September 1, 2011 (CHICAGO) (WLS) -- A South Side Chicago man who admitted shooting and wounding two Chicago Police officers has been found not guilty and released from custody. In this Intelligence Report: How did the shooter's lawyer manage to win such a case?

Twenty-one-year-old Kenneth Green was asleep in his Roseland apartment two years ago when a Chicago Police team showed up with a search warrant for drugs.

Cops used a battering ram to get in.

When police kicked through the bottom of Green's bedroom door, he shot through the door wounding two of the officers. Despite admitting all that, Green got off claiming self-defense.

The early morning raid by police on Green's Roseland apartment building ended in almost three dozen shots fired, mostly by police, after veteran officers Scott McKenna and Danny O'Toole were wounded through the door. The officers would survive, but that day in 2009, Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis used the incident to take a stand.

"People are trying to murder police officers left and right," Weis said.

After he shot two policeman, Green was arrested on the spot and charged with attempted murder, aggravated battery with a gun and held without bond.

Last week, after a several day trial, Green was found not guilty. His attorney, Marcus Schantz, told the I-Team that he convinced the jury that Green didn't know they were police outside his door executing a legal search warrant.

@VoodooV It's not surprising to me that opponents of free markets characteristically lack an understanding of basic economics or just how incentives affect human behavior. And I'm not even an economist or a psychologist.

If a criminal has a gun to your head, and there's a policeman at the scene who is friends with the criminal and let's him do whatever he wants and leave, which one is worse?

VoodooV, would you steal, rape, or even kill if I were the law and promised you could get away with ZERO repercussions? If you do commit a crime, you'd be to blame, but wouldn't I be to blame even more for not only promising but letting you get away scot free?

It's human nature. Wall Street committed fraud on a large scale, and government was in on it. Is Wall Street to blame for the fraud? Sure, but why did they do it without any fear of loss to make them think twice? Because they knew government was letting them get away with it, which they did, no bankruptcies, no arrests.

As a college, would you turn away the opportunity of making more money by increasing tuition costs if the students weren't sensitive to the prices you charged?

Likewise, if you were a grocer selling apples, and your customers were being subsidized by free loans for apple consumption, wouldn't it make your life a lot easier to charge more for apples if no one ever complained about the price?

"Back then", college tuitions were a lot cheaper, look it up. You'd expect tuitions to become cheaper with time just taking into account the technological advances, economies of scale, etc., but prices have inflated monstruosly despite these forces.

Would you rather worry that the mechanics of supply and demand won't solve society's needs for education overnight, or that cheap loans would make the cost of tuition increasingly and absurdly high for society, even contributing to an economic recession? If the goal is to make education more accessible, wouldn't it make more sense to let education become cheaper, rather than enforce a policy that led to an ever increase in costs?

I don't really understand how you can say "If you don't want to get raped, don't dress like a slut", as if raping sluts is somehow normal or more approved of. Raping anyone is bad, whatever their profession is. Though I do agree with the similar sentiment that "If you don't want to be thought of as a slut, don't dress like a slut." Just like (borrowing from Dave Chappelle) if you don't want to be thought of as a policeman don't go wearing a police uniform.

About the equal pay, they go on about it here too, but it's frankly just bullshit. They get the statistics by running together averages of every job but neglect the fact that if you take a man and a woman who do the same job and have equal experience, they get equal per hour pay. The fact that women on average end up in lower paying jobs and/or do less hours is another issue entirely. If we "equalized" the wages like they're suggesting it'd lead to a situation where women get paid more for less work, which is even less equal.

The microaggression thing... Really? People take the words that seriously? What the fuck is wrong with people? And aren't most swear words in English actually religious in origin, rather than sexual in nature? And even then, I can't think of a single swear word that says "what women do during sex is bad and humiliating". Any suggestions?

Reproductive health... Well, the American medical system is fucked up beyond recognition anyways, so par for the course. Good luck with that.

Media representation is a pretty valid point though, but I must say you don't really see a wide variety of men either, they're largely homogenized in very similar ways to how women in media are usually portrayed. And to the sheer amount of women on TV... I'd like to think that if more women were better at it than men, then there'd be more women there. I don't want a 50/50 split just for the sake of equality, I want the best people to do the jobs whether they're men or women.

Nurses are underpaid? It's easy to make six figures a year with some overtime, and all that for a just a BA degree is pretty good. Not to mention you can make even more if you specialize or become a nurse practitioner. And while there percentage of male nurses is small, it is significant; saying that nursing is a sign of gender pay inequality is just pure bull shit.

And the "rape culture" and slut walk is pretty ridiculous too. Yes, women absolutely have the right to dress in whatever fashion they want to without fear of harassment. But the world is not some ideal utopia, and there are people at the fringes of society who do not abide by civilized rules. It's fucking useless to lecture them about gender equality and tell them that rape is bad mmmmkay? What the policeman said was crass, but it's common sense that if you dress provocatively, you're going to get a lot of attention, both good and bad.

Some poor research assistant is going to be running tests at the LHC looking for extra dimensions when suddenly a resonance cascade will rip dimensional seams, devastating the facility. Aliens from another dimension known as Xen will enter the facility through these dimensional seams. A funny talking guy dressed in a suit and brief case will start appearing at random as you battle your way out of the facility! You will soon discover the secretly developed gravity gun and use it to solve puzzles with your new friend, Facility Policeman Barney! Portals of orange and blue will bend the laws of physics! A plague will take the world by surprise, turning everyone into rabid zombies!

oh wait, that's just Valve.

