I accept that she needs to and must be held accountable for her actions. That doesnt mean we cannot also consider the context.
She absolutely killed a man, and is going to be punished. I'm less certain that I think life in prison is a justifiable sentence for her (I wont comment on Manslaughter vs Murder here. Dont know nearly enough about the case to argue one way or the other).
I think in some ways it's deeply unfortunate that she was a police officer. I say that because I do believe there's a segment of the country that wants the absolute maximum penalty because of this, and another segment of the country that wants her to be exonerated for that same reason.
In my opinion - her profession isnt a particularly good reason to judge her.
Apparently in Texas, manslaughter requires a reckless action that results in death. Guyger wasn’t charged with manslaughter because she used a deadly weapon on a person knowing the result could be death.
I think her being a cop has everything to do with it. #1, she used her service weapon. #2, her defense was the same "mindset" defense that cops use all the time at trial. #3, law enforcement went out of their way to help her, from the 3 days it took for an arrest to their statements pre-trial.
In the end, my suspicion is that the jury make-up is the only reason she wasn't acquited or gifted a hung jury. It was mostly women and people of color.
Like it or not, this trial was not taking place in a vacuum. It was taking place in a time in society where we have had example after example of extrajudicial killing by police officers going unpunished. The circumstances of this case were so cut and dry that anything less than a conviction would be telling African-Americans their right to live is so conditional that it even extends to people walking into your own home and killing you out of the blue with no repercussions.
Like it or not, this trial was not taking place in a vacuum. It was taking place in a time in society where we have had example after example of extrajudicial killing by police officers going unpunished. The circumstances of this case were so cut and dry that anything less than a conviction would be telling African-Americans their right to live is so conditional that it even extends to people walking into your own home and killing you out of the blue with no repercussions.
Strawman. No one here is arguing that she shouldnt have been convicted. Some think it should be manslaughter, and I am of the opinion that it shouldnt be a life sentence.
Context is always important, but it cuts both ways. Judging her more harshly because of the way police officers have been let off is no better than the police officers who are let off and shouldnt be.
There's a reason Justice is supposed to wear a blindfold.
While Mike Pompeo is willing to ignore Congressional subpoenas, it appears the Inspector General of the State Department is not. They aren't steering the ship anymore:
Essentially, Pompeo has been trying to strong-arm all State Department employees into not cooperating. This is a mutiny, and one that is beyond justified. Keep in mind, this is after Pompeo not only lied about knowing about the call, but it was revealed days later he was LISTENING to it as it happened. This cover-up envelopes the entire hierarchy of the Executive Branch. It's unprecedented.
This is fake news. Apparently opinion pieces and fiction are news now.
Sarah Jeong ( human filth ) is the latest garbage to be taken out by the NY Times.
Can you explain or at least point to where this story has been discredited?
Has someone like Kirstjen Nielsen come forward and said the conversations portrayed in the article never happened?
Or is it "fake" because of the anonymity that was given to the "more than a dozen White House and administration sources" because we all know the president would never attack or wish harm on anyone who ever speaks negatively about him so they should be open and transparent of who they are.
This is fake news. Apparently opinion pieces and fiction are news now.
Sarah Jeong ( human filth ) is the latest garbage to be taken out by the NY Times.
Can you explain or at least point to where this story has been discredited?
Has someone like Kirstjen Nielsen come forward and said the conversations portrayed in the article never happened?
Or is it "fake" because of the anonymity that was given to the "more than a dozen White House and administration sources" because we all know the president would never attack or wish harm on anyone who ever speaks negatively about him so they should be open and transparent of who they are.
I do not chase twitter blue check marks, neither should you or anyone else.
I do not chase twitter blue check marks, neither should you or anyone else.
That doesnt make it "fake news". Unverified, perhaps. But not fake news.
The Times verified it before publishing it. The times is millions of times more reliable than the President. SAD.
