that's true the world isn't perfect

and when the imperfections arise we should be consistent and hold ourselves and those we like or respect accountable just the same as those we do not

that means you going against your pro cop feelings when the truth and evidence shows it

and me going against my bias against authority and for the community they serve when the truth and evidence shows it

I have no clue. Like I said in post 121, she's [probably guilty of some wrong doing at least. BUT, without further evidence I won't call it one way or the other.

Here's a question for you. How would you want me to answer the question you just asked if Amber w/e (the police officer) was your sister or your mother?




/e



No that means checking with the facts we already know. Like the one I mentioned a c;pl posts ago. Some people are always gonna cheat, steal, rape, kill, etc., and once you have accepted that as true, THEN you can start offering ideas for how a police force should be.

Keep in mind that a police force is made of people too. You admit that the world isn't perfect, then expect all police officers to be perfect.
Winston Churchill again.

This post was edited by Ghot on Sep 18 2018 04:15pm

Nobody expects them to be perfect. We just want them to receive equal treatment for the times they are imperfect.

I ask you which verdict you think the jury will reach if she testifies in court that she parked on "wrong level" in garage (which presumably led to her floor confusion), key wouldn't work in lock, door was "open" she opened the door and walked in, assumed the guy was in her apt. and shot.

You say you won't call it one way or another. Wow. You aren't sure what the jury would say to a defendant (on trial for manslaughter) who confesses in court.



I would want you to answer that question by admitting that that testimony would lead the jury to convict her of manslaughter. Luckily, since I'm just asking your opinion on a hypothetical question, it wouldn't really affect anything besides our conversation.

This post was edited by Kayeto on Sep 18 2018 04:19pm

As do I, believe it or not. I know from experience that the old saying "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile", is so true it's scary.

THIS is what worries me. Just look at the general PaRD feelings on these police shootings. They invariably trend toward "the cop, is guilty". This is before we even know the facts. That's the gut reaction.
THAT is fucking dangerous, when you consider that PaRD's gut reaction is just a sampling of the US masses gut reaction.

Look back to the 1930's, the cops didn't worry about due process, they shot first then asked questions. They used rubber hoses to question folk. Miranda, HA!

So now we have nicer, more controlled, better trained police and the crime rate just keeps getting worse.


We need to learn from history. Those that don't are doomed to repeat it.




/e




She hasn't confessed in court. In fact, as far as I know she hasn't even gone to court yet.

This post was edited by Ghot on Sep 18 2018 04:27pm

Upon careful inspection, the original question ...



... began with the word 'if'.

If that word is confusing for you, here's a helpful link: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/if?s=t

I don't DO ifs. People doing ifs is one of the biggest causes of today's problems. That's my whole point.

I will go this far.... IF the current story gets presented in court, I will want to here all the rest of the evidence as well...then I will possibly attempt to call it.


/e Unless ofc, you think her and her attorney will walk into court and ONLY present the current story, then I really will believe the age in your profile.

This post was edited by Ghot on Sep 18 2018 04:39pm

If you don't let police kill walk into our houses and shoot us then they won't protect us!



Abstract thinking causes all of our problems!

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Sep 18 2018 04:37pm

Just in this topic I would say that I am one of the few or the only one that will not judge this person without her having her day in court. That's the problem with you folks version of abstract thinking.

You've referred to one of your previous posts in this thread, so let me do the same: http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=79478549&f=119&p=535851706

There's me, 10 days ago, trying to stick up for your "let's wait for the facts" approach. But you're making it really hard for anyone to agree with you.

Yes, the jury will wait for the evidence presented at trial. But it shouldn't be difficult to agree, informally, that if she confesses under oath then the jury will probably find her guilty.

This isn't rocket science. It isn't mental gymnastics. It's the basics of having a conversation.