has other issues to address.

I am capable of being disappointed in the media while simultaneously being outraged at the story.  I was for Columbine, and I was the morning of 9/11.  My disappointment in the media is not tied to my feeling of the actual story.

I hate to say it- but the probelm is that every source that I heard or saw started with "a while officer short a black man in SC."  There is so much more to the story than "just" the fact that a white officer shot a black man (I am cynical and think it probably happens an average of 3 or 4 time each week.)  The real story was why this time the guy was charged with murder.

Now, perhaps the printed stories can claim that they used that to get people to read past the headline and were doing a service by getting the story noticed and being able to inform people who might not have read the story otherwise.  However, my radio news could have told the whole story and mentioned race only in passing rather than making it sound like it was strictly about race.  The first radio reports mentioned race first and did not make mention of any other fact than the man was shot several times in the back and the officer is charged with murder.  They left out the meat of the story.

The story is about a dirty cop who shot a man in cold blood and about a style of cover up that the public has been assured has not been in use since 1970.  Yes, race may be a factor- and if it comes out that the guy was racist I hope that it is reported to high heaven that he was and that the force knew and did nothing.  But that is the future.  Right now, there is enough to be genuinely outraged over without speculation.

[qaddisin]

You are welcome! Not sure about the devoid of humanity has to do with it? Or why that made your dogs mad (are they police dogs and miss out because the shootings keep them out of their game?) The cops should be punished if guilty, the dead guy should not have run (and also should've fulfilled financial, if not filial, obligations to his own children, and maintain a safe vehicle (far more people are killed every year in car accidents than by "bad cops" or by "terrorists" or by "youths"!)

Your lack of humanity is in the "whelp, the guy shouldn't have run, otherwise he'd be alive," is indicative of the PROBLEM IN THE FIRST PLACE - where an unarmed man fleeing from a police officer in an empty lot where there is absolutely no threat to the police officer gets murdered in cold blood. And the dogs are going crazy from the whistle your blowing in the "gosh, maybe if he was a better human being, then there'd have been no reason to kill him." 

As far as my other comments, please comment if those sources are incorrect about the infallibility of DNA evidence (or even willful manipulation), the FBI labs problems (and many State labs), the questionable veracity of eye-witness testimony, or the cleverness of lawyers. I dare you. These same problems apply when a cop is prosecuted, as anybody else.

The only comment I'll make on this is that it is a lot easier for the police to manipulate a narrative in their favor than it is for those that wish to contest them, and in more ways than the ones you've listed. 

The difference is, to me, the cop should be held to a higher standard than normal people, because they are trained and granted certain privileges. Amazingly some courts have held that police ignorance of the law is an excuse!! Crazy and certainly wrong. Besides that they often get a way beyond "benefit of the doubt" or even "get out of jail card", due to police unions, jurisdictions willing to settle cases too easily. Most of those problems are due to incorrect or inadequate training and incentives (revenue generation, quotas), us vs them attitude, no training how to handle escalating situations with mental/drug folks, reliance on weapons instead of dialogue or brute force, quotas and incentives for hiring certain people, etc. And also the more "crimes" on the books, increasingly civil actions, that now bring out the real cops that only help escalate the bad situation. Often the police, even if just in their military black-op BUD dress, escalate the situation. There also needs to be more drug testing for police (even anabolics etc.)

Yes. To all of this. I would like to add:
a) it is a common saying that 10% of cops are good, 10% of cops are bad, and 80% of cops are there to punch in and out. I see that as 90% of cops are bad, because the 80% aren't going to jeopardize their paycheck and their pension by rocking the boat, much like the two cops reports upheld Officer Murdercop's report that "perp took my tazer and ran, so I had to shoot him." They may not be "bad cops", but they will likely not do something that will be perceived as crossing the Thin Blue Line, or at the very least make it so their job is a little more difficult.
b) police departments intentionally do not want to hire smart people (I'll link the NY Times article, but you can find it anywhere) http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/09/nyregion/metro-news-briefs-connecticut-judge-rules-that-police-can-bar-high-iq-scores.html

The "solution" to the "bad cop" problem is not to Federalize (more) crimes or Federalize cops, create more criminal statutes, to have more of a top-down approach, but the opposite. Closer to the people the police are (locally elected, live in your neighborhood, attend your church/parties/clubs/park/bbq whatever the better.) The less ridiculous laws and prisoners the better. And let police, and judges, and juries (called "jury nullification" in the extreme circumstances) work. Grand Juries, where applicable, can also expand their mandate Constitutionally and look into many things. Use it. Military experience should not be the "best" experience for police (maybe for border guards though, obviously, not under the current open-border doctrine), as the rules of engagement and attitude are diametrically opposed to "serve and protect."  Have more ride-alongs, know your police, sheriff, etc.

