To be fair, google is piss poor at presenting these kinds of stats, and my google searches for this info took me about 10 minutes, far longer than it took him to write a short response.

What I found was that many have been CHARGED with murder, but usually are found guilty of the lesser included charge of manslaughter if they're found guilty at all, and that's also true when the victim is white.
Can you find stats of white police convicted of murdering white men to compare...and can you actually point us to a .gov url with the stats you cited? I couldn't find any at all on google, nor could I find anything saying no cop has ever been convicted of murdering a black man. I looked.
I did find that in the last 2 years at least the number of cops convicted of any murder was zero, and in the last 12 years there have been 13 convictions for manslaughter/murder (they didn't split them up, but I would assume they were all actually just manslaughter).

If I remember correctly, the band made it out the back. I can't remember if they were convicted or if so, of what, but they sure should have been. Pyro in a tiny club like that with no fire protection and seemingly at least double capacity sure spells 100 counts of manslaughter in my eyes.
*terrible, absolutely terrible. I should have skipped this one.

The police officer who shot the unarmed man has been charged with manslaughter by the county DA.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/22/us/tulsa-officer-charged/index.html

Only if it spreads evenly to the entire Florida aquifer instantly.
Local users will see a far less diluted effect than those, say, 300 miles away.
Because there's absolutely no method available to test the water until it's pumped to the surface for use, prudence demands you assume maximum contamination level until proven otherwise.
There's also absolutely no measure of the aquifer itself, how it moves, mixes, flows, etc. The system is mostly unmapped. That means it could (not will) stay in the local area and not be diluted much at all, or could go directly into the main body and be diluted 1000 times per day. There's no way to know until they test the aquifer itself, something they have no way to do at this point, they can only test what they draw off at individual wells, with no knowledge of how they're connected underground.

Also, let's be clear, the 250000000 number comes from the polluter, not some independent measurement. If history is a guide, we can expect that number to rise to > 10 times that amount when independent investigators look into it. (Think BP).

Even in the best case scenario, it's exposing the already short supply of fresh water to more toxins. Just because it might be below the level that would condem your home if found there doesn't make it 'safe' by any means. Radiation exposure is cumulative, low levels over a long time can be as dangerous as high levels over a short time.
IMO, your contention is comparative to me saying 'no problem that I'm putting arsenic in your water, I put in only 1/10 the lethal dose...and arsenic is found in nature, so no harm no foul'. You would still get sick, might die, and would likely have problems and stress the rest of your life. I could still be convicted of attempted murder, and rightly so. I get that this wasn't intentional, but it was foreseeable, so more like manslaughter I suppose....of >an entire county.

EDIT: And you didn't address the orange problem. An orange uses 53 liters of water, and it takes 13-15 oranges to make a liter of juice, for a cumulative dose of 742 times the contaminants if you drink a liter of OJ (based on the assumption that an orange will trap the contaminants, a reasonable assumption). Now, at 742 times the diluted dose, are you going to continue to drink Florida OJ? I'm not....and that sucks, I like OJ. Now I'm going to have to try to grow oranges here on the N coast of Cali if I want them....an impossibility. (although I did grow a pineapple here, another impossibility, so we'll see).

Absolutely the officer should be charged. I think it's a huge disservice to everybody that these things are so often dealt with behind closed doors. It breeds contempt and distrust, and it eliminates an important opportunity for the public to understand some of the issues inherent in policing, and it seems to let horrible crimes go largely unaddressed.

But 'triple cuffed' can only mean a daisy chain of cuffs. Nothing else makes any sense, and to do so means that they are making some kind of attempt to accommodate the comfort of the individual during the cuffing. Or do you think it means having 3 sets of hand cuffs individually applied to your wrists? Come on... Doesn't excuse the cuffing of the guy, obviously, but thinking that triple cuffing is some heinous extreme version of cuffing is absurd.

You acknowledge that he had bad aim, and that the majority of shots missed the intended target, whichever target that was. You acknowledge that poor leadership, training, and protocol may have contributed to this outcome, but then you make the leap that because these this incompetency, it must have been intentional. It simply doesn't follow. You might ask them to be held responsible, but it doesn't mean it was the intent.

Saying 'I don't know' in the immediate aftermath of a charged situation where you are just coming to realize you made a huge mistake and nearly killed an innocent seems reasonable. It does not mean 'I meant to kill you and missed." It seems to indicate a state of confusion or shock.

I heard absolutely no reference to any time frame, or them preventing medical assistance for more than 15 minutes. I'll just remain agnostic on that angle.

