Tulsa cop Betty Jo Shelby found not guilty in death of Terence Crutcher

To back what up? The incidents of bad cops and wrongful shootings vs. the thousands of good ones and peaceful arrests every day by good cops? Yes, we can cite that from the Uniform Crime Report. I made a whole thread about the good cops and peaceful arrests vs. wrongful shootings.

Something like .000008% of police officers.

I'm happy to go over this further.

 

What the hell are you talking about

 

So is that suppose to make Amadou Diallo's mother feel better.

Is that suppose to make Jordan Edwards mom feel better.

Nobody is saying all cops are bad, but turning a blind eye to injustice just because you think it only happens 1 out of 100 times is asinine.

 

Nope. Makes nobody feel better. But you can't make any organization 100% good. Never going to happen. The Army will still have a few traitors. We'll have a couple bad cops. Nothing is perfect. There's absolutely nothing anyone can do. It's called "reality". Not to mention, a lot of these times it's an accident:

IT: suspect reaching for phone but looks like they are reaching for a gun, after running from police for several blocks and refusing orders. Them getting shot is their own fault. Whether it's justifiable homicide or not is determined by the courts, with the prosecutor having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

It makes somebody feel better.

You can when you hold the bad was responsible, but we don't see that happening.

How do you accidentally shoot and kill someone.

There was no chase and he had nothing in his hands.

Courts are just as corrupt as some of the cops coming in them. They stack the juries for these cops to make sure they are found innocent. We see it over and over again.

 

We do hold people accountable all the time. They are sent to court and it's the job of the prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone was murdered. It's very simple. The problem is YOU want to do something unconstitutional and jail an officer for doing their job once the prosecution fails to prove it was murder.

 

As though you have no idea of what I am talking about. You are not a daft person and I communicate in clear, precise language. Most people, such as yourself, talk the talk, but when it comes time to "walk the walk", suddenly you cannot be found. This nation was found upon the premises and principles of freedom and liberty. Dealing with the police and their occupational force mentalities, especially when it comes to Black folks and others, is a direct insult to both freedom and liberty. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States guarantees the following:

Stop and Frisk, DUI Checkpoints (Sobriety checkpoints), Warrantless searches, being stopped at random by the police because a person "fits the description", eavesdropping on conversations, etc. are OUTRIGHT VIOLATIONS of U.S. Constitutionally protected unalienable rights. When police and other "law enforcement" agencies perform any of the aforementioned activities, they are in violation of "The Law of The Land".
I know that some may use the reality of the existence of chattel slavery in this country at the time of the ratification of the Constitution for these United States, to which I respond, the 13th Amendment and the 14th Amendment duly rectified the unalienable rights of Black folks who are the former slaves of this country and their children (ascendants and descendants). This issue then becomes, enforceability. This is where the rubber meets the road so to speak. The States, locals and federal governments did not and do not have the will to enforce "The Law of the Land", which is why they surreptitiously formulated and enacted the "civil rights legislation". This codified and "normalized" the outright refusal of said governments to respect, acknowledge, and defend the unalienable rights of Black folks. There was and is no need for "Civil Rights" legislation, being that the 13th Amendment and the 14th Amendment expressly acknowledge that the former slaves and their children (ascendants and descendants) have the same rights and privileges as the Caucasians of this country. What does this have to do with police and their Paddy Roller mentalities when it comes to Black folks, IT HAS MUCH AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH IT! As I said, the governments have no desire to acknowledge, respect, and defend the unalienable rights of Black folks. If they did and do, the negative experiences that Black folks endure from police and their various agencies, would be to a minimum, if not altogether none existent.

 

What does this have to do with anything I've been discussing? You replied to me for some reason. Nothing I've stated is unconstitutional.

 

law of averages
noun

1. the principle that supposes most future events are likely to balance any past deviation from a presumed average.

Going by this definition only, the negative experiences that many have with cops and other law enforcement agents would balance out of be erased by the positive experiences. Such is not the case. Insult to injury is the normal experience with cops and other law enforcement agents, as well as the agencies they work for.
I will address how what I am saying has to with what you are saying, fist I will address the portion that I quote from your verbiage about "bad apples".
Here is my observation about the fable of having a "couple bad cops". This is antithetical to the premise of most cops being good. The reason I say this is because if the majority of cops were in fact good people, there would be no bad cops. My reasoning for this is called "the law of averages", I am sure that you are familiar with this law. The law of averages states that if the majority of something is good, it will be self-evident. There is another reality to this law and that is if the majority which are supposedly good, do nothing to stop those who are bad, are the majority really good? I say this because all cops know who the more brutal and violent ones are, yet they do nothing to purge them out of the departments in which they work. Instead, they remain silent, waiting to retire and receive a full pension and be known as "one of the guys". There are plenty of cases where an actual good police officer, spoke up about the various corrupt conduct and behavior that are accepted within the department they were once employed. Yes, you read it correctly, where they were once employed, meaning they themselves were forced out of the department. So much for the mythological "most cops are good" routine; sure they do their job(s), but at what expense? The fact of the matter is that the prevailing culture of policing is a severely corrupt one and it will never change, for the only way to change it is to disband every police department in the country and start afresh.

