Tags for this video have been changed from 'Rachel Maddow, hurricane katrina, police, kill, murder, bridge men' to 'Rachel Maddow, hurricane katrina, police, kill, murder, bridge men, corruption' - edited by Stingray

just another clusterfuck that is called katrina.
these cops are fucking cunts.
*promote!

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, July 14th, 2010 8:57am PDT - promote requested by enoch.

now where are the sifts proto fascists to tell me how the victims deserved it?

Cascading tragedies, blarg.

>> ^peggedbea:

now where are the sifts proto fascists to tell me how the victims deserved it?


If you're honestly comparing something of this magnitude to a girl being arrested, you've got problems lady.

if you honestly think i've developed this opinion from just one thread, you haven't been paying attention.
if you honestly think my comment had no hints of sarcasm or exaggeration, you have a poor grasp of literary devices.

>> ^Shepppard:

>> ^peggedbea:
now where are the sifts proto fascists to tell me how the victims deserved it?

If you're honestly comparing something of this magnitude to a girl being arrested, you've got problems lady.

>> ^peggedbea:

if you honestly think i've developed this opinion from just one thread, you haven't been paying attention.
if you honestly think my comment had no hints of sarcasm or exaggeration, you have a poor grasp of literary devices.
>> ^Shepppard:
>> ^peggedbea:
now where are the sifts proto fascists to tell me how the victims deserved it?

If you're honestly comparing something of this magnitude to a girl being arrested, you've got problems lady.



What in your first post is meant to be sarcastic? to me, that's just a plain statement, without a hint of detectable sarcasm and a shot at those of us who don't easily take the stance of "The cop is always in the wrong".

And, no, I don't think you're opinion is developed by one thread. However, I got an email you had quoted me on someones profile, something to the tune of "we is proto-fascists". Being as the quote taken from me was from the 'girl viciously attacks police officer' thread, and you're again referring to "proto-fascism" I was comparing the two remarks together.

If they didn't want to be shot, they shouldn't have been lying wounded on the ground.

I'm waiting for the chorus line of people who usually say "cops are never held accountable" to show up and explain to us that they're certain the cops still won't face any punishment for what they did...

Because, by their logic, if the video clip doesn't show Obama personally beheading all six officers, you know nothing will happen because the justice system never, ever works right. Ever.

Although for myself the comment you are seeking stems from my desire to know that if someone who wasn't a cop had done this would they face the same or worse punishment as the cops in the end. At the very least it should be the same, but I think it should be worse for the cops simply because they used their authority to murder someone.

And we won't know that until the trial is done. Not sure why Obama would have a hand in it, unless he is pushing for police reform and using this as an example.

The kicking/stomping cop is guilty as hell if the testimony of the cop who flipped is to believed. But I think all the rest should face very similar charges unless they can prove they had no idea that they had murdered a bunch of unarmed civilians and that the gun had been planted. I just hope they don't allow guilty as hell cop assume more blame and let the rest play it off as he tricked them into believing the story. Because up until now, if the cop hadn't flipped on them...they would be nowhere still with this case and that MIGHT be because they didn't take the time to investigate it properly when it happened due to the assumed trust police have.

I just want to know that their punishment is the same as a non-police officer doing this to a group of people, and I hope it's worse because they used their authority to commit a crime. Which let's be honest, we know a lot of people in authority are committing crimes in front of our eyes and getting away with it...even if they do eventually get caught. Not sure how these police officers benefited from murdering a bunch of people, but if they've been paid since the crime..... or have been receiving retirement since helping cover it up.......


>> ^NetRunner:

I'm waiting for the chorus line of people who usually say "cops are never held accountable" to show up and explain to us that they're certain the cops still won't face any punishment for what they did...
Because, by their logic, if the video clip doesn't show Obama personally beheading all six officers, you know nothing will happen because the justice system never, ever works right. Ever.

why they started shooting in the first place, is this some uncontrolled cop rage that we might expect in the future?

I'm not in the chorus line of people who usually say "cops are never held accountable," but I am in the chorus line of people who say "cops are rarely held accountable." I stand by that.

I have little faith in our government. All three branches are broken. And Obama is proving himself to be more and more a typical politician these days. So it should be no surprise that law enforcement (a part of the government) would also be broken.

