JokersWild24

Not always. Think of it like the illegal wiretap in The Wire. They knew the evidence wouldn't come in because the wiretap was illegal.

Not if the policy was that it should have never been filmed in the first place (hence, it wouldn't even be 'evidence'). And also, I'd imagine that there'd be someone in charge of things like that who was the only person that'd have access to deleting it, otherwise anyone who did something bad would just go delete it themselves and deal with the less severe consequences of that. Again, the hypo was that it was against policy to even record it in the first place. No different than someone redacting parts of a report or something like that.

To be clear, I agree with that once they are put in the situation. It's one of those things where if that was the rule and it happened because of an honest mistake, it'd probably be one of those things where they just deleted it and it wasn't a big deal. I don't think people would be calling for anything else if it were just a good faith kind of deal.

Lots groups advocating for body cameras are actually asking they be turned off in situations like the one described. In any event, it's not like that doesn't happen anyway. An officer sold pictures of Rhianna's domestic violence incident with Chris Brown to the tabloids and sued when they tried to fire her.

Agreed. The cross country team at my high school were all pretty nerdy and we were "randomly" tested at a pretty high clip. It was always kind of an inside joke with us as to why. I think that a school like Clay County, which is already hurting for money, could better use their resources elsewhere, but someone would have to be pretty galvanized politically to be the one who spoke out about it because all the Bible-thumpers (or opportunistic opponents) would have a field day with it. At the end of the day, I don't think its a big secret that you can easily beat a urine test anyway.

I can think of a few reasons...

He's the guy who made the initial contact. He's also someone who really appears to have trouble controlling his temper, and he's been suspended for just that reason.

Unions pushing hard against them.

Sorry, worded that wrong. You are correct.

Pretty bad stuff alleged against one of the officers a few years ago. Interestingly enough, there were two restraining orders against him, one from his ex-wife, and another from her new husband (who is also a police officer). These are pretty serious allegations. Freddie Gray officer threatened to kill himself and ex-partner's husband, court document alleges | US news | The Guardian

That's fair. I'm not arguing that stories about the police are always true. Same goes for stories that the police use against citizens too though and/or legitimate complaints that aren't properly followed up on. I definitely wouldn't want to be a cop there either. What was the purpose of the video? Just wondered because it seemed a bit out of place with the rest of the post. I think you might have linked one of the videos that followed the one that you meant to post.

I agree. I'm not really sure the extent of what they knew and didn't know and whether or not it was something that was a foregone conclusion and the process was basically a formality given how easy it is to get an indictment, but if her motives were political and to play to the crowd, that wouldn't surprise me at all. At the same time, I do think that the situation in Baltimore with the police there had gotten so bad over time (looking at the number of lawsuits that they've had and the reform that was obviously needed) that her hand was kind of forced on the issue somewhat as well. I don't think the officers were innocent, but I do think some of them were probably just in the wrong place at the wrong time and got caught out in a tornado. Not saying it's right, just saying that things didn't reach this point overnight. There are some pretty damning stories and videos of Baltimore police out there and in general that kind of point to some deep institutional problems within the department and it had eroded to the point that it was a city with quite a few people from all types of demographics and different walks of life who were saying "enough is enough". All that said, I'll be very surprised if all of the charges stick.

Clay County as well.

I only attended a Catholic school for three years, but I quickly learned that there are two or three kinds of students to administration: those whose parents/families donate a lot, those whose parents/families donate some, and those whose parents/families don't donate anything.

I don't doubt for a minute that things have been overcharged hoping to see what sticks (as has already been said here). I also don't think that a prosecutor doing that is something that is exclusive to this case, as it happens fairly often.

Hey, my apologies, I'm just seeing this. I think I logged in on my phone and didn't realize it and missed the notification. Based on what I've read, it sounds like he should be in the clear on that. That's just a guess based on what I've read here and assuming it's all accurate though. Texas doesn't really have roadblocks because there are so many procedural barriers to them under the Texas Constitution make them ineffective. My intuition though, is that he was fine with the stop. Hindsight being 20/20 and all that, when you stop someone who actually is impaired, that usually skews things in your favor all else held constant. It definitely makes any observation that you put in your report more credible in the eyes of a Judge and/or Jury, whether that is how it was actually intended to be or not. I'm not really sure what the situation was as far as the party. If he were stopping 20 or so cars and making them file out one-by-one, then it's going to be a higher burden on him. That doesn't mean it's impossible, just that for every car that was stopped and the longer they sat there, the burden starts shifting. You can check for drunk drivers (Michigan v. Sitz), but that's about the limit on it and you have to keep it very brief. I'm not really sure if Kentucky, like Texas, puts anything else on top of that which kind of tilts the scales more toward the driver, as some states offer their own (State) Constitutional protections past what the Federal Constitution gives. If he's got a report (especially of a specific car or something like that), if the car is speeding, if the car is weaving, or if he is just setting up a roadblock that is compliant with Kentucky laws (which, again, I don't know), then he's most likely fine. The biggest issues are probably the content of the report he was given that brought him to the scene, what he observed from the car, and whatever Kentucky law is on roadblocks if that's what it was considered (those are off the top of my head). Honestly I haven't seen the video and don't know enough about the situation and what's going on with the laws in Kentucky. However, if it's a situation where people are actually trespassing and there's a report of it, then I'd think he's easily in the clear.