Now I will take time to directly address you and what you and others have been saying about obeying police, which is nothing more than an open excuse for their no-good behinds. As I have stated yesterday, people do not have to obey nor acknowledge cops. They are no greater nor better than the average person in society, though most that I have met in recent years are lesser than the average non-police personnel. As a matter of fact, all of them come from the same society, so who are they to demand that another obey them. This is not a monarchy last I checked, nor are these United States an open dictatorship, with the police as the goon squadrons of said dictatorship, though most of them think that they are. I call anyone who thinks that they are above the same regulations, fiats, and edicts. They are supposedly subject to the same laws (natural that is), regulations, fiats, and edicts that ALL OTHERS in this society are subject. As long as people view cops and others as being above and beyond reproach, those same people have no reason to complain about political corruption, nor any other type or form of corruption. If you accept and make excuses for one type or form, you may as well accept all other forms and types of corruption, being that one for is only a different expression of the same principle.

 

Ah I see. I've met an anarchist.

Police aren't above the law. They enforce it, which is something civilians cannot. It's not unconstitutional.

 

People just do not get how diverse Texas is. At all.

 

Enforce the law. A true law needs no enforcement, for instance, a tree growing in the forest takes place because of natural order, there is nothing ENFORCING the growth of the tree; it is a natural occurrence. That which is unnatural has to be ENFORCED, due to the fact that it is unnatural because if it was not ENFORCED, it would not exist, i.e., have no standing.
I am going to breakdown the word ENFORCE.

EN is a prefix that means "within". The root word FORCE means noun coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence.

FORCE verb means make (someone) do something against their will.

LAW noun the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties.

a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present.
Yes I am an anarchist to the true form, sense and connotation of the word. In the natural world or state of existence, CREATION there is no such thing as enforcing a law because it does not have to be done. In an artificial world governed by artificial rules, regulations and laws, you need enforcement of those rules, regulations and laws because they are unnatural and are not congruent to natural existence. Being that I am a natural Man, I live according to that which is natural and am in harmony with that which is natural, no FORCE is required. On the other hand, that which is artificial is incongruent to the natural order of CREATION I oppose by natural order of existence.

 

In many cases it has nothing to do with the prosecution's case, it has alot to do with who is sitting on the jury and please don't try and tell me that juries are honest and whobthe defendant is Doesn't play a role because I can list too many cases where it has.

 

I'm going to sit here and tell you that you're calling people you don't know, racist.

What's the word for people who judge other people that they don't know...
What do we call ASSUMING someone's or a group's racial stance is, without knowing?

Man if only there were words for people this judgmental.

 

I am going to sit here and say we have many folks unjustly prosecuted by folks I don't know. I am sport that is the history of America.

That's done everyday, how many folks who sit on a jury actually know the folks they are judging. I am in no way saying that all these trials are unjust, but we have definitely seen some that have been.

Wow, we have seen folks who have spent countless years in prison for crimes they didn't commit. Look at the trial in N Charleston, SC where one juror refused to convict and Why?

Please don't try and play on my intelligence by telling me that are juries honest and fair, because there are too many cases to show they are not.

 

Haha until you can prove to us that anyone on this jury is a racist, you're making bigoted accusations. It's instances like this that could damage real African American success.

 

It's instances that have already damaged black folks success since we first stepped on these shores.

 

Yep. Us 2017 folk still livin in the glory days.

 

Yep and unfortunately we are seeing some of the same things happening in 2017 that happened in 1917.

 

They should serve you donuts and coffee, maybe wash your car for you, and of course are obligated to believe everything anybody ever tells them because they're 'public servants'? lol

 

Yes, dumbasses were winning Darwin Awards back then, too. Except there weren't as many, because civil courts weren't awarding total assholios like Rodney King multi-million dollar settlements for drunk driving and 100 mph car chases through neighborhoods and other Fun Hood Rat pastimes. Since then it's been a giant game show of others hoping to end up with millions for stupid ghetto games.

 

Yea. Like .00000000000000000009% of the time.

 

Was that little racist soliloquy suppose to mean something.

I guess in your mind whites don't drive drunk or drive 100mph.

You could have saved that BS.

 

.0000000000000009% too much.

 

What a pathetic excuse for your racism.

Bad things will always happen.