quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

FR

The Washington Post published this yesterday. I haven't had the energy/focus to delve into it, but thought others might be interested.

Here are the lede and a link.

Thousands dead, few prosecuted

Among the thousands of fatal shootings at the hands of police since 2005, only 54 officers have been charged, a Post analysis found. Most were cleared or acquitted in the cases that have been resolved.

On a rainy night five years ago, Officer Coleman “Duke” Brackney set off in pursuit of a suspected drunk driver, chasing his black Mazda Miata down rural Arkansas roads at speeds of nearly 100 miles per hour. When the sports car finally came to rest in a ditch, Brackney opened fire at the rear window and repeatedly struck the driver, 41-year-old James Ahern, in the back. The gunshots killed Ahern.

Prosecutors charged Brackney with felony manslaughter. But he eventually entered a plea to a lesser charge and could ultimately be left with no criminal record.

Now, he serves as the police chief in a small community 20 miles from the scene of the shooting.

Brackney is among 54 officers charged over the past decade for fatally shooting someone while on duty, according to an analysis by The Washington Post and researchers at Bowling Green State University. This analysis, based on a wide range of public records and interviews with law enforcement, judicial and other legal experts, sought to identify for the first time every officer who faced charges­ for such shootings since 2005. These represent a small fraction of the thousands of fatal police shootings that have occurred across the country in that time.

In an overwhelming majority of the cases where an officer was charged, the person killed was unarmed. But it usually took more than that.

When prosecutors pressed charges, The Post analysis found, there were typically other factors that made the case exceptional, including: a victim shot in the back, a video recording of the incident, incriminating testimony from other officers or allegations of a coverup.

<sidebar>
How the analysis was done: The 54 criminal prosecutions were identified by Bowling Green State University criminologist Philip M. Stinson and The Washington Post. Cases were culled from news reports, grand jury announcements and news releases from prosecutors. For individual cases, reporters obtained and reviewed thousands of pages of court records, police reports, grand jury indictments, witness testimony and video recordings. Dozens of prosecutors and defense attorneys in the cases were interviewed, along with legal experts, officers who were prosecuted and surviving relatives of the shooting victims.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2015/04/11/thousands-dead-few-prosecuted/?hpid=z4

quote:

And this proves nothing. You are aware that police do deal with very dangerous people in situations that most of us would give almost anything to avoid. This is only even marginally valid if they provided a list of police that they think engaged in excessive violence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

My time is worth far too much ,to me,to waste talking to any of those assholes......or their infantile audiences



Bad enough I waste my time taking to an idiot who thinks they can conflate the emotion of love with a symbolic AK-47.

If ya don't want to talk to assholes then you certainly don't want to talk to yourself

A wonderful example of school yard taunting,do you have anything on this cop or the late Mr.Scott ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

If a person can't handle bringing a child into the world and raising it, then that person should not be doing thing things that bring a child into the world. If you (none of the "you's" in this paragraph are specific to you, but are used in general) can't responsibly deal with the consequences of your actions, you shouldn't be taking those actions. I agree that one responsible way to deal with a pregnancy is to abort it, but if you can't pay for an abortion, you are relying on other people to pay for it, that's not quite as responsible of an option. And, since you are relying on others to pay for your abortion, why not rely on those people who are choosing to help you pay (people who donate to Planned Parenthood, etc.), and not those who are being forced to pay (taxpayers)?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

If a person can't handle bringing a child into the world and raising it, then that person should not be doing thing things that bring a child into the world. If you (none of the "you's" in this paragraph are specific to you, but are used in general) can't responsibly deal with the consequences of your actions, you shouldn't be taking those actions. I agree that one responsible way to deal with a pregnancy is to abort it, but if you can't pay for an abortion, you are relying on other people to pay for it, that's not quite as responsible of an option. And, since you are relying on others to pay for your abortion, why not rely on those people who are choosing to help you pay (people who donate to Planned Parenthood, etc.), and not those who are being forced to pay (taxpayers)?

dude.. if you don't think you should, as a taxpayer, pay for abortions, then why should I as a taxpayer pay for smokers that get lung cancer.. or for an overweight/obese person's diabetes meds when adhering to a healthy diet & exercise program could have avoided him from getting diabetes in the first place.. or for a cyclist that rides like a moron and gets hit.. there are tons of things I don't want to pay for that are avoidable but until you can get the overweight to all stop eating crap and sitting on their duff and smokers to stop smoking and cyclists to stop riding, your argument totally fails.. I also doubt very much if you have lived your entire life perfectly..

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

That's the same one Lucy posted... just read the report carefully and see what brought the incident on.

Butch