Apparently even his union has abandoned him.
SC is a right to work state, it could be this officer shunned the union and is now getting payback.
Still, expect his lawyers to delay trail for 2 years. Defame Scott and paint him as a dangerous criminal. Get a change of venue. Convince at least one juror that Slager was afraid that Scott was an imminent danger to others. (Which is all he needs to get off.)
His first lawyer abandoned too as soon as he saw the video. Good to see a defense lawyer not give a shit about the money and just walk away.
Yeah, I also think it's great that he completely sold out his client not only by publicly announcing why he was no longer representing him but scheduling interviews, press releases, and website announcements when a simple "no comment" would have been okay. No possible way this doesn't influence a jury's opinion.
Aw, Bwian, it wouldn't influence your "not guilty" vote at all.
Brian trolled yall. This thread started out about bad cops and now it's about him.
This thread started out with shit talking and continues in shit talking. Let me remind you that I didn't even post in this thread and my name was thrown out there. I responded to the two idiots and then that was it.
If anything people are trolling me in this thread, I pose a simple question to DOR and get attacked by multiple people for it.
DOR, the only reason why you even knew that dude dropped his client when he did was because he was sending out press releases, doing interviews, etc. If your take was that he dropped his client because of the video without actually knowing that then man, either state that in your post or clarify it after without getting all defensive. When you posted that, dude's public statements were all over the internet, it's a reasonable assumption on my part to believe that you were referring to that.
On the attacking people part, you said you didn't even read the initial post. Well, if you think I'm coming in and just popping off and don't take the second to go "hmm, I wonder why this guy is posting this stuff" then that's on you man.
Sums up my sentiments exactly. There is a reason why I no longer live down South. Dixie is still in effect, and they can have it! Color me an uppity Yankee.
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
Stacks - I thought of you after I read this op-ed in Time written by the Milwaukee police chief:
It wasn't a terrible article but all I kept thinking about was how Milwaukee is by no means a racial-relations utopia.
Obviously, a broken tail light often can be a cop's "in" to much more serious infractions, there's no doubt about that. I think it says something that overall most U.S. citizens have long been willing to go through this ritual - "license and registration, sir" - in ways that often infringe on our rights, i.e. allowing police to search you or your vehicle without cause. And it's amazing how quickly police can come unglued if they feel slighted in any small way. Can a cop who quickly looked up a potential offender's information to see that he was a petty criminal with overdue child support - can that cop simply let that person run away, or better yet, give chase rather than gun them down in cold blood? Having now seen the dash-cam video, it's clear that backup was on the way - where was dude going to go, really? Having to be the bigger, smarter person in every interaction is something that's almost impossible but that's what we need our protectors to do, and they, broadly, are not living up to that challenge.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's clear the pendulum is now swinging the other way and it will be very interesting to see how policing, and police, change under the greater scrutiny that is very, very appropriate.
Obviously, a broken tail light often can be a cop's "in" to much more serious infractions, there's no doubt about that.
you may already know this but for the benefit of those who don't, this is all a result of the drug war - the idea is to find drugs, whereby the police can then seize property. The Feds match or contribute money and equipment to local departments and state/local govts based on drug seizures, so obviously the incentive is there for cops to stop everyone they can. This falls on black/brown people disproportionately by any metric, and the courts (including SCOTUS) have ruled that individuals may not challenge these stops through legal means based on perceived racial discrimination. If the cop has a reason to stop the car (such as a busted tail light, doing 55 in a 45, rolling a stop sign, not signaling a turn 500 feet out [or whatever], or - get this - driving *too* properly), and the cop does not explicitly say something along the lines of "well I stopped him because he is black" then they have every right to stop, and search, your vehicle. You have no recourse.
^^ JP, earlier today, I came across this literature review from Emory in the journal Substance Use and Misuse that demonstrates what you're describing:
Cooper, HLF. War on Drugs Policing and Police Brutality. Substance Use and Misuse. In press.