I'm not an anarchist. I'm not a minarchist. I'm not a libertarian. I'm just a pissed-off liberal. Most Americans have gotten lazy, across the entire political spectrum, not watching the government as closely as we should. And we've allowed corporate interests to control the government. But that really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Our vaunted Founding Fathers created our representative democracy, which was designed that way primarily so that the wealthy would have more control than the rabble, so it's basically been that way since the beginning. It only got worse over time, especially when corporations were granted the status of legal personhood by the Supreme Court.

So here we are. Sure, cops get prosecuted for wrongdoing some of the time. Gotta throw the public a bone every once in a while. But the remainder of the time police abuse is allowed to slip through the cracks, just like most cases of white collar crime aren't even investigated, just like most cases of political corruption never see the light of day. Yet we'll send some kid to the big house for possessing a nickel bag. It's all part of the same crippled, disfigured beast.

Can we fix this fucking mess, or is it a hopeless case? I don't know for sure. I want a decent country for my son. Maybe the best thing I can do for him is emigrate, but a lot of other countries are fucked too. (Thank you, Canada, for letting us know that your cops aren't any better than ours.) I still vote, and I still throw a little green at a few political figures and causes I believe in. (Sorry Obama, but don't count on my contribution in 2012.) Still it seems like I'm shoveling shit against the tide, but I feel like I gotta try something. Anything.

So I'm a cycnical bastard. But I think I've got a right to be.>> ^NetRunner:

I'm waiting for the chorus line of people who usually say "cops are never held accountable" to show up and explain to us that they're certain the cops still won't face any punishment for what they did...
Because, by their logic, if the video clip doesn't show Obama personally beheading all six officers, you know nothing will happen because the justice system never, ever works right. Ever.

big ups kronosposeidon
well said.

@kronosposeidon, I'm with ya pal. I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore.

My comment was aimed at the people who think cops doing things badly and/or escaping accountability validates an anarchist/minarchist/libertarian worldview. I'll also happily splatter a few cynical liberals who've given up all hope because they didn't get a pony despite having voted for Obama.

You sound beaten down, and I can't blame you. But things aren't as bad as they seem. Rome wasn't converted to unionized labor in a day, and we can't reverse the entire 30-40 year conservative revolution in 1-2 years, no matter how badly we want and need to.

Keep shoveling shit against the tide, I'll be there with you, and so will many, many others. We're the majority already, it's just that if too many of our friends drop the shovel to go have themselves a cry on election day instead of voting, their fears and doubts will become self-fulfilling...

@Porksandwich, there are lots of moral and legal reasons why we have the presumption of innocence in our courts. We collect evidence and have a trial, and have judgment rendered by juries of our peers. We don't just say "he did it, let's burn him alive!" anymore, and I think that's a good thing.

Even the most hated people on Earth deserve a fair trial. I want rapists to face a trial. I want child molesters to face a trial. I want murderers to face a trial. I want terrorists to face a trial.

There's a definite possibility that the system will allow them to escape accountability in some unfair way, but it seems more reasonable to wait and see if such a thing occurs before preemptively deciding that it definitely will happen and getting mad about it in advance.

That's my main point -- calling out the preemptive assumption of guilt, both of the officers, and the legal system that has yet to even try these men.

(And yes, I did so preemptively...)

>> ^Porksandwich:
Although for myself the comment you are seeking stems from my desire to know that if someone who wasn't a cop had done this would they face the same or worse punishment as the cops in the end. At the very least it should be the same, but I think it should be worse for the cops simply because they used their authority to murder someone.
And we won't know that until the trial is done. Not sure why Obama would have a hand in it, unless he is pushing for police reform and using this as an example.
The kicking/stomping cop is guilty as hell if the testimony of the cop who flipped is to believed. But I think all the rest should face very similar charges unless they can prove they had no idea that they had murdered a bunch of unarmed civilians and that the gun had been planted. I just hope they don't allow guilty as hell cop assume more blame and let the rest play it off as he tricked them into believing the story. Because up until now, if the cop hadn't flipped on them...they would be nowhere still with this case and that MIGHT be because they didn't take the time to investigate it properly when it happened due to the assumed trust police have.
I just want to know that their punishment is the same as a non-police officer doing this to a group of people, and I hope it's worse because they used their authority to commit a crime. Which let's be honest, we know a lot of people in authority are committing crimes in front of our eyes and getting away with it...even if they do eventually get caught. Not sure how these police officers benefited from murdering a bunch of people, but if they've been paid since the crime..... or have been receiving retirement since helping cover it up.......
>> ^NetRunner:
I'm waiting for the chorus line of people who usually say "cops are never held accountable" to show up and explain to us that they're certain the cops still won't face any punishment for what they did...
Because, by their logic, if the video clip doesn't show Obama personally beheading all six officers, you know nothing will happen because the justice system never, ever works right. Ever.



