This Cop Is Getting $2,500 a Month Because Killing an Unarmed Man in a Hotel Hallway Gave Him PTSD

they would not let them see the video, they thought it would prejudice the jury

edit, looks like they did get to see video, that is crazy

https://www.azcentral.com/story/new...ficer-fatally-shooting-unarmed-man/803368001/

 

Well, basically that is reality....they do it all the time and all they have to say is I thought he was reaching for a weapon.....anyone who has watched the video knows full well the innocent guy gunned down by the rogue cop posed no threat.

 

The cop lovers love those thug cops.

 

It's the same standard I was expected to follow in an actual warzone, so there is no reason why police cannot follow it here in America.

By the way, what concern, if any, do you have for the innocent civilians that die because of the policy you support?

 

Could have fooled me.

 

You are painting cops with a broad stroke. This case, while tragic, was not murder. Some overreact and shoot when they shouldn't, while others have been shot showing restraint. That being said, paying this guy to sit at home is wrong IMO.

 

He killed an innocent man intentionally. That is a murder.

 

Unless, of course, one knows the definition of murder.

 

Murder is the intentional killing of another person in violation of the law. And that's exactly what happened here.

 

Because corrupt PD's protect corrupt cops, corrupt PA's protect corrupt PD's and corrupt politicians (including judges)protect corrupt PA's.

 

this does go to an entire different extream, not only letting him off without even a hand-slap, but also paying him for his bad deeds for the rest of his life - so he gets to retire

 

yep, good cops should be as upset about this as anyone else as cases like this make good cops look bad

 

You are incorrect. Wise men argue opinion. Fools argue fact.

 

anyone watching that video knows this cops was wrong though, he was playing with his catch, escalating the situations and it resulted in a innocent man dying needlessly

now the cop knows this too or he would not be struggling with mental issues over it

 

Prove it.

 

I don't need to. The courts did it for me. I am not defending what he did, it just wasn't murder.

 

The courts were wrong, as the evidence clearly demonstrates.

 

You're referring to the base dictionary definition. If you're attempting to prove something within the court of law, you need a legal definition.

While some states define it differently, murder generally requires sound mind and discretion with malice aforethought, which implies deliberate purpose, design or determination. This is important because it establishes intent, or mens rea, which is what separates murders from people merely trying to defend themselves.

 

Smart cop. Stupid police department management.

 

That is only one of four types of mens rea.

 

I call it a draw

The shooting was unfortunate but justified

However the PTSD pension is not

 

You are incorrect again. The evidence was presented and failed to meet the burden.

 

"MUH THIN BLUE LINE!"

A bunch of boot lickers suffering from Stockholme syndrome.

 

Anyone could shoot anyone else for "any reason". How the law responds is based on the rationalization of the reason. In this case and in many many others, a reasonable fear of imminent danger justifies the use of self defense via force. Someone asked how the jury could return an innocent verdict on the charge of second degree murder and the reason for that is because the criteria for that charge was not met - the reason for that is because a reasonable fear of imminent danger existed as defined which support the principles of self defense. It might help your understanding of this to set aside your police-centric anger (or bias) and realize that the state is equally burdened to meet the criteria of its serious charges be they levied against citizen, foreigner, police, politician, or anyone else.

 

The person who got shot was innocent and posed no threat to anyone. How in the hell can you call that justified?