Agreed.

I just said that because I hadn't read the article. When it's a citizen accused, people on the pro-civilian side are generally saying, let's let the facts come out the loudest. When it's an officer accused, people on the pro-police side are generally saying, let's let the facts come out loudest. Same principle kind of applies here. I haven't read the article and would rather reserve comment for once I've had some time to digest it (which I don't have now). Trust me, if things are as you say, and I have absolutely no reason to believe that they aren't and completely believe you as is, then I'll be on your side. I don't think anyone is arguing that more innocent people are killed by officers. Being an officer means that you are there in lots of dangerous situations and I think it's well understood that an occupational hazard is that there are bad people out there who won't think twice about killing you. I'm not in any way justifying those actions, or saying that police should sign up knowing they can get killed and that it's somehow their fault when they do, just reiterating what's probably common knowledge to all of us.

You can find people who think a lot of things, that doesn't mean I agree with them, and I'm always right. Just ask me. I've never been wrong. Well, once I was, but I was just wrong then to see what it felt like. Other than that though...

I'm not really sure what either the bolded or underlined proves, or that anyone is saying otherwise. You could replace 'police officers' with doctors, school teachers, basically any profession and the same is still true. More bus drivers are probably injured on duty than innocent people are injured by bus drivers. It's a red herring to put any small subset of the population up against the rest of the population and make a statement like that just based on sheer volume. Your "base rate" is going to be pretty heavily skewed one way when the population sample on one side outnumbers the other at around 100:1 or so. I'm not in any way excusing what happened if in fact an officer was shot and killed. That is nothing but tragic, line of duty or not. Someone loses their life, it's tragic. Period. I don't think you'll find people arguing otherwise, so I'm not really sure what there is to argue about. I would fathom a guess that most people here have an "agenda" that innocent people dying is not a good thing.

Yes. All lives matter.

Not much gets by you, eh @Milfordflash?

Probably going to be hard to keep them from seeing those few seconds if that's some of the only video they have of the incident and it's one of the last times you see him alive, especially given that he's in their custody. Whether it's supposed to or not, what do you think the answer to the second question is? And I'm sure they'll try to have it bleeped, muted, or something like that, but the other side is going to fight against it just as hard. Probably be one of those calls that's more up to the Judge than the attorneys, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they're not tossing the video because of that or anything wild like that. The bystanders are talking about him being injured and them being rough with him, and a guy accused of it is saying "bleep you" to the cameraman, so it's one of those things where if it were in there, he's kind of dug his own grave you know. At the end of the day, it probably all depends on how they are trying to bring it in and/or make reference to it and how the Judge feels about that.

Just saw this . Wonder if the officer who is carrying him to the van at 1:58-2:00 regrets flipping the bird and apparently giving a four letter word followed by "you" to the cameraman? Wonder how the jury will take that one if it's shown to them?

O.....k. That's a page of statutes. I'm going to go slowly, because I really don't think it's the guy that's the lawyer, the USA Today, the Washington Post, and every other major media outlet that is wrong about this. #1 - Malice aforethought is NOT intent. They are not the same thing. I am looking at a legal dictionary and one definition for malice aforethought is "extremely reckless indifference to the value of human life (the so-called "abandoned and malignant heart"). I think that's what they're going for here should they even need to prove it past the implication. #2 - If you look at the link you provided, you will see a difference. First Degree Murder says: "...did feloniously, willfully and of deliberately premeditated malice aforethought kill and murder ______." Second Degree Murder says "...did feloniously and with malice aforethought, kill and murder _____." Notice what's missing in the second one? It's the part in first degree murder that I bolded and underlined. I think that's your idea of intent that you keep talking about. #3 - Malice aforethought is NOT intent. They are not the same thing.