Sigh... there is so much to correct. First, the police never had authority to randomly kill people. They did not abuse authority, but, rather their own sense of humanity. They became animals just like gang members and drug lords and fathers (who have similar authority to cops, if not more) who lose it and oh wait, just like a lot of normal people or insane people who flip.

Next, the cover up. I hope you feel the exact same way about regular people when they witness a crime... Only the detectives actively covered any thing up and I agree, aiding and abeding. However, just keeping your mouth shut is not close to murder.

If you advocate that it nearly identical, I would hope that if your brother or sister or mother witnessed a murder and kept quiet that you would want them to face nearly identical charges as the murderer as well.

A side fact is that most states have a law specifically for this crime. Failure to report a Felony. I know it seems lame, but rather than throw people in jail for life, or close to it, we should be reasonible. I say, charge the witness POS cops with the crime they did (Like every one else) and sue their asses in civie court. However, don't make them an exception.

Punish fairly in all circumstances or don't be mad when someone abuses the system.

Oh, and put the agressive pig who murdered under the needle and let him die. That's all I am saying.

I think you feel the same way based on the "punishment like every one else" bit, but it is possible you do not and would rather they face more time...

>> ^kronosposeidon:
I'm not in the chorus line of people who usually say "cops are never held accountable," but I am in the chorus line of people who say "cops are rarely held accountable." I stand by that.
I have little faith in our government. All three branches are broken. And Obama is proving himself to be more and more a typical politician these days. So it should be no surprise that law enforcement (a part of the government) would also be broken.
I'm not an anarchist. I'm not a minarchist. I'm not a libertarian. I'm just a pissed-off liberal. Most Americans have gotten lazy, across the entire political spectrum, not watching the government as closely as we should. And we've allowed corporate interests to control the government. But that really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Our vaunted Founding Fathers created our representative democracy, which was designed that way primarily so that the wealthy would have more control than the rabble, so it's basically been that way since the beginning. It only got worse over time, especially when corporations were granted the status of legal personhood by the Supreme Court.
So here we are. Sure, cops get prosecuted for wrongdoing some of the time. Gotta throw the public a bone every once in a while. But the remainder of the time police abuse is allowed to slip through the cracks, just like most cases of white collar crime aren't even investigated, just like most cases of political corruption never see the light of day. Yet we'll send some kid to the big house for possessing a nickel bag. It's all part of the same crippled, disfigured beast.
Can we fix this fucking mess, or is it a hopeless case? I don't know for sure. I want a decent country for my son. Maybe the best thing I can do for him is emigrate, but a lot of other countries are fucked too. (Thank you, Canada, for letting us know that your cops aren't any better than ours.) I still vote, and I still throw a little green at a few political figures and causes I believe in. (Sorry Obama, but don't count on my contribution in 2012.) Still it seems like I'm shoveling shit against the tide, but I feel like I gotta try something. Anything.
So I'm a cycnical bastard. But I think I've got a right to be.>> ^NetRunner:
I'm waiting for the chorus line of people who usually say "cops are never held accountable" to show up and explain to us that they're certain the cops still won't face any punishment for what they did...
Because, by their logic, if the video clip doesn't show Obama personally beheading all six officers, you know nothing will happen because the justice system never, ever works right. Ever.




So humanity really is the f-cked up part of nations. Well, that goes without saying. All I can do is teach my children a better way and protect them all I can. It is all any man or woman can do.

In this PC world we live in with cameras all over the place, at least where I live, cops are now being hammered. Something that would get you or me just jail time now gets a cop jail time and fired. Take drunk driving. Most jobs, no biggie. Law enforcement down here? Instant termination.

Remember too that regular joes get away with incredible amounts of crimes every day, just like cops--or more so... Some murder, some rape, some selling drugs or child pornography...

I won't argue with the premise of your post--you did very well. I am just pointing out that cops get away with the same or less than citizens get away with. We do have a f-cked up system, but that starts at home--not behind the badge.

>> ^peggedbea:
now where are the sifts proto fascists to tell me how the victims deserved it?


I have yet to see them on any posts. I do know of people who stick up for cops when they are being decent enough or doing their job. However, in this brutal case, I just never have seen any one stick up for a cop...