You go from "the police can't do their job" to "let the police do their job" with remarkable ease. I believe that there needs to be, at minimum on a State level, some sort of institution that investigates an incident where an officer kills or injures someone in the line of duty, and the officer involved needs to be taken off the street while he is being investigated. And that institution needs to be independent of any other law enforcement organization. You say it would just create more corruption and make things unnecessarily difficult, but I think a lot of people would feel better knowing that if there is another Officer Murdercop out there, maybe it would take the act of investigation out of the hands that work with him every day and we wouldn't have to wait until such time someone was lucky enough to catch him on film (I'm not even going to address the "OMG, the film could be doctored!" line of thinking, it goes back to you drilling into cheese looking for the espionage devices Obama put in there).

That doesn't exclude criminality, however. Support your kids, especially if ordered too by a judge (it shouldn't take that if they are your children but I understand there can be circumstance in which case get a lawyer or read up on the law yourself and file papers, show up in court, etc), have your vehicle in working order condition if you drive (if not fix it yourself or take a bus, get a ride, etc until you can), and don't run from police for any reason (just plain dumb, especially since now people, and even cops, often have cameras so if you are being abused, falsely arrested, etc you will at least have a chance. Getting shot 7x times makes you chances less so.) The "don't snitch", rabble rousers, and community support for drug-dealers and criminals don't help things at all.

There's the dog whistle again. Everyone makes mistakes. Many people get victimized every day for their mistakes. Those mistakes should not carry the death penalty unless they are a direct threat to the life of the officer or another human being. Even stating "golly, he shouldn't have run," or "he shoulda paid his child support" or "he shoulda made sure his tail lights were working" trivializes the fact that a man was murdered by someone that we should be able to trust not to do those things.

And in South Carolina, at least as of 2012, it's not illegal to drive with a tail light out.
http://law.justia.com/codes/south-carolina/2012/title-56/chapter-5/section-56-5-4510

[qaddisin]

I am capable of being disappointed in the media while simultaneously being outraged at the story.  I was for Columbine, and I was the morning of 9/11.  My disappointment in the media is not tied to my feeling of the actual story.

I hate to say it- but the probelm is that every source that I heard or saw started with "a while officer short a black man in SC."  There is so much more to the story than "just" the fact that a white officer shot a black man (I am cynical and think it probably happens an average of 3 or 4 time each week.)  The real story was why this time the guy was charged with murder.

Now, perhaps the printed stories can claim that they used that to get people to read past the headline and were doing a service by getting the story noticed and being able to inform people who might not have read the story otherwise.  However, my radio news could have told the whole story and mentioned race only in passing rather than making it sound like it was strictly about race.  The first radio reports mentioned race first and did not make mention of any other fact than the man was shot several times in the back and the officer is charged with murder.  They left out the meat of the story.

The story is about a dirty cop who shot a man in cold blood and about a style of cover up that the public has been assured has not been in use since 1970.  Yes, race may be a factor- and if it comes out that the guy was racist I hope that it is reported to high heaven that he was and that the force knew and did nothing.  But that is the future.  Right now, there is enough to be genuinely outraged over without speculation.

R. Crumb is recently quoted as saying "You don't have journalists over there anymore, what they have is public relations people. That's what they have over in America now. Two-hundred and fifty thousand people in public relations. And a dwindling number of actual reporters and journalists." Being disappointed in media for sensationalizing things is like being disappointed in your phone for being able to make calls. It's the machine, it's what it does. But you have the ability to choose the news outlets you want to get your information from, and mitigate the disappointment you may feel when they don't report things the way you want them reported.

What you don't have is a choice of which police officer is going to pull you over, and what might happen if he's having a bad day, or if you do something he sees as aggressive, or if he just plain doesn't like your face. And we as the public don't have too much say in the police force that we get. And that scares the shit out of me. Not the threat of a terrorist suicide bombing at a local sporting event, or a crazed man walking into a mall and gunning down teenagers and old people. It's that if I get pulled over and do something that could even be slightly perceived as out of line my life will completely change, and definitely not for the better.