Some seem to think I am arguing for this policeman, even though I specifically said that he does not need to be in law enforcement ( My original post #31), in the Chicago Tribune article (see link above with video) that was posted yesterday. Additionally I stated my utter surprise that the jury acquitted him, rightly or wrongly. What I did say is that I wasn't present in the court room, nor was I on the jury to determine how they came to their verdict. That perhaps something came out in the trial that is not being reported on. After all, the press is famous for leaving out critical information if it does not support the agenda they are pushing.
Bottom line though is that the jury did acquit him. The only conclusion I can come to for that finding, was his move towards his waistband.
“The only conclusion I can come to for that finding, was his move towards his waistband. “
So now a move towards a waistband (sounds so sinister doesnt it?) carries the death penalty? Jesus I am forever hiking up my jeans due to beer belly pushing them down. Hope I’m never pulled over for a burned out tail light.
Todays coppers are absolutely paranoid homicidal maniacs and we are very poorly served by the politicians.
PS I was a revolver cop in suburban Chicago in the 70’s.
> Bottom line though is that the jury did acquit him. The only conclusion I can come to for that finding, was his move towards his waistband. <
That was my conclusion as well. But I have read elsewhere that the jury was not allowed to see that video (why not?).
I look at it this way:
Suppose 5 friends and I see a man acting erratically. Being all armed, the 6 of us pull our guns and order him to the ground. He starts crying and trying to say he did nothing, but we order him to cross his legs and crawl to us. Part way there, he makes a movement with one hand toward his hip and I shoot him 5 times, killing him. I tell folks, “I was in fear of my life”. And it turns out the dead man was unarmed.
I’m thinking, first degree murder. Something about disparity of force and who was REALLY in danger.
Cops go into dangerous situations to support life, liberty and a safe society. And I understand they need to have some belief that they can survive a career. I understand our courts are based on the idea it is better for a guilty man to go free than for government to take the liberty of an innocent man.
But in this case, government took the LIFE of an innocent man. We KNOW he wasn’t reaching for a gun and trying to kill the cop because he had no gun to reach for. Given the cop is facing that situation to defend law and order, I’m not sure 1st degree murder really fits. Second degree, beyond a reasonable doubt? Maybe, maybe not.
But SOMETHING ought to happen when the government takes the life of an innocent man. SOMETHING! If it is repulsive to society to send an innocent man to prison, how much more to kill him in a hotel hallway!
No need to be in the court room. Bottom line in a nutshell the cop said he feared for his life so he opened up on the suspect when he moved his arm back to his rear. The jury can not prove the cop wrong and took his word for it. The cop walks.