I'm no lawyer, but I would have thought that intent combined with action was the very core of attempted murder. Murder is all about intent, and attempted is all about action. Attempted manslaughter of some degree seems the most realistic charge to make, but that's up to people that better know the law, and are willing to spend hundreds of hours analyzing the situation.

A huge problem with the system is the way that justice is delayed for so long (assuming it is ever meted out). People want instant karma, immediate redress for wrongs committed. People see something, get heated, and feel that a strong reaction is called for in the moment. The system on the other hand is meant to be about dispassionate discussion of the details of the situation, and can take a long time to play out. This is a big part of why it seems so reprehensible when it's carried out behind closed doors; it looks like it's being swept under the carpet. Similarly this is why media coverage over sensationalizes crime. But that's a discussion for another day.

Anyways, I've already typed too much about this I think.

Well, the level of incompetence required for this to be 'accidental' is SOOO incredibly high that it's not reasonable to assume the police are that incompetent....but if they are, that's intentional on the part of their supervisors, no? So still the responsibility of the police as a whole.

There IS doubt that they could have killed him and made it look unintentional. He shot 3 times, and only hit once. Clearly, he's not a good enough shot to kill on the first shot, because cops ALWAYS shoot to kill, and he failed, no matter which target he was aiming at.

We can assume that because he said "I don't know" when asked why he shot the caregiver....not "I missed", or "I wasn't aiming at you" or any other mitigation. If, as you suggest, he was firing at the sitting, unarmed, severely mentally challenged man (also completely inexcusable, btw) then the negligence in discharging his firearm with an innocent victim between him and the target is not just gross negligence, it's intentional negligence. Shooting someone because you don't care that they are between you and your target makes you an attempted murderer. Period.

Um....if a cop was shot in the foot, medical care would be instant, there would be no handcuffing, much less TRIPPLE handcuffing. What was reported was they didn't call for medical attention for >15 minutes while the victim lay handcuffed bleeding in the street (probably with officers standing on top of him). Medical care was provided while the shootings were still happening in Dallas, so "the scene wasn't secured yet, we couldn't allow medics in safely" falls completely flat as an excuse anymore and won't even be considered by me.

That level of incompetence from a police officer MUST, by definition, be intentional. They are well trained and equipped to avoid exactly this kind of fiasco. Ignoring that training is intentional, and that must be prosecutable if there is to be any effect. I don't have to ascribe intent to murder to claim culpability. That is not the metric by which the law is applied. If your actions are grossly negligent and end in near death of another, which is the absolute least criminal possible interpretation of the actions of this officer, that's criminal attempted murder/manslaughter1. Because (inappropriately) using a firearm is not unintentional, and officers ONLY use them to kill, this was not attempted manslaughter, which only applies when the intent is NOT to kill, it was an attempted murder.
Either way, that's a question for a jury to answer, not his superior, not the DA that he works with daily.

The premise was great. Two transformers with issues. However, the execution was horrible. Hulk said nothing about Jenner's manslaughter (Perhaps he could have thrown a car at people and it bounced over them, then he makes a pun about not killing people.) Nor did he go after Jenner's dick. It seems the SJWs really hit hard. Then again the Douglass one was hardcore SJW too.

So sad.
It's really hard to upvote this, even though it is news with a social message.

From what I've seen about this, there's plenty of blame to go around. Apparently there was only one fence between people and the enclosure, apparently with a hole big enough for a 4 year old or short enough for one to climb over....then there was the 4 year old that was unwatched long enough to get through/over that fence. Once he was in the enclosure in the hands of the Gorilla, they had little choice, sadly. If they tranquilized it and it hurt or killed the boy before going out, the zoo would be sued and close and the keepers likely be charged with some kind of manslaughter by negligence.

This is execution.

With the armoured car, they could have driven up next to the car, shined a freaking high powered halogen light inside and seen if there was a gun with zero danger to anyone... That takes about 15 seconds.

How dafuq do you feel threatened with an armoured vehicle, that much backup, vests/shields and automatic firearms? It is fucking beyond me...

At the very least this is voluntary manslaughter.

And seriously, these people were too fucking moronic to think through that executing two sleeping people was perhaps a bad idea, and yet we let them wield the guns and dispense the lawn??!?!?

Feds are getting involved...so do me a favor...take your right hand and lift it in the air. Then smack the shit out of your face. Many incidents have been prosecuted these years. Granted, many have not. But each is a case by case. Ferguson was 100% justified (Even if there were racist practices.) Gardner, not so much. Perhaps manslaughter would have been a good start. But again, 50-50 is way different than it used to be. Used to be 100-0.

