Discussion»Questions»Politics» I always KNEW that if the state failed to convict the cop who shot Walter Scott in the back 8 times, the Feds would CONVICT him.
I think the officer should be convicted..... unless there is something else on the video that we have not seen (can't imagine what it could be) We do have double jeopardy laws......so how could you know the feds would convict if the state did not? I know it is not the case here because it was a hung jury.
Pursuant to federal law, it's NOT double jeopardy because the charges are different.. The state charges murder, and the feds charge a violation of civil rights.. Personally, I think that IS double jeopardy, in that, it results from the same event. But, the feds disagree with me..
Of course, I don't know if the feds would convict him, but I THINK they would.. They convicted the cops who beat Rodney King when the state failed to do so..
excon
This post was edited by excon at December 11, 2016 9:16 AM MST
I did not know that. I agree if they result from the same incident it should be double jeopardy. I have seen where a friend got in a wreck (drunk driving) The passengers died. They only charged for one count. And the driver was told that if the verdict was not guilty....they would turn around and then charge the other count for the second passenger who died. I thought that was wrong. Should have to charge for everything the first time. It didn't come to that the verdict was guilty.
Nope. I had to deal with this over a boating violation ticket I got from the USCG. The State ruled in my favor. Yet months later I got a letter about either pleading guilty or showing up to JAG court in Maryland I think they wanted me to go.( Yeah, when you are charged by the USCG, you go before military court. Even as civilian). I replied that I was found not guilty by the state and this is double jeopardy. By handing me over to the local courts and having me charged there. I found out it isn't the case. The State and the Federal can both charge you and it's not double jeopardy. It's BS, but it only counts when the same court tries you twice.
You should have seen the fines the USCG wanted to impose on me. I was informed by the local judge, two lawyers, and a Border Patrol officer to just ignore it since there was not anything they could do to force me to pay it. So I did and it turned out that they were all correct. Not unless I want to get my Captain's License.
The possible fines were in the tens of thousands of dollars. One being something like $4000 for an anchor light that shorted out while under way. Coast Guard is great don't get me wrong, just don't get a ticket from them.
I don't believe it's terribly complicated most of the time. Training is simply inadequate. It's that simple.
I have a certain degree of sympathy for people placed in these positions. They aren't really capable, and have probably got a very skewed idea of reality via news media they've taken for granted all their lives.
Really, the question isn't, 'Why does this kind of thing happen?', but 'Why doesn't it happen more?'. Currently, it seems that massively over-equipping has taken the place of training for many forces, and I do not exclude those outside the US.
I agree with all that. I see a lot of being the result of having poorly trained officers being put in a situation of enforcing too many misguided laws trying to fight wars that can't be won.
Naturally it does not legitimise their actions, but it does provide some perspective. I don't think there's any doubt that the US has a gun problem, and it's not just about numbers or them being in the 'right' hands. It also has a media news problem and has for a long time had institutions that seem to have a problem with non whites.
Proper, extensive training and winnowing would improve the situation hugely I think, but as always one will find a lot of people who will act horrified at the results of not paying for something say, when asked to put their hand in their pocket, that it's just too expensive.
Politics is like herding cats and I sometimes really do wonder if modern human societies, and many of the people in them, are worth the effort.
I'm not surprised. I've had dealings with the services before in fairly stressful but by no means threatening situations and the one thing I noticed that they do more than most is listen and assess.
If you think about it, if people are on the front line, they're doing that almost all the time, so for many it's second nature, even if they've only had mostly training.
I know full well that I'd hire almost any ex-squaddie for potentially stressful or violent jobs with little hesitation. I cannot say the same for all their officers, and certainly not for Mr Alexander. :)
Having read the full article, it seems that communication is one of the areas of training that needs to be improved mightily. The entire debacle and a dead man could possibly have been avoided had the information provided by the man's wife/girlfriend been emphasised rather than (seemingly) ignored by the dispatcher.
Far from firing the officer, I would look to the person whose job is to pass on relevant information and seems to have singularly failed to do so. That piece of incompetence seems to have cost one man his life and another his job.
my2cents 