Abstract:
Background: War on Drugs policing has failed to reduce domestic street-level drug activity: the cost of drugs remains low and drugs remain widely available. Objectives: In light of growing attention to police brutality in the United States, this paper explores interconnections between specific War on Drugs policing strategies and police-related violence against Black adolescents and adults in the United States. Methods: This paper reviews literature about (1) historical connections between race/ethnicity and policing in the United States; (2) the ways that the War on Drugs eroded specific legal protections originally designed to curtail police powers; and (3) the implications of these erosions for police brutality targeting Black communities. Results: Policing and racism have been mutually constitutive in the United States. Erosions to the 4th Amendment to the Constitution and to the Posse Comitatus Act set the foundations for two War on Drugs policing strategies: stop and frisk and Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams. These strategies have created specific conditions conducive to police brutality targeting Black communities. Conclusions/Importance: War on Drugs policing strategies appear to increase police brutality targeting Black communities, even as they make little progress in reducing street-level drug activity. Several jurisdictions are retreating from the War on Drugs; this retreat should include restoring rights originally protected by the 4th Amendment and Posse Comitatus. While these legal changes occur, police chiefs should discontinue the use of SWAT teams to deal with low-level nonviolent drug offenses and should direct officers to cease engaging in stop and frisk.
(Paper is still "in press", but I have a copy if anyone wants.)
that is why the situation with the teen who fell to his death from a Bronx rooftop last week is triply sad - not only did he not do anything (apart from *maybe* hitting the blunt) the NYPD is not even supposed to be carrying out weed arrests anymore. They were called to the building because of a complaint, true, but once they broke up the kids that should have been it - instead the officers gave chase up to the rooftop where the kid, in trying to escape, went over a ledge he thought led to another rooftop and fell 6 floors to the ground. He had no weed or anything else on him.
Obviously, a broken tail light often can be a cop's "in" to much more serious infractions, there's no doubt about that.
you may already know this but for the benefit of those who don't, this is all a result of the drug war - the idea is to find drugs, whereby the police can then seize property. The Feds match or contribute money and equipment to local departments and state/local govts based on drug seizures, so obviously the incentive is there for cops to stop everyone they can. This falls on black/brown people disproportionately by any metric, and the courts (including SCOTUS) have ruled that individuals may not challenge these stops through legal means based on perceived racial discrimination. If the cop has a reason to stop the car (such as a busted tail light, doing 55 in a 45, rolling a stop sign, not signaling a turn 500 feet out [or whatever], or - get this - driving *too* properly), and the cop does not explicitly say something along the lines of "well I stopped him because he is black" then they have every right to stop, and search, your vehicle. You have no recourse.
Being a Canuck, I had no idea about local financial incentives backed by Feds for seizures.
Obviously, a broken tail light often can be a cop's "in" to much more serious infractions, there's no doubt about that.
you may already know this but for the benefit of those who don't, this is all a result of the drug war - the idea is to find drugs, whereby the police can then seize property. The Feds match or contribute money and equipment to local departments and state/local govts based on drug seizures, so obviously the incentive is there for cops to stop everyone they can. This falls on black/brown people disproportionately by any metric, and the courts (including SCOTUS) have ruled that individuals may not challenge these stops through legal means based on perceived racial discrimination. If the cop has a reason to stop the car (such as a busted tail light, doing 55 in a 45, rolling a stop sign, not signaling a turn 500 feet out [or whatever], or - get this - driving *too* properly), and the cop does not explicitly say something along the lines of "well I stopped him because he is black" then they have every right to stop, and search, your vehicle. You have no recourse.
I think they need a bit more for a search, but that may depend on the state. It's easy to get there, though. All they have to do is say they smelled marijuana, or the suspect made furtive moments, and they're checking for a weapon.
Obviously, a broken tail light often can be a cop's "in" to much more serious infractions, there's no doubt about that.
you may already know this but for the benefit of those who don't, this is all a result of the drug war - the idea is to find drugs, whereby the police can then seize property. The Feds match or contribute money and equipment to local departments and state/local govts based on drug seizures, so obviously the incentive is there for cops to stop everyone they can. This falls on black/brown people disproportionately by any metric, and the courts (including SCOTUS) have ruled that individuals may not challenge these stops through legal means based on perceived racial discrimination. If the cop has a reason to stop the car (such as a busted tail light, doing 55 in a 45, rolling a stop sign, not signaling a turn 500 feet out [or whatever], or - get this - driving *too* properly), and the cop does not explicitly say something along the lines of "well I stopped him because he is black" then they have every right to stop, and search, your vehicle. You have no recourse.
I think they need a bit more for a search, but that may depend on the state. It's easy to get there, though. All they have to do is say they smelled marijuana, or the suspect made furtive moments, and they're checking for a weapon.
