This is manslaughter rather than murder. There's also a fair distinction to be drawn between unjustifiable drug, and legitimate DUI arrests; however the cop's insistence on getting hold of the baggy, given that there are tests for intoxication, suggests he was trying to do the guy for possession.

Now, what this cop does share with all cops and many others is full and personal responsibility for every death, which number in the thousands, every assault and false imprisonment which number in the millions, civil rights violation, billions, stolen tax dollar, trillions, resulting from their immoral support of prohibition. I'd be quite happy to see him tortured to death with all his kind.

What the video absolutely does not show is the cop trying to protect the man's health or help him in any way. He wanted the evidence. Those of you deliberately misinterpreting the footage to preserve your worldviews are liars, and lying to cover up guilt for a man's death is reprehensible.

I see what you are saying, however, I'm afraid that is not necessarily the way hate crimes are viewed in the public eye today.

Also I DO know that majorities such as whites or whatever are victims of these offenses too.

Often times i'm not very eloquent with words. I found this in the wiki entry and it sums up some of my viewpoints on the matter:

In the United States, federal prosecution is possible for hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's race, color, religion, or nation origin when engaging in a federally protected activity.

that being said,

Some have argued hate crime laws bring the law into disrepute and further divide society, as groups apply to have their critics silenced. Some have argued that if it is true that all violent crimes are the result of the perpetrator's contempt for the victim, then all crimes are hate crimes. Thus, if there is no alternate rationale for prosecuting some people more harshly for the same crime based on who the victim is, then different defendants are treated unequally under the law, which violates the United States Constitution. To try to isolate motivation in cases such as rape and murder to fit into one of two categories is ridiculous. The victims in either case suffer the same result. To legislate different penalties based upon a changing definition of what constitutes hate criminalizes thought and not actions. In a free society, one's thoughts and ideas should be protected even if they offend the sensitivities of other groups. It’s when a physical crime is perpetrated, regardless of the motivation, that the same punishment should be enforced.


And just to put it out there:

hate crime
 
–noun
a crime, usually violent, motivated by prejudice or intolerance toward a member of a gender, racial, religious, or social group. Also called bias crime.

Not at all like how you defined it

and from http://public.findlaw.com/civil-rights/more-civil-rights-topics/hate-crimes-more/ ,
A civil rights violation may become a crime if it involves the use (or threat of use) of force. Hate crimes are intended to hurt and intimidate someone because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, religious, sexual orientation, or disability.

"someone" could be argued to include a group of people or community.
I am not confused. What I think is relevant, however, is how it is defined by the People and by the Judicial Systems.


I'm at a point where I'm not entirely sure what I think about it anymore. I DO know that it makes me uneasy. Benjamin Franklin once said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." I love liberty. I love it through and through. I think liberty in addition to love are the ONLY things worth fighting and worth dying for. I fear that these laws are giving up our liberty just to obtain a little safety.

I dunno, perhaps I'm seeing things that aren't there. Perhaps my worst fears ARE true. Just wanted to express my concern =)

“They seem to forget that we went to court over a serious civil rights violation...in the days following Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans dispatched police officers and National Guard troopers to confiscate firearms. In many cases, citizens were disarmed at gunpoint, without warrant and without probable cause. Nagin and Riley, and every other official in New Orleans who was part of this outrage, need to understand that the Constitution may not be suspended in New Orleans or anywhere else by a natural disaster, or on somebody’s whim."

---Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan M. Gottlieb