Now that was a news story worthy to watch. No BS or slant from a left or right side just news. Good story. Let those cops get a chance to think long and hard about what they did when then rot in jail.

WHAT. THE. HELL. Thank you American voters for kicking out the Republicans from the White House, just sayin'. *dark

Adding video to channels (Dark) - requested by Krupo.

Well let's briefly into the plea bargaining and pleading down of charges so people can maintain a high conviction rate instead of letting people stand accused of their crimes in front of a jury of their peers. Which while speedier and less costly, creates an environment where when people do think they will get a better deal in front of a jury....most cases that ever make it to trial are for the really extreme cases. So people serving as jurors get a false impression that if you didn't take a plea deal you must be one nasty piece of work.

And I say this as someone who has never used drugs, but has witnessed the process they put people through when they catch them via a relative. Even changed court appearance times to a few hours earlier the day before he was to appear, because they decided to see him on a separate charge on the same day but many hours earlier. You would assume they book their times from the morning and work their way up, but they made a special case for him and made it earlier.... without notification during the weekend prior to his ordered appearance. I believe it's so they could put a warrant out for his arrest and arrest him when he appeared for his ordered and notified appearance time, because he was also being screwed around on getting a public defender. Had to appear multiple times in court without a public defender because their office never received paper work even though in the system he was showing up as having been assigned one.

And on top of all this, when they decided to let him have his vehicle back from impound (after being told they could keep any vehicle involved in a drug bust)...they wanted him and the owner of the vehicle to sign a paper admitting guilt to the crimes this vehicle was impounded over. Even after the judge ordered the release of the vehicle and gave written notice to release it, they still would not release it without the form. It was 2 extra weeks of impound fees simply because of refusal to admit guilt on one or more charges that were completely false dealing with "Dealer" plates. And when they refused to sign the papers the first time after the relative had plead not guilty...officers from the station who busted him showed up to the business where the plates originated from and stated that the dealership was a false/illegal business.

If these police officers receive THAT kind of fair and due process leading up to a trial. Then I think they will be handled as a normal citizen would be. However I doubt their police brothers will be so inclined to take it upon themselves to do this because other dirty laundry may possibly come up if they did so, because if a few officers can do it once to cover up a murder......little cover ups are more than likely. But it's highly unlikely the system will delve further into the police department for more cover-ups because it's like cutting off your arm to kill an infection that's throughout your body.

>> ^NetRunner:

, there are lots of moral and legal reasons why we have the presumption of innocence in our courts. We collect evidence and have a trial, and have judgment rendered by juries of our peers. We don't just say "he did it, let's burn him alive!" anymore, and I think that's a good thing.
Even the most hated people on Earth deserve a fair trial. I want rapists to face a trial. I want child molesters to face a trial. I want murderers to face a trial. I want terrorists to face a trial.
There's a definite possibility that the system will allow them to escape accountability in some unfair way, but it seems more reasonable to wait and see if such a thing occurs before preemptively deciding that it definitely will happen and getting mad about it in advance.
That's my main point -- calling out the preemptive assumption of guilt, both of the officers, and the legal system that has yet to even try these men.
(And yes, I did so preemptively...)


The police have the authority to shoot back when fired upon, which is why they initiated the cover up. The question lies in why they covered it up. Protect a fellow officer? Did that officer want someone in the group of people dead for some specific reason? Is that why he kicked and stomped him while he was dying on the ground?

My point of this is, if these had been normal citizens without the authority of the badge, the investigation might have been more complete at the time of the incident. In this case, the police are investigating themselves. It may not be the officers who did the crime who investigated it, but I really doubt they brought in an unbiased party to do the investigation at the time of the incident. So in essence, these police officers relied on the authority of their position to allow them to hinder and cover up details of the murder. Or in other words, the police used their authority to murder people except someone turned on them and now they have some semblance of testimony because they didn't look very hard for proof in the first place.

Police officers are required to do a lot of paper work anytime they discharge their weapons. So it's not really an option for them to keep their mouth shut in this case. They could outright lie or leave out details, but they don't have the option of not choosing to answer the question of "What happened?" I guess they could claim group memory loss.....or alien abduction.

If they all fired their weapons, they all participated in attempted murder and murder. If they aided other police officers in committing a crime, I look at it as driving the get away car or standing look out. If they are involving themselves as the vehicle for which these people can commit murder and hide it, they are just as guilty as the person who committed it. And now it's just a matter of whether it was a pre-meditated murder with one cop dragging the others into it, and how much those people knew of what happened when they agreed to help cover it up.