Has he lost his fucking mind?

He has disapproved of America's wars in Korea (1950–1953), Vietnam (1964–1973), Afghanistan (2001–present), and Iraq (2003–2011), believing that the United States should not be overly militaristic or play the role of global policeman.[250][251] He considers himself "too individualistic to be either right-wing or left-wing",[252] describing himself in 1974 as "a political nothing" and "a moderate"[248] and in 1997 as a "libertarian".


He has endorsed same-sex marriage[254][257] and contributed to groups supporting the Equal Rights Amendment for women, which failed to receive ratification in 1982.[258] In 1992, Eastwood acknowledged to writer David Breskin that his political views represented a fusion of Milton Friedman and Noam Chomsky.[259]

MITT FUCKING ROMNEY????????????????????????????????????????????

Edit: I think he's genuinely going senile.

So, kicking someone in the neck is a 'distracting blow'? Love it. I also like "Officer involved shooting" for when a policeman kills a civilian.

1984.

Great cop. Total control of the situation, didn't let them rile him. They were obviously out for a confrontation but all they got was a calm, reasonable and friendly encounter with a policeman just doing his job and doing it properly.

If all cops were like this there'd be a hell of a lot less problems around. These guys would probably be out defending the cops rather than looking for a confrontation.

What a tool. Who thinks they can run over a policeman and that's ok?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

At least Peepshow is getting a new season.>> ^alien_concept:

>> ^dag:
Is this show back on?

I don't think so

>> ^dag:

Is this show back on?


I don't think so

What the police officer did was against the law. What the other guy did isn't.

Saying that I was the type of person you were talking about isn't an attack on me? You ignoring half of what I said is commenting on my statement?

The beginning of your third paragraph could just as easily apply to police officers. The last part misses the fact that he is helping people by doing this. Even you are helped by this. Whether you like it or not the country is better off if cops don't have carte blanche to bully whomever they want. Even police officers decent or not are safer because of people who assert their rights. Crazy as it seems this guy and his actions will make people less threatened by the police which will make it safer for the police along with everyone else.

>> ^spoco2:

@swedishfriend sigh I was commenting on your statement, not you. Also, you branding this policeman a 'criminal' is exactly the sort of shit that helps fricken no-one.
This cop was SUPER professional. Handled this REALLY well. Was reacting to people being concerned that there was a man walking along their street with a fucking gun on his hip.
What about this? Rather than being an enormous dickhead and walking around with a loaded fricken gun for whatever self righteous reason is in this guy's head, what about he does some fucking good for the community? What about he helps other people rather than making everyone around there feel endangered? What about he helps those in need?
He has done NOTHING to deserve any sort of respect AT ALL.
Good day to you sir.
Door slams, footsteps fade to distance

@swedishfriend *sigh* I was commenting on your statement, not you. Also, you branding this policeman a 'criminal' is exactly the sort of shit that helps fricken no-one.

This cop was SUPER professional. Handled this REALLY well. Was reacting to people being concerned that there was a man walking along their street with a fucking gun on his hip.

What about this? Rather than being an enormous dickhead and walking around with a loaded fricken gun for whatever self righteous reason is in this guy's head, what about he does some fucking good for the community? What about he helps other people rather than making everyone around there feel endangered? What about he helps those in need?

He has done NOTHING to deserve any sort of respect AT ALL.

Good day to you sir.

*Door slams, footsteps fade to distance*

Yep, I'd say I missed your tone completely. Usually, it seem that when someone gets started talking about "superheros" (as opposed to "comic books"), they're a fan of the genre, and hold that superheros are a good thing. I (and apparently you) tend to disagree with that stance. LOL>> ^Trancecoach:

uh, that's what I'm saying. I think you missed my tone, which is difficult to convey online.
If you took pretty much any straight-up "super hero" and put them in a real world context, not only would they appear to be a weird-o in a lycra jumpsuit, but they'd be considered fascist in their unilateral form of "crime-fighting" which places them in the position of policeman, judge, jury, and executioner...>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^Trancecoach:
and this is different from a superhero..... how?>> ^Stormsinger:
Best case, he's a fucking loon. If he's not, he's far worse... Vigilantes are scum, bypassing all due process, proclaiming themselves judge, jury and executioner without anyone's consent.


The difference is pretty simple. Superheros exist only in comic books dealing with fictional people...this guy is in the real world dealing with real people.
I accept a lot of premises and actions in fiction that I would never accept in real life.

uh, that's what I'm saying. I think you missed my tone, which is difficult to convey online.

If you took pretty much any straight-up "super hero" and put them in a real world context, not only would they appear to be a weird-o in a lycra jumpsuit, but they'd be considered fascist in their unilateral form of "crime-fighting" which places them in the position of policeman, judge, jury, and executioner...>> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^Trancecoach:
and this is different from a superhero..... how?>> ^Stormsinger:
Best case, he's a fucking loon. If he's not, he's far worse... Vigilantes are scum, bypassing all due process, proclaiming themselves judge, jury and executioner without anyone's consent.


The difference is pretty simple. Superheros exist only in comic books dealing with fictional people...this guy is in the real world dealing with real people.
I accept a lot of premises and actions in fiction that I would never accept in real life.