1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Running racism in America thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Scout, May 26, 2020.

  1. Mngwa

    Mngwa Well-Known Member

    I've read that one neighbor heard them announce, but none of the others heard it. And of course the boyfriend has testified that he did not hear an announcement.
     
  2. Chef2

    Chef2 Well-Known Member

    He did testify that he heard "Police!"
     
    Mngwa likes this.
  3. Mngwa

    Mngwa Well-Known Member

    I haven't read that. I've actually found it difficult to find a cohesive account of that night
     
  4. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    You are right about this from a legal standpoint, I think.

    On top of it, none of those cops should have been indicted individually, because there was no criminal intent in any of what went down. They were cops who thought that they were simply executing a warrant.

    Saying that doesn't mean that what happened was right or that there shouldn't be liability and some semblance of a just outcome. It just means that it isn't a criminal matter, it needs to be done civilly.

    Unfortunately, most people just want vengeance for what happened, so they are incapable of approaching it rationally. I just never saw how anything actually criminal had occurred. There is a dead body. The police and the city should be held accountable. Financially, it should be so punitive that it makes voters / taxpayers effect change, which is the way it should be done. But again, the angry mob will not approach it that way.
     
    Batman likes this.
  5. Pilot

    Pilot Well-Known Member

    It's like the case Rayshard Brooks DUI/police shooting case in Atlanta a few months ago. It's not an example of a bad cop so much as it's an example of a bad system. The way police go about their business needs to change. What exactly their business is needs to change. The way they deal with the public, the way they execute warrants, the way they fight drugs, all needs to change. Shitty tragedies like this can't be the cost of police doing business.
     
  6. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    The Atlanta DA disagreed, considering he charged the cop with felony murder.
     
  7. Pilot

    Pilot Well-Known Member

    Ok. I'd be surprised if it sticks, but obviously all just my opinion.
     
  8. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    The DA did lose his re-election race, so perhaps we'll see.
     
  9. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    And even then it's typically "Police Open up! then BOOM! they bust down the door. If a "reasonable person" couldn't possibly respond to a request to open the door (at 1 in the morning) before the cops bust in - it's a no-knock warrant whether it says so on the paper or not.
     
    FileNotFound likes this.
  10. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I couldn’t disagree with this more. Brooks was no threat to them. There was absolutely no justification for shooting him. He was unarmed (they had searched him), was not attacking them, and they even had his name and address (they were holding his drivers license and if he ran away they had his car).

    In the case of the cops who broke down Breonna Taylor's door, the individual liability for any of them is not even close to being the same. Unless any of them knew they had the wrong door, or were acting in bad faith, all they were doing was executing what they thought was a good warrant, getting shot at and reacting. The issue there isn't with their individual behavior, it's with the policing.

    In the case of Brooks, that isn't a systematic problem. It was a problem with that individual cop. He shot an unarmed man in cold blood when the man was no threat to him.

    They are not the same.
     
    OscarMadison likes this.
  11. Mngwa

    Mngwa Well-Known Member

  12. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    It does and it doesn’t. It’s an article written with a clear belief in mind, the kind a representing attorney would have.

    For example, the writer assumes the police lied about a postal inspector telling them a package was suspicious simply because the postal inspector says he (or she) never said that, while simultaneously casting doubt on a witness who says he (or she) heard the police announce themselves because other witnesses didn’t. Anything that could be true in detriment to the police is assumed true by the writer, who then suggests knocking on the door for 45 seconds (the kind of thing that typically comes with announcing oneself) was the worst thing the cops could have done.

    To be clear, I’m critiquing the writer here, who isn’t really trying to play it right down the middle (it is, after all, an opinion piece).
    The writer is correct when he writes that many people have suggested the dude who shot was also a drug dealer - he’s not - and the writer is right when he makes a distinction between not illegal and not immune to criticism. Both helpful things.

    There are things the Louisvllle police should and could have done differently. I don’t think there’s any question.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page