It's just like the average joe being pulled over for a traffic violation is told "Ignorance of the law does not make you exempt from it." Strip away the badges, no special favors, eliminate any and all possibilities of tampering or bias whether it be by jury, prosecutor or judge.....and then we'll have us a fair trial....and add in some of the stuff I spoke about above when replying to Netrunner. No special exemptions because they are government employees. Murder, tampering with evidence, impeding a police investigation, all the trimmings. And make sure they are punished as anyone else with similar backgrounds/priors to them, but who might have been working construction, truck driver, janitor, etc for the same crimes they are convicted of. Killing a cop is bad news when it comes to convictions, so perhaps treat "Killer Cops" as "Cop Killers" would be treated. Kill an innocent person in authority....innocent person killed by authority person. But yeah, they should face a greater punishment when it's all said and done because killing one of them is a greater crime than normal folk.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Sigh... there is so much to correct. First, the police never had authority to randomly kill people. They did not abuse authority, but, rather their own sense of humanity. They became animals just like gang members and drug lords and fathers (who have similar authority to cops, if not more) who lose it and oh wait, just like a lot of normal people or insane people who flip.
Next, the cover up. I hope you feel the exact same way about regular people when they witness a crime... Only the detectives actively covered any thing up and I agree, aiding and abeding. However, just keeping your mouth shut is not close to murder.
If you advocate that it nearly identical, I would hope that if your brother or sister or mother witnessed a murder and kept quiet that you would want them to face nearly identical charges as the murderer as well.
A side fact is that most states have a law specifically for this crime. Failure to report a Felony. I know it seems lame, but rather than throw people in jail for life, or close to it, we should be reasonible. I say, charge the witness POS cops with the crime they did (Like every one else) and sue their asses in civie court. However, don't make them an exception.
Punish fairly in all circumstances or don't be mad when someone abuses the system.
Oh, and put the agressive pig who murdered under the needle and let him die. That's all I am saying.
I think you feel the same way based on the "punishment like every one else" bit, but it is possible you do not and would rather they face more time...


Had to edit this because it looked completely messed up when I finished typing although the preview looked fine.....hoping I can find the issue.

props to you krono...right on brother.

i don't see what all the fuss is about.this is pretty cut and dry.
these cops murdered and then attempted to cover it up by abusing the trust given them by the people.so what we have here is much more than a mass execution but also a conspiracy to cover it up by way of betrayal.
so yeah..fuck these animals who called themselves "police".

does this mean by my statement that every cop is alike and that they all behave and participate in mass slaughter?of course not,it is those elements that betray the public trust that we see in these videos and they are a minority.

what we are REALLY talking about here is justice.
because too many times we hear the phrase "the department will be conducting an internal investigation" and we all smirk knowingly..because we know what that means..it means squat for the victim.
here..thanks to videotape and a few honest police officers unwilling to cover up MURDER..we see justice.

my only problem with the police is where do they draw the line?
when do they stop serving and protecting the people and begin to be the strong arm of the state and become the oppressors of the people?
at what point does their moral compass start to jitter and they refuse to obey an "order" to..lets say..shoot tear gas at civilians? beat them with batons?shoot rubber bullets in someones face?kick a cyclist off his bike and break his back?
when is it ever OK to break a mans jaw and knock his teeth out for not "obeying a lawlful order"?

because here is the truth of the matter.
they took an oath.
they were entrusted with authority.
to protect and serve NOT the corporate agenda,NOT the whims of the senate nor congress but the PEOPLE.
and when they break that oath they should be brought to justice.
because thats what we are talking about...justice.

STATISM. AWESOME.

@Porksandwich, so what's your answer to all this? How do we fix the system?

I'm all for leveling the playing field so the reality of the justice system hews more closely to its founding principles.

I just don't think trying to preemptively pass judgment on both the cops and the legal system helps. If you're looking for a watershed moment that turns public opinion towards wanting a better justice system, surely there are cases in the past that have more of a pull.

It seems to me that the big problem isn't these officers who maybe intentionally killed some people, and likely covered it up, the big problem is that the people at the top of our social order (e.g. Bush and Wall Street bankers) seem utterly immune to even being investigated, much less charged and convicted.

I'm really disheartened that we can't even seem to come up with a consensus of public opinion that these things need to be investigated, much less that it's of vital importance for our nation's future that we do so.

