Trayvon Martin case: use of Stand Your Ground law or pursuit of a black teen?

[Admiral Yi]

Since you have taken it upon yourself to speak for Derspeiss with your iron clad deductions and such, why is one editing bad and the other not so bad?

Speesh and I agree that the editing in of the pimp scenes is bad.  I think it's less bad than the MSNBC editing because even if you subtract the pimp scenes it's still makes ACORN look like shit.  If you subtract MSNBC editing you've got nothing.

[Sheilbh]

I don't think either's bad unless they're hiding the full version or deliberately trying to distort the truth - and even that can be justified if there's a greater truth they're pointing out or artistic merit.

[CountDeMoney]

This is the problem with police Omerta.  A cop can line up a random person on the street against a wall, execute him with a shot to the back of the head, and his colleagues on the scene would all claim that the executed guy was grabbing for the cop's gun or something.  Therefore, you can't ever trust a police account, even though I'm sure (or I sincerely hope) that the vast majority of the time, nothing fishy happened.  I can't ever recall a case of uncovered police misconduct, whether it involved killing someone or roughing the person up, that didn't include a number of false statements by cops that intended to cover it up.

You watch too many movies.

There are, in fact, actual law enforcement professionals that don't like to see their coworkers break the law.  No, really.

[grumbler]

This is the problem with police Omerta.  A cop can line up a random person on the street against a wall, execute him with a shot to the back of the head, and his colleagues on the scene would all claim that the executed guy was grabbing for the cop's gun or something.  Therefore, you can't ever trust a police account, even though I'm sure (or I sincerely hope) that the vast majority of the time, nothing fishy happened.  I can't ever recall a case of uncovered police misconduct, whether it involved killing someone or roughing the person up, that didn't include a number of false statements by cops that intended to cover it up.

This is the problem with conspiracy thinking; it takes real facts and then makes them less credible by adding in phraseology like "police Omerta."  While I agree that "you can't ever trust a police account," I would say the same about lawyers, accountants, teachers, and any person in sales or administration... in fact, pretty much everyone you don't know personally (and not all of them).  Are police less reliable as witnesses against other police than, say, lawyers against other lawyers?  Yes.  Does it mean that cops will all allow colleagues to get away with murder?  No.

[CountDeMoney]

God knows I ratted out enough of them.

[grumbler]

God knows I ratted out enough of them.

But you edited out the part of this post where you changed your name and left the police force under threat of death, Serpico. 

[CountDeMoney]

God knows I ratted out enough of them.

But you edited out the part of this post where you changed your name and left the police force under threat of death, Serpico. 

The threat of death was due more to fears of incompetence than anything else.  (Idiots in BPD)# of guns + cars with lights and sirens = % of death.  No fucking thanks  .

[HVC]

This is the problem with police Omerta.  A cop can line up a random person on the street against a wall, execute him with a shot to the back of the head, and his colleagues on the scene would all claim that the executed guy was grabbing for the cop's gun or something.  Therefore, you can't ever trust a police account, even though I'm sure (or I sincerely hope) that the vast majority of the time, nothing fishy happened.  I can't ever recall a case of uncovered police misconduct, whether it involved killing someone or roughing the person up, that didn't include a number of false statements by cops that intended to cover it up.

You watch too many movies.

There are, in fact, actual law enforcement professionals that don't like to see their coworkers break the law.  No, really.

ya, but those are the ones most likely to get "shot by the suspect". it keeps their numbers down

[Razgovory]

Since you have taken it upon yourself to speak for Derspeiss with your iron clad deductions and such, why is one editing bad and the other not so bad?

Speesh and I agree that the editing in of the pimp scenes is bad.  I think it's less bad than the MSNBC editing because even if you subtract the pimp scenes it's still makes ACORN look like shit.  If you subtract MSNBC editing you've got nothing.

What about the human trafficking thing?  You keep ignoring this one.  If we remove the MSNBC editing we still have Zimmmerman using a racial slur.  Also him shooting someone.  All they removed was that police question of ethnicity.

[DGuller]

This is the problem with police Omerta.  A cop can line up a random person on the street against a wall, execute him with a shot to the back of the head, and his colleagues on the scene would all claim that the executed guy was grabbing for the cop's gun or something.  Therefore, you can't ever trust a police account, even though I'm sure (or I sincerely hope) that the vast majority of the time, nothing fishy happened.  I can't ever recall a case of uncovered police misconduct, whether it involved killing someone or roughing the person up, that didn't include a number of false statements by cops that intended to cover it up.

You watch too many movies.

There are, in fact, actual law enforcement professionals that don't like to see their coworkers break the law.  No, really.

I'm not basing it on movies (though I do find it disturbing the lengths to which not ratting out your partner is generally glorified in them).  I'm basing it on the news coverage, like the coverage of New Orleans police shooting, or the various cases of assaults on officers or resisting of arrest that later turn out to be unprovoked attacks by cops, after a security camera footage or cell phone camera footage surfaces.

[CountDeMoney]

(though I do find it disturbing the lengths to which not ratting out your partner is generally glorified in them).

Maybe if there wasn't such an adversarial relationship between law enforcement and the public, there wouldn't be such a blue wall mind-set. 
But, just like the military and combat, it's just something you wouldn't understand unless you've been there.  It is what it is.

[garbon]

(though I do find it disturbing the lengths to which not ratting out your partner is generally glorified in them).

Maybe if there wasn't such an adversarial relationship between law enforcement and the public, there wouldn't be such a blue wall mind-set. 
But, just like the military and combat, it's just something you wouldn't understand unless you've been there.  It is what it is.

Agreed if cops weren't such dicks, the public might like them better.

[Phillip V]

Howard Morgan, Black Off-Duty Cop Shot 28 Times By White Chicago Officers, Faces Up To 80 Years In Prison

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/03/howard-morgan-ex-cop-shot_n_1399834.html

[CountDeMoney]

(though I do find it disturbing the lengths to which not ratting out your partner is generally glorified in them).

Maybe if there wasn't such an adversarial relationship between law enforcement and the public, there wouldn't be such a blue wall mind-set. 
But, just like the military and combat, it's just something you wouldn't understand unless you've been there.  It is what it is.

Agreed if cops weren't such dicks, the public might like them better.

  Goes both ways there, Sunshine.

[DGuller]

This is the problem with conspiracy thinking; it takes real facts and then makes them less credible by adding in phraseology like "police Omerta."  While I agree that "you can't ever trust a police account," I would say the same about lawyers, accountants, teachers, and any person in sales or administration... in fact, pretty much everyone you don't know personally (and not all of them).  Are police less reliable as witnesses against other police than, say, lawyers against other lawyers?  Yes.  Does it mean that cops will all allow colleagues to get away with murder?  No.

The problem is that unlike teachers, cops have a monopoly on violence.  Their testimonies are also a crucial part of their civil service, and often is the only piece of evidence in more minor cases, which means that the rights of citziens often hang on their word.  In light of that, I think it's not at all unreasonable to hold them to higher standard of integrity than teachers.