Cool story, bro.

Except that in this video the only person in clear and immediate danger of dying is the guy who got sucker punched and took a header into the concrete. Blind guy, meanwhile, barely got rocked by the first punch and is in no immediate danger of dying. The facts, therefore, kind of negate your whole argument while strengthening mine.

Also, I provided ample links to show the relevant laws which come into play here and would force most DAs into prosecuting. Here's another one: take a look at California Penal Code 192(b). It doesn't matter that the kid was engaged in a lawful act (defending someone else). Someone was unlawfully killed and it's the DA's job to do something about it. Your counter-argument was essentially: "Nuh-uh, cuz I say so."

...wut?

I've argued with you about stuff before and you've always been good at using evidence-based reasoning to support your position. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you were having an off-day with that reply (pressed for time in responding perhaps).

BTW, I think the fact that we disagree on this is yet another reason why a competent DA would let a jury decide rather than make the call him/herself. Their job is to determine whether there is enough evidence available that someone has broken the law to prosecute them. In this case we would have the video and multiple eye-witnesses showing a killing punch being thrown. Again, I don't see how any decent DA can NOT prosecute at that point. Their job is to represent the state and prosecute those who break the state's laws. It's the defense attorney's job to counter that the law was broken for good reason (self-defense), not the DA's job. It's the jury's job to determine if a killing in self-defense is reasonable under the circumstances, again not the DA's.

DA's do sometimes decide not to prosecute when there is overwhelming evidence that the killing was justified and a trial would be a waste of time and money, but this isn't one of those cases. For example, if the video showed the bully attacking the blind kid with a knife and then getting killed by a sucker punch from someone trying to stop him, it's unlikely any DA would take action.

At the end of the day, while I think if the kid had killed the bully he would have been charged with manslaughter, I also think it would be unlikely to actually go to trial. Especially if the kid throwing the killing punch is a first-time offender, the DA would likely offer a plea deal for a lesser charge.

Anyways, can we at least agree that it is great that no one was seriously injured in this incident?

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but any DA in the U.S. worth his salt is going to look at that video and realize s/he has to press charges in the event the bully dies. Why? Because it is involuntary manslaughter.

The "hero" sucker punches the attacker, which is an unlawful act that results in a death. Sure, the "hero's" defense would be that was defending the blind kid, but self-defense in the U.S. requires the use of force to be reasonable and in proportion to the threat (see here and in particular here for the laws in California regarding the defense of others). For instance, you can't just pull out a gun and shoot someone because they punched you and then claim self-defense. You can only use enough "reasonable" force to stop the attack. It's not the DA's job to determine whether the "hero" acted in a manner "reasonable" and proportional to the threat--that's the jury's job after being presented with all the evidence.

Possibly, and I'm not familiar with US law, but I know in Australia there are laws that allow proportionate responses when either defending oneself or acting in the defense of another.

The guy was attacking a helpless person with a closed fist. He got hit (and is far more able to defend himself) with, at most, a closed fist. Proportionate. That he might die as a result of the blow could be foreseen by a reasonable person (ie. manslaughter) but the fact that he is attacking someone so incapable of defending themselves, in my mind, means that someone leaping to the defense of the blind guy has considerable latitude to remove the threat to him.

At least insofar as Aus law is concerned, might be completely different in the US, but I suspect any jury would take a very dim view (no pun intended) of someone bullying a blind kid.

Yeah, but in the U.S. that would be a manslaughter charge. No, the kid wouldn't have meant to kill him. Yeah, the other guy started it. But he didn't have to punch the dude. He could have broken it up by pushing the guy away or physically putting himself between the attacker and the victim.

Even if the manslaughter charges didn't stick, it would almost certainly go to a civil case of the dead kid's parents suing the kid who intervened and I have no doubt they would win.

Not saying it's right, but that is the reality of the U.S. legal system. It IS dangerous to promote the message that sometimes violence is okay to teens. Things turned out okay this time because no one got permanently injured or killed. Doesn't mean the dice are always gonna roll that way though.

EDIT: To clarify my last point, what I mean is that even if someone who deserves to die gets killed, there's a high likelihood there will be serious consequences for the person who killed them. If not a prison sentence, then probably monetary damages in a lawsuit, and if not that then years spent paying lawyers to fight said charges/lawsuit.

Not really the fault of the Justice Squad if he chooses to drive off unsafely? Pretty sure he'd be the only one in trouble if he managed to get in an accident.

I don't think "But I didn't put the stickers on! So it's not manslaughter." is a valid excuse.

Personally, I have zero sympathy for the guy at all.