Other than that, this is spot on.
they "need" more but all the "more" has to be is anything that is not "he's black". "made furtive movements", "smelled marijuana", whatever.
also courts are complicit in this, dudes having (unrelated) warrants, missed court dates, etc is all cause.
they "need" more but all the "more" has to be is anything that is not "he's black". "made furtive movements", "smelled marijuana", whatever.
also courts are complicit in this, dudes having (unrelated) warrants, missed court dates, etc is all cause.
Absolutely. Also, in many states, if not all, if someone is on probation, that's enough to permit a search of an individual. No reasonable suspicion or probable cause needed.
Blaming this sort of thing on the War On Drugs misses the mark. The WOD is a symptom, not a cause.
Interesting thought. Can you say more about what you think the cause might be?
FWIW, I think it boils down to centuries of colonialism, the atrocities and injustice inflicted upon people of colour, and attendant intergenerational trauma. Sorry if that sounds painfully obvious, but I believe it starts there.
The big question is how do we restore justice and get to a place where we're not killing one another?
Are things getting better, worse, or staying the same vis-a-vis 10, 20, 40, 100 years ago?...How do we get out of the cycle of violence?
Blaming this sort of thing on the War On Drugs misses the mark. The WOD is a symptom, not a cause.
Interesting thought. Can you say more about what you think the cause might be?
FWIW, I think it boils down to centuries of colonialism, the atrocities and injustice inflicted upon people of colour, and attendant intergenerational trauma. Sorry if that sounds painfully obvious, but I believe it starts there.
The big question is how do we restore justice and get to a place where we're not killing one another?
Are things getting better, worse, or staying the same vis-a-vis 10, 20, 40, 100 years ago?...How do we get out of the cycle of violence?
Mae we're getting better. We don't have pre-announced lynchings in town squares anymore. The problem is that every advance in this country leads to a conservative backlash. After the Civil Rights movement we had the Southern Strategy. The election of Obama, who rat bastard Wayne LaPierre just called a "demographically significant President," shoved crazy electrodes up the asses of every racist and latent racist in the country. Turned them all into virtual Klansmen. There's as much overt, unashamed racism in this country now as I've ever seen.
So a 73-year-old insurance company executive who donates money gets to be a part time reserve cop. But allegedly makes the mistake of shooting an unarmed man with a gun when he meant to shoot him with a taser is the “true victim”?
There are many fucked up things in the video.
Dude is dying and saying he's been shot and can't breath and the response he gets is knees to the head and berating of "Fuck Your Breath"?
So a 73-year-old insurance company executive who donates money gets to be a part time reserve cop. But allegedly makes the mistake of shooting an unarmed man with a gun when he meant to shoot him with a taser is the “true victim”?
There are many fucked up things in the video.
Dude is dying and saying he's been shot and can't breath and the response he gets is knees to the head and berating of "Fuck Your Breath"?
Comments
Aw, Bwian, it wouldn't influence your "not guilty" vote at all.
Horseshit.
If anything people are trolling me in this thread, I pose a simple question to DOR and get attacked by multiple people for it.
On the attacking people part, you said you didn't even read the initial post. Well, if you think I'm coming in and just popping off and don't take the second to go "hmm, I wonder why this guy is posting this stuff" then that's on you man.
Stacks - I thought of you after I read this op-ed in Time written by the Milwaukee police chief:
http://time.com/3814703/milwaukee-police-chief-ed-flynn-officers-are-depressed-by-the-current-climate/
It wasn't a terrible article but all I kept thinking about was how Milwaukee is by no means a racial-relations utopia.
Obviously, a broken tail light often can be a cop's "in" to much more serious infractions, there's no doubt about that. I think it says something that overall most U.S. citizens have long been willing to go through this ritual - "license and registration, sir" - in ways that often infringe on our rights, i.e. allowing police to search you or your vehicle without cause. And it's amazing how quickly police can come unglued if they feel slighted in any small way. Can a cop who quickly looked up a potential offender's information to see that he was a petty criminal with overdue child support - can that cop simply let that person run away, or better yet, give chase rather than gun them down in cold blood? Having now seen the dash-cam video, it's clear that backup was on the way - where was dude going to go, really? Having to be the bigger, smarter person in every interaction is something that's almost impossible but that's what we need our protectors to do, and they, broadly, are not living up to that challenge.
you may already know this but for the benefit of those who don't, this is all a result of the drug war - the idea is to find drugs, whereby the police can then seize property. The Feds match or contribute money and equipment to local departments and state/local govts based on drug seizures, so obviously the incentive is there for cops to stop everyone they can. This falls on black/brown people disproportionately by any metric, and the courts (including SCOTUS) have ruled that individuals may not challenge these stops through legal means based on perceived racial discrimination. If the cop has a reason to stop the car (such as a busted tail light, doing 55 in a 45, rolling a stop sign, not signaling a turn 500 feet out [or whatever], or - get this - driving *too* properly), and the cop does not explicitly say something along the lines of "well I stopped him because he is black" then they have every right to stop, and search, your vehicle. You have no recourse.
