im talking about the same scenerio happening just with a black cop, the retaliation/responses would be much different than the responses weve seen or have yet to be seen

im talking black/white....not armed or unarmed.......if the kid had a gun,which im not even sure that he had one,because even the police havent held up a gun that says "this is what jevon was holding when he got shot"..im strictly talking race

i cant speak for the uhuruers either didnt even know what uhuru stood for until someone said on here said "freedom"

 

Seeing as the clearing of the officer by the State's Attorney's Office didn't convince you, I guess it really doesn't matter......

Because the 'non-biased' eyewitnesses stated they didn't see him with a gun, so it MUST be true, right?.....

 

bay news nine pulled that link probably due to the amount of class/responses by us white folk on there website. it was already getting racy and there was only like 10 responses in that link.

 

Nope. Doesn't convince me one bit.

....and you think that the State's Attoney's Office is non-biased?

It's akin to the fox guarding the henhouse...

 

They would be a hell of a lot less non-biased than the friends and family of the shot teen......

And the SAGO's findings would be under further review (federal).....So they would look like idiots or even penalized in any found case of evidence suppression, etc....Just ask the Durham County (former) DA, Mike Nifong......

The 'witnesses' have absolutely no risk in saying that the deceased had no gun......None.

Really? A DA review (in this case, State) of a local jurisdiction police shooting---which is standard in EVERY jurisdiction in the nation---is the fox guarding the henhouse? The DA decides if prosecution is warranted......So who else can investigate a case for possible prosecution if not the DA?

And of COURSE there's going to be an internal review of the officer's actions......To check that the actions followed department policies....which is ALSO standard in every jurisdiction in the nation.

Not to mention possible federal review for civil rights violations, etc......

Do you actually have a proposal?.....Or are you happy to just sit back and say the system sucks?.....

 

Frankly, none of the above.

You've got me thinking tho...who SHOULD be investigating police shootings?

Having the police investigate themselves generally has predictable results.

I can't remember her name, but a woman was shot in Chandler, AZ once upon a time for trying to fill a prescription that had expired...shot in the back...by a cop.

Who underwent a greuling internal investigation.

...and is back on the streets "patrolling." EEEK.

 

da investigates which is non biased--i believe, they are just as happy to take a cop down vs. me...imo

internal investigations are good. they will interview every cop,trying to find out everything thats personal to the person under investigation. and it could come down to something like 2 patrolman having coffe together,and the one patrolman says i hate n****** 2 years ago.

now that statement has shed some light on the officers possible personal feelings towards african americans. which the da wont uncover. they just look at facts. kid was waiving a gun,cop told him to put it down,kid didnt so he got shot. those are the facts that the da will look at...and yeah obviously clear him.

so the da could clear him of charges,but an internal investigation may lead to disciplinary actions or nothing at all.

police jurisdictions/police departments in general dont want bad meat on there force....theres plenty of people willing to go to an academy waiting to get hired

 

...except the "fact" about the kid waiving a gun was disputed in the original article...

 

I'm surprised that this is a serious question. Police shootings are investigated like any other criminal investigation......Who would you have investigate crime scenes? The local Shriners?

Now smaller jurisdictions generally have outside police agencies investigate their shootings (i.e., the State Bureau of Investigation in NC investigates most police shootings in NC---with the exception of my department.....)....But it is still a police investigative agency.

You're making a LOT of assumptions here about some sort of back-scratching going on, and you're tossing away the possibility that maybe the outcome is predictable because the vast majority of police shootings are justified. It seems to be that you're saying that because most are found to be justified, it MUST be evidence of bias in the investigation.

Can you elaborate, or find a link? I know you put the blurb into a short paragraph, but the way you just illustrated the shooting.....A woman was at the Pharmacy minding her own business and trying to fill a prescription with an expired date, and some cop just walked into the pharmacy and shot her in the back for no reason whatsoever......

I've no doubt that 'justified' shootings exist which should have been found 'unjustified'......But again, elaborate please....

***As long as you have a civilian profession which HAS to intercede in events involving the worst in human nature (whether proactively, or through a call for help in 911), You are going to have violent conflict and deaths. No way around it. We can't avoid dangerous persons and situations, nor should we, and unless society just wants to surrender civilization to the barbarians, this will continue.

 

I've been trying to find a link for the last hour or so...no luck...I can't remember her name.

Essentially, a woman tried to fill an expired scrip for something good...the police were called...she attempted to drive off...the cop in question felt that his life was in danger, and opened fire.

The fact that the woman was inside her car, driving AWAY from the officer did not go unnoticed...he shot her in the back.

You've got a valid point, Steve.

That doesn't mean that police shootings should go unquestioned tho.

I'm referring to being questioned by someone OTHER than the police...

 

Not the best one, but here's what I've found...

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/24683

http://www.phoenixcopwatch.org/lovelacestatement.html

 

Lovelace testified at Maricopa County Superior Court in Mesa that he feared for his life as he saw Nelson’s leftfront tire turning toward him, so he fired one shot from his 9 mm semiautomatic handgun. Prosecutors said the shooting was unjustified because three witnesses testified he chased Nelson before firing and the bullet traveled from back to front

Lovelace on regret, reaction, redemption | Daniel Lovelace: Police Officer on Trial | eastvalleytribune.com

 

On the face of it, it doesn't sound like a justified shooting.......

I'll have to read the links later.

 

Sorry. I found an interesting article about Javon Dawson too

St. Petersburg police murder another African teen!

 

disputed becauseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.....there having a problem with witnesses coming forward......so if ya dont come forward.....theres really no dispute.......no option other than to give justification to use lethal force