@NetRunner,
From third party experience and personal observations of the system, the checks and balances need to be returned into the system. Like I stated earlier, the police department refused to comply with written orders from a judge. And this same judge when shown the paperwork the police department wanted signed said that he'd never seen that paperwork before and that he himself wouldn't have signed it under any circumstance.

There's just too much complication to the system, each part of the 3 wanting to take the powers of the other two upon itself while being completely kept out of the loop as to the other branches goings on. No handful of people have the time to check out the other goings on when they are so busy trying to get more power for themselves.

They need to implement a system in which laws that are reviewed and thrown out when a new law takes over it's function, or if the law is outdated with the times and requires an update to create an update that doesn't require broad interpretation of every word in it. Lots of interpretation slowly becomes the new "spirit" of the law that was never intended to be used in such ways. A lot of the new anti-terror laws were used in such a way to bust drug dealers, hackers, etc that had no affiliation with terrorists.....simply because this interpretation and power struggle has went on for so long that it's second nature. The real problem with this second nature attitude is that more often than not the judicial branch takes a "blind trust" attitude toward police submitted evidence and reports so the check against corruption/common sense/legality there is lost completely without a lawyer to point it out.

And this leads into that you are granted representation in the constitution, they should make sure your representation is fit for duty and has the necessary information to give you a fair trial. Not delay getting you a public defender until the third court date and you only meet him 5 minutes before you go up in front of a judge. There's no reasonable expectation there of anything besides having a very limited time to make some very big decisions concerning plea offers and the implications of one action over the other.

It says you are granted a speedy trial, not that the courts are granted a speedy trial....but right now, the courts put forth the minimal effort but maximize your time investment if you don't admit guilt/pay the fee early on. Hell even small claims court takes multiple months to get you in, and they will hear your trial in about 5 minutes with no one else waiting to go up after you. Saw my dad get screwed there by someone because he was expecting the court to read the submitted material, other guy didn't even show up. And the mistake was the police departments fault for telling him false information (overstepping authority), court didn't care that the police department had aided this other person in essentially stealing 1500 bucks in costs due to their mishandling. This particular court would not allow you to file in small claims court and bring in a lawyer, you had to represent yourself if you were going into small claims. And they would not take the time to ferret out more information that may be pertinent to the trial because as soon as the question was asked the judge said they read it, even though by the comments it was a very brief reading if read at all. This kind of system encourages upstanding citizens to not file to recoup costs because it's time consuming with almost no return for their efforts even if it's a legitimate claim. But allows for criminals and fly-by nights to rip everyone off a few grand at a time and move on. ESPECIALLY if the person who committed the crime is on government support because they won't force them to pay it out of their benefits and you can't take their tax returns until they cash it..and if it never makes it into their bank account you can't get it period.

On the other hand, if the police actually had investigated and found out they gave misinformation and this other person benefitted from it at my dad's expense, and made it clear to the court that the other person owed the money or property back.....or "Admitted they screwed up"....some justice may have been done. But now he has to try to recoup a small pittance from someone who is probably a crackhead and is definitely on welfare..who has already sold the property and made and spent the money from the sale.


>> ^NetRunner:

so what's your answer to all this? How do we fix the system?
I'm all for leveling the playing field so the reality of the justice system hews more closely to its founding principles.
I just don't think trying to preemptively pass judgment on both the cops and the legal system helps. If you're looking for a watershed moment that turns public opinion towards wanting a better justice system, surely there are cases in the past that have more of a pull.
It seems to me that the big problem isn't these officers who maybe intentionally killed some people, and likely covered it up, the big problem is that the people at the top of our social order (e.g. Bush and Wall Street bankers) seem utterly immune to even being investigated, much less charged and convicted.
I'm really disheartened that we can't even seem to come up with a consensus of public opinion that these things need to be investigated, much less that it's of vital importance for our nation's future that we do so.

>> ^Porksandwich:

Well let's briefly into the plea bargaining and pleading down of charges so people can maintain a high conviction rate instead of letting people stand accused of their crimes in front of a jury of their peers. Which while speedier and less costly, creates an environment where when people do think they will get a better deal in front of a jury....most cases that ever make it to trial are for the really extreme cases. So people serving as jurors get a false impression that if you didn't take a plea deal you must be one nasty piece of work.
And I say this as someone who has never used drugs, but has witnessed the process they put people through when they catch them via a relative. Even changed court appearance times to a few hours earlier the day before he was to appear, because they decided to see him on a separate charge on the same day but many hours earlier. You would assume they book their times from the morning and work their way up, but they made a special case for him and made it earlier.... without notification during the weekend prior to his ordered appearance. I believe it's so they could put a warrant out for his arrest and arrest him when he appeared for his ordered and notified appearance time, because he was also being screwed around on getting a public defender. Had to appear multiple times in court without a public defender because their office never received paper work even though in the system he was showing up as having been assigned one.
And on top of all this, when they decided to let him have his vehicle back from impound (after being told they could keep any vehicle involved in a drug bust)...they wanted him and the owner of the vehicle to sign a paper admitting guilt to the crimes this vehicle was impounded over. Even after the judge ordered the release of the vehicle and gave written notice to release it, they still would not release it without the form. It was 2 extra weeks of impound fees simply because of refusal to admit guilt on one or more charges that were completely false dealing with "Dealer" plates. And when they refused to sign the papers the first time after the relative had plead not guilty...officers from the station who busted him showed up to the business where the plates originated from and stated that the dealership was a false/illegal business.
If these police officers receive THAT kind of fair and due process leading up to a trial. Then I think they will be handled as a normal citizen would be. However I doubt their police brothers will be so inclined to take it upon themselves to do this because other dirty laundry may possibly come up if they did so, because if a few officers can do it once to cover up a murder......little cover ups are more than likely. But it's highly unlikely the system will delve further into the police department for more cover-ups because it's like cutting off your arm to kill an infection that's throughout your body.
<div class="chunk" style="clear: none; overflow: auto;">
<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: left; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> NetRunner said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: left; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/n/NetRunner-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-left: 52px; padding-top: 1px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">◄</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-left: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box">, there are lots of moral and legal reasons why we have the presumption of innocence in our courts. We collect evidence and have a trial, and have judgment rendered by juries of our peers. We don't just say "he did it, let's burn him alive!" anymore, and I think that's a good thing.
Even the most hated people on Earth deserve a fair trial. I want rapists to face a trial. I want child molesters to face a trial. I want murderers to face a trial. I want terrorists to face a trial.
There's a definite possibility that the system will allow them to escape accountability in some unfair way, but it seems more reasonable to wait and see if such a thing occurs before preemptively deciding that it definitely will happen and getting mad about it in advance.
That's my main point -- calling out the preemptive assumption of guilt, both of the officers, and the legal system that has yet to even try these men.
(And yes, I did so preemptively...)
</div></div></div></div>
The police have the authority to shoot back when fired upon, which is why they initiated the cover up. The question lies in why they covered it up. Protect a fellow officer? Did that officer want someone in the group of people dead for some specific reason? Is that why he kicked and stomped him while he was dying on the ground?
My point of this is, if these had been normal citizens without the authority of the badge, the investigation might have been more complete at the time of the incident. In this case, the police are investigating themselves. It may not be the officers who did the crime who investigated it, but I really doubt they brought in an unbiased party to do the investigation at the time of the incident. So in essence, these police officers relied on the authority of their position to allow them to hinder and cover up details of the murder. Or in other words, the police used their authority to murder people except someone turned on them and now they have some semblance of testimony because they didn't look very hard for proof in the first place.
Police officers are required to do a lot of paper work anytime they discharge their weapons. So it's not really an option for them to keep their mouth shut in this case. They could outright lie or leave out details, but they don't have the option of not choosing to answer the question of "What happened?" I guess they could claim group memory loss.....or alien abduction.
If they all fired their weapons, they all participated in attempted murder and murder. If they aided other police officers in committing a crime, I look at it as driving the get away car or standing look out. If they are involving themselves as the vehicle for which these people can commit murder and hide it, they are just as guilty as the person who committed it. And now it's just a matter of whether it was a pre-meditated murder with one cop dragging the others into it, and how much those people knew of what happened when they agreed to help cover it up.
It's just like the average joe being pulled over for a traffic violation is told "Ignorance of the law does not make you exempt from it." Strip away the badges, no special favors, eliminate any and all possibilities of tampering or bias whether it be by jury, prosecutor or judge.....and then we'll have us a fair trial....and add in some of the stuff I spoke about above when replying to Netrunner. No special exemptions because they are government employees. Murder, tampering with evidence, impeding a police investigation, all the trimmings. And make sure they are punished as anyone else with similar backgrounds/priors to them, but who might have been working construction, truck driver, janitor, etc for the same crimes they are convicted of. Killing a cop is bad news when it comes to convictions, so perhaps treat "Killer Cops" as "Cop Killers" would be treated. Kill an innocent person in authority....innocent person killed by authority person. But yeah, they should face a greater punishment when it's all said and done because killing one of them is a greater crime than normal folk.
<div class="chunk" style="clear: both; overflow: auto;">
<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: left; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> Lawdeedaw said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: left; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/l/Lawdeedaw-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-left: 52px; padding-top: 1px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">◄</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-left: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box">Sigh... there is so much to correct. First, the police never had authority to randomly kill people. They did not abuse authority, but, rather their own sense of humanity. They became animals just like gang members and drug lords and fathers (who have similar authority to cops, if not more) who lose it and oh wait, just like a lot of normal people or insane people who flip.
Next, the cover up. I hope you feel the exact same way about regular people when they witness a crime... Only the detectives actively covered any thing up and I agree, aiding and abeding. However, just keeping your mouth shut is not close to murder.
If you advocate that it nearly identical, I would hope that if your brother or sister or mother witnessed a murder and kept quiet that you would want them to face nearly identical charges as the murderer as well.
A side fact is that most states have a law specifically for this crime. Failure to report a Felony. I know it seems lame, but rather than throw people in jail for life, or close to it, we should be reasonible. I say, charge the witness POS cops with the crime they did (Like every one else) and sue their asses in civie court. However, don't make them an exception.
Punish fairly in all circumstances or don't be mad when someone abuses the system.
Oh, and put the agressive pig who murdered under the needle and let him die. That's all I am saying.
I think you feel the same way based on the "punishment like every one else" bit, but it is possible you do not and would rather they face more time...
</div></div></div></div>
Had to edit this because it looked completely messed up when I finished typing although the preview looked fine.....hoping I can find the issue.