Attempts at some kind of justice were fruitless.
Cooper, HLF. War on Drugs Policing and Police Brutality. Substance Use and Misuse. In press.
Abstract:
Background: War on Drugs policing has failed to reduce domestic street-level drug activity: the cost of drugs remains low and drugs remain widely available. Objectives: In light of growing attention to police brutality in the United States, this paper explores interconnections between specific War on Drugs policing strategies and police-related violence against Black adolescents and adults in the United States. Methods: This paper reviews literature about (1) historical connections between race/ethnicity and policing in the United States; (2) the ways that the War on Drugs eroded specific legal protections originally designed to curtail police powers; and (3) the implications of these erosions for police brutality targeting Black communities. Results: Policing and racism have been mutually constitutive in the United States. Erosions to the 4th Amendment to the Constitution and to the Posse Comitatus Act set the foundations for two War on Drugs policing strategies: stop and frisk and Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams. These strategies have created specific conditions conducive to police brutality targeting Black communities. Conclusions/Importance: War on Drugs policing strategies appear to increase police brutality targeting Black communities, even as they make little progress in reducing street-level drug activity. Several jurisdictions are retreating from the War on Drugs; this retreat should include restoring rights originally protected by the 4th Amendment and Posse Comitatus. While these legal changes occur, police chiefs should discontinue the use of SWAT teams to deal with low-level nonviolent drug offenses and should direct officers to cease engaging in stop and frisk.
(Paper is still "in press", but I have a copy if anyone wants.)
Being a Canuck, I had no idea about local financial incentives backed by Feds for seizures.
Thanks for the intel.
Next it would be great if they would also stop putting so much police resources into busting people selling loose cigarettes.
http://7online.com/news/exclusive-brooklyn-deli-manager-says-video-shows-detective-stealing-cash-during-raid/644309/
I think they need a bit more for a search, but that may depend on the state. It's easy to get there, though. All they have to do is say they smelled marijuana, or the suspect made furtive moments, and they're checking for a weapon.
Other than that, this is spot on.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-melrose-park-cop-cocaine-charges-met-20150410-story.html
they "need" more but all the "more" has to be is anything that is not "he's black". "made furtive movements", "smelled marijuana", whatever.
also courts are complicit in this, dudes having (unrelated) warrants, missed court dates, etc is all cause.
Absolutely. Also, in many states, if not all, if someone is on probation, that's enough to permit a search of an individual. No reasonable suspicion or probable cause needed.
Interesting thought. Can you say more about what you think the cause might be?
FWIW, I think it boils down to centuries of colonialism, the atrocities and injustice inflicted upon people of colour, and attendant intergenerational trauma. Sorry if that sounds painfully obvious, but I believe it starts there.
The big question is how do we restore justice and get to a place where we're not killing one another?
Are things getting better, worse, or staying the same vis-a-vis 10, 20, 40, 100 years ago?...How do we get out of the cycle of violence?
Mae we're getting better. We don't have pre-announced lynchings in town squares anymore. The problem is that every advance in this country leads to a conservative backlash. After the Civil Rights movement we had the Southern Strategy. The election of Obama, who rat bastard Wayne LaPierre just called a "demographically significant President," shoved crazy electrodes up the asses of every racist and latent racist in the country. Turned them all into virtual Klansmen. There's as much overt, unashamed racism in this country now as I've ever seen.
So a 73-year-old insurance company executive who donates money gets to be a part time reserve cop. But allegedly makes the mistake of shooting an unarmed man with a gun when he meant to shoot him with a taser is the “true victim”?
There are many fucked up things in the video.
Dude is dying and saying he's been shot and can't breath and the response he gets is knees to the head and berating of "Fuck Your Breath"?
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/04/12/3646057/fuck-breath-officer-caught-video-mocking-unarmed-black-man-fatally-shot-police/
This is disgusting.
American racism now a source of international sports gambling humour.
Broadcast live streaming video on Ustream
(Hopefully there will be an archive later - it's really interesting)