I have to agree with you. Burning the mutha down is exactly why BLM is a joke now. They turned a movement into a moment with outrageous behavior that pretty much devolved into mob violence and opportunistic looting. Whatever legitimacy they had in the initial years is gone. It also doesn't help their movement was race based when what little data we have shows that police are just as like to shoot a white man as a black man.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

We've got the same thing going on here in Cincinnati. We had a thread on it here at the time, a University of Cincinnati cop pulled over a guy for not having a front license plate. When the suspect (who was later found to have a lot of cash on him but no gun) tried to pull away the officer shot and killed him. The first trial ended a couple of weeks ago with a hung jury; the date for the retrial is pending. It's pretty clear the officer is guilty, but whether it is murder or homicide was what the jurors got hung up on (8-4 guilty on murder, 3-9 not guilty on homicide IIRC).

Video of the stop:

---

I miss YaHey

It wasn't pretty clear to the people who saw all of the evidence during trial. 8-4 and 9-3 is pretty strong evidence those people were not convinced.

There may not be enough convictions to get statistically significant data. Because they all get off.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...fca2e4b055b31398fb07
. Since 2005, just under 80 officers have been charged with murder or manslaughter resulting from police-involved shootings, according to data compiled by Philip Stinson, an associate professor of criminology at Ohio’s Bowling Green State University. Police kill around 1,000 people each year in on-duty shootings, according to Stinson’s estimate, meaning the overwhelming majority of these incidents don’t make it to trial. When they do, juries and judges have shown a reluctance to rule against police. Fewer than 30 of the charged officers have been convicted ― with only one convicted of murder. A number of other cases are still pending and the rest have ended in non-convictions, either through acquittal or dismissal.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

No, it means they weren't convinced of WHAT he was guilty of. Although one of the jurors after the trial said that he could never vote to convict a police officer. Jury breakdown was 6 white men, 4 white women, and 2 black women.

Other shenanigans that took place during the trial:
1) When the jurors travelled to see the site of the shooting, they were in vans with dark tinted windows. Someone with a BLM shirt on was waiting at the site so he could video the jurors; the jurors didn't leave the vans.
2) A local news agency filed to have the responses to the juror questionnaires made public (with names, etc redacted). The jurors refused to come back from break until that request was withdrawn.
3) An alternate juror was removed after she said she feared for her safety.

---

I miss YaHey

I don't think that any one was arrested for that church burning.

There was a "person of interest" who's identity isn't being released.

We just don't know anymore than that. There is NO FOLLOW UP at all on that story.

There just doesn't seemed to be much curiosity. You'd think the police and press would want to get to the bottom of this most heinous "hate crime".

Interdasting.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

No. I want you to give me a hypothetical scenario that would justify what happened. I think everyone agrees he was unarmed and fleeing. I believe the standard for use of deadly force is imminent threat of severe injury or death. I am not seeing either possibility in the video.

Don't get me wrong, I am very pro-2A and have a CCP. I know that this cop is dealing with a different scenario than I will ever deal with, but it was a cop that taught my CCP class and the threat of severe bodily harm or death was the circumstance that legitimized killing another. Try as I might, I am having a hard time justifying what happened. The possibility of him being a threat to the general public is the only thing that I can come up with.

Greg

---

If you are a Canuck that engages in gratuitous bashing of the US, you are probably on my Iggy List. So, save your self a bunch of typing a response unless you also feel the need to gratuitously bash me. If so, have fun.
"Don't underestimate Joe's ability to f___ things up" - Barack Obama, 2020

I think everyone agrees he was unarmed and fleeing. I believe the standard for use of deadly force is imminent threat of severe injury or death. I am not seeing either possibility in the video.

There's also a fleeing felon standard in some states, which would allow you to shoot if the possibility of the felon causing serious injury or death after escaping is very high. (A serial killer running for the cop, for example.) But I don't think that applies in this case, either.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Well then, why not wait for the evidence? That was my initial point.

Okay, so a guy is shot in the back from a few feet as he was running away. What all happened before that?

So okay, Jimmy Doolitlle and his squadron bomb the shit out of unarmed people in Tokyo. What all happened before that?