This is a long quote.

STATISM. STILL FUCKING AWESOME.

>> ^Porksandwich:

From third party experience and personal observations of the system, the checks and balances need to be returned into the system. Like I stated earlier, the police department refused to comply with written orders from a judge. And this same judge when shown the paperwork the police department wanted signed said that he'd never seen that paperwork before and that he himself wouldn't have signed it under any circumstance.
There's just too much complication to the system, each part of the 3 wanting to take the powers of the other two upon itself while being completely kept out of the loop as to the other branches goings on. No handful of people have the time to check out the other goings on when they are so busy trying to get more power for themselves.
They need to implement a system in which laws that are reviewed and thrown out when a new law takes over it's function, or if the law is outdated with the times and requires an update to create an update that doesn't require broad interpretation of every word in it. Lots of interpretation slowly becomes the new "spirit" of the law that was never intended to be used in such ways.

I guess I see a problem with both of these suggestions. First, how do you restore checks and balances? If the police refuse to comply with written instructions from a judge, what's supposed to happen? If the police refuse because the judge didn't use a particular form the police expect for a particular type of legal request, who settles the dispute? For that matter, who's supposed to take action to resolve the dispute?

I'd also point out that isn't really a question of checks and balances so much as trouble with inefficient communications.

Second, the problem with all law is that it's still written in English, which is not a formal language, free of all ambiguity. I mentioned in another thread that so-called "legalese" is usually about trying to make law more precise, so that it reduces the ambiguity of its meaning. But even then, there's often still room for interpretation, because legalese is still just technical English, and is therefore bound to include ambiguous elements.

For example, if you're going to ban "drunk driving" you have to come up with rigorous, objective standards for what constitutes being "drunk", and also what constitutes "driving". Is a separate law needed for boats and aircraft, for example? What about farm machinery? Is drunkenness determined by a test for impaired function, or by some sort of biochemical standard? In either case, you need to set a standard for what constitutes a valid test, how you verify the authenticity of the test, and how you document the test.

If the law defines "driving" as operating a gasoline-powered vehicle with 2 or 4 wheels, and someone is driving around with an ethanol-fueled car or a trike, should he be exempt from the law?

As for legal precedent, a lot of times that comes into play because the law was intentionally written to leave room for judges to make their own interpretation on the meaning of things that could never be exhaustively defined (e.g. "reasonable suspicion"). Over time you do start building up a more regular definition of "reasonable suspicion" by the way cases have been decided in the past, and so you'll find that the topic of precedent will naturally come up whenever a prosecutor or defense wants to challenge (or defend) the way one of those ambiguous standards was applied.

As for the way the courts tend to screw you if you try to file claims, I think part of that is because the court system is perpetually starved for resources, and they want to try to stave off frivolous lawsuits by making the process a pain in the ass.