Black cop on trial for killing 95 yr old white man

I didn't see anything in the link about a black cop, or him being on trial.

But whether black or white, it shouldn't be an issue about one cop.

In the comments section, one person made a very valid point. If a gang goes out and one of them kills someone, every gang member present is charged.

Should be the same with cops. They should stand or fall as a unit; and every cop there (at least to some degree) is complicit in the act.

Kinda like the guy who was choked to death in New York. There were a half dozen cops there. And if a wrong was committed by one, the rest of them stood there and watched it happen

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-wrana-beanbag-shooting-trial-met-0117-20150116-story.html

Minnesota-based Law Enforcement Training Inc., which brags of its close relationship with the DHS and thousands of law enforcement agencies, has stoked outrage after producing shooting targets which feature “non traditional” threats amidst banal environments such as a pregnant woman in a nursery, a mother in a school playground and a little boy.

The company reacted to the furore by asserting the products helped override “hesitation on the part of cops when deadly force is required on subjects with atypical age, frailty or condition,” and to “break that stereotype on the range, regardless of how slim the chances are of encountering a real life scenario that involves a child, pregnant woman, etc.”

http://www.infowars.com/company-behind-shooting-targets-of-children-received-2-million-from-dhs/



Looks like all the training to eliminate hesitation is working.

 

^ Those "practice targets" are very disturbing.

Any predictions as to this verdict? I'm not sure, this case is a lot more involved than just some black cop shot an old white man. I think the whole thing was accidental - the old man was in a nursing home and wouldn't go to the hospital for some test and at that point, he picked up a knife and went totally crazy. The home called the cops, and they tried to disarm him and shot him with bean bags. He went to the hospital and wouldn't give consent for surgery and died soon afterwards. Involuntary homicide at the most.

 

Anybody see the connect between this and another story about the young girl w/cancer who was FORCED to undergo chemo??

One poster was adamant that that situation WAS NOT going to lead to a slippery slope. Looks like he was right; the results of earlier slippery slopes are here now!!!

As an aside, I'm 78, and if I needed surgery for whatever, but there was a great chance of highly undesirable after-effects, I would probably(?) decline to go under the knife also - and I sure don't want the powers that be overriding that decision.

 

TACOMA, Wash. -- Foster families are under a new mandate that everyone in their house needs a flu shot if they have foster kids under two years of age.

If they don't comply, the children will be taken from them. At least one foster mom is going to fight that.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Foster-mom-says-shes-willing-to-lose-infant-over-flu-shot-mandate-288001051.html

The state believes it own's our bodies and can do whatever it wants to them with or without our consent. Welcome to the "land of the free" and the home of "comply or face the wrath of the bureaucrats".

 

Wonder why folks didn't deduce this in the Garner case?

 

They did. He said "at most". Meaning the punishment, if anything, should be lenient.

 

Well the old guy was wielding a knife and probably looked like a big hulking demon and the officer feared for his life. And when a person with a weapon gets up enough speed, his body can become a weapon.

Interesting how in this case it was so easy to get an indictment and a trial. Prosecutors an prosecute a ham sandwich...when they want to.

 

^No, it's "a prosecutor" could indict a ham sandwich - getting the actual conviction in a juge or jury trial is much much harder because in an indictment, the DA only has to present its case to go further with a trial.

I think the GJ in the Garner case already had their minds made up and that was that, but who knows.

Yeah, and the judge is deliberating and will issue the verdict in early February:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-wrana-beanbag-shooting-trial-met-0117-20150116-story.html

Still sounds to me like the defendant's case is stronger just because of the testimony from experts that said the cop had used justifiable force and could have taken it further and used deadly force here, which he didn't.

 

Thanks for the correction. :laugh: I don't know where that "C" went.

But that's part of the process. That's what was missing in the Eric Garner and Michael Brown cases. The prosecutors manipulated to NOT get an indictment so that there couldn't even be trials.

One could venture that this case with beanbags certainly didn't warrant an indictment and a trial anymore than did the previously mentioned cases.

Very good possibility that they did. But the prosecutor STILL could have indicted without the GJs okay after they came back with no true bill decisions.

 

Even the very elderly don't have a right to charge at anyone while brandishing a knife. The "force" used here was not "deadly" in almost every other circumstance but if you are 95 years old or a severly obese asthmatic what the cops did at least aggravated their deaths.

I don't think the cops meant to cause either death but it's a question of whether the force was appropriate. With Garner, I'm not sure it was at all, especially if they knew about his condition at all but that's a case where a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I have asthma and there's usually warnings before an acute attack but that's not true for everybody.

It shouldn't have a "c" in the word IMO - you don't pronounce it but what I meant was the GJ indictment.

That's pretty convoluted to say the DAs threw their own cases, and I don't see how you could possibly know this unless you're somehow personally involved in the cases but they could've been succumbing to public pressure to convene a GJ or it could be the "blue wall" thing.

But the usual thing is that if you can't get a GJ to see a reason to try the case, your case is beyond weak.

Well, here I think is the difference is Garner was a habitual criminal and Wrana was an aged WW2 hero. Wrana's shooter was a black man but he was the cop that pulled the trigger.

That's GJ jargon - the foreman/forewoman writes "no bill" on an indictment if there is no finding of a sufficient cause to write "true bill" on it instead.

There are states that can go ahead with a trial after a no bill decision but I don't know if that's true for New York or Missouri.

 

I don't think it's convoluted at all. It's actually extremely simplistic. Show the jury information that would normally be shown by a defense attorney during trial. Do the job of the defense attorney instead of the job of the prosecutor. And hide it behind the guise of presenting all of the evidence.

It's actually laughable because as I've stated many times before, it doesn't take much for a prosecutor to get an indictment from a GJ.

It's almost presumed to be a rubber stamp. Just about the only way to not get an indictment is to not want one. :laugh:

They spent weeks reviewing evidence. With that much evidence, a first year law student could have convinced them on day one that there was enough cause to move to trial.

Why would what Garner have done be relevant? The GJs were determining if the police officers were to be indicted?

 

That's crazy.