quychang said:
At the risk of further beating a dead horse. I don't really believe there's a massive police cover up here either, I'm just saying there isn't really an evidence to the contrary. I'd feel a lot more comfortable if there were video evidence to back them up. And frankly, assuming there is no cover up, I imagine the police wish the same, it would be highly in their favor assuming civil suits are pursued.
But I'll go out on a limb and say that the thin blue line extends into the prosecutors office and the judicial system. I predict that civil suits will be lost, or dismissed.
I'm sure the thin blue line extends all the way. If nothing else, someone you know is a person, anyone else is easy to dehumanize in some way. Friends make mistakes, others engage in deliberately reckless behavior.
Notice the teacher with the ND in the toilet has taken a plea deal on the criminal charge of illegal discharge of a firearm. I don't recall similar charges being brought against the police chief who shot himself in the leg while teaching a permit class, nor even against the WVC cop who shot Danielle Willard. Unjustified shoot, and charges of manslaughter, but no piling on with illegal discharge so far as I know.
Some years back a good friend kind of got into the circle of the UHP. His stories of their conduct including DUI, infidelity while on the clock, etc was very troubling to say the least. Power corrupts.
And whether it was with the honest, best intentions to protect the public, or out of some kind of "get even" for having someone swing a sword at him, it isn't hard to wonder whether cops (and you and I) might just be quicker to shoot knowing the standard they get held to as opposed to the scrutiny given a private joe.
But that said, it is entirely possible that civil suits fail simply because there is no evidence to support the suit. And I'll admit, I'm a bit biased against the mom because she jumped so quick to claim racial bias. If I ever get shot by cops, nobody will be able to claim racial bias. It offends me when someone else plays the race card with zero evidence to back it up. In this day, it is downright irresponsible to do anything to perpetuate the myth of cops gunning down black men because they are black. Because they are not cops, because they are young, because they pop an attitude and try something stupid, because they are tatted and pierced up and dress like gangsters? Maybe even because some are very dangerous criminals who actually try to hurt or kill cops or others? Sure. White, black, hispanic, polynesian. We all carry guns because we recognize there are violent criminals. I guess maybe a few only carry to protect against wild animals while hiking. But most of us recognize that there are bad men in the world who would harm us or ours. Sometimes it is a decent, but ill man who just isn't thinking right. Doesn't much matter the motivation if we end up crippled or dead. So we own and carry guns. We do so despite also being able to minimize our chances of being victimized by avoiding high risk behavior and high risk associations.
I just think it makes sense to remember that those dangerous, criminal, violent, and crazy men don't cease to exist just because a cop rather than a private joe is in the area. In fact, we kind of expect cops to seek them out and deal with them so we don't have to.
Yup, I'm bothered that one cop involved may have used some excessive force in the past. And I'd love some great evidence proving what they say is true. But innocent until proven guilty means we have accept a lack of evidence demonstrating guilt as sufficient to maintain innocence.
Rough case. If a civil suit wins something I'll concede something dirty happened. If it fails to win anything material (IE, something more than the city settling for less than the cost to defend the thing), I'll take that as one more evidence that there isn't any evidence of wrongdoing.
Charles