Anyway, here's some real news based on facts and figures. Thanks directly to the Trump tax scam and Republican Agenda for the elites. The Republican de-regulation spree allows extremes of predatory capitalism and we get results like these. We have the US Income Inequality at the worst level it has been in 50 years https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHDLlkJ2B8E
It's ex-White House officials who were in on the meetings. I'd think people would be more concerned that there is a President of the United States who is a paraody of Dr. Evil, and not the other way around.
Let's break it down: alligators (presumably to eat migrants), snakes (to posion them), guns (to just kill them outright) and guns again (when told it's probably not the best idea to kill them, he suggests crippling them instead). Frankly, anyone who was in that meeting and didn't immediately walk outside and tell any press representatives they could find "this guy is f*****g nuts and I'm not spending another moment in this White House" is also pretty damn pathetic. What's worse is that 40% of the country thinks this is PEACHY. And I'm so tired of this "trolling" excuse. He's a 70-year old man. Normal people grow out of this kind of junvenille cruelty by their mid-teens.
The link is to a NY Times article, not some random twitter musings of an individual. The story refers to alleged behavior taking place at one particular meeting and names multiple people who attended the meeting. The story also refers to events that actually happened (such as dismissal of Nielsen, introduction of increased regulation on migrants and shifting of funding for the wall) and puts those in context. It also refers to an on the record interview with the paper where Trump made statements consistent with this story.
None of the above suggests this is fake news. The only doubt would be whether the language suggested to have been used by Trump has been exaggerated. Given his public statements I would be surprised if that is the case. If it is then I would expect Trump to sue, but I would lay good odds that won't happen. Trump frequently threatens to sue people, but very rarely does so - a court of law where everyone is expected to tell the actual truth (and subject to punishment if it's found that they have not) is far less favorable territory to him than the 'alternative truths' he can post on social media.
This is fake news. Apparently opinion pieces and fiction are news now.
Sarah Jeong ( human filth ) is the latest garbage to be taken out by the NY Times.
Can you explain or at least point to where this story has been discredited?
Has someone like Kirstjen Nielsen come forward and said the conversations portrayed in the article never happened?
Or is it "fake" because of the anonymity that was given to the "more than a dozen White House and administration sources" because we all know the president would never attack or wish harm on anyone who ever speaks negatively about him so they should be open and transparent of who they are.
I do not chase twitter blue check marks, neither should you or anyone else.
The most important person to be skeptical of is yourself, because you're the one best equipped to fool yourself. There is a rich history of people slamming legit, trying to be objective journalists. Not a history I think you want to be part of.
Like it or not, this trial was not taking place in a vacuum. It was taking place in a time in society where we have had example after example of extrajudicial killing by police officers going unpunished. The circumstances of this case were so cut and dry that anything less than a conviction would be telling African-Americans their right to live is so conditional that it even extends to people walking into your own home and killing you out of the blue with no repercussions.
Strawman. No one here is arguing that she shouldnt have been convicted. Some think it should be manslaughter, and I am of the opinion that it shouldnt be a life sentence.
Context is always important, but it cuts both ways. Judging her more harshly because of the way police officers have been let off is no better than the police officers who are let off and shouldnt be.
There's a reason Justice is supposed to wear a blindfold.
It's good to police the police more harshly than civilians. You see, the police are issued lethal weapons and while their line of work can be hazardous, it's considerably less so than, say, garbage collection. We shouldn't keep police on a pedestal, we should hold them accountable as much as we can. And when they kill someone, that killing should be rigorously investigated and tried in court. Unfettered or weakly fettered police power is actually bad and we should be extremely against it as private citizens.
Also, somewhat relevant: Sarah Jeong isn't human garbage. The only genuinely bad thing she's done involved Naomi Wu and releasing information Naomi specifically asked not to be released.
Like it or not, this trial was not taking place in a vacuum. It was taking place in a time in society where we have had example after example of extrajudicial killing by police officers going unpunished. The circumstances of this case were so cut and dry that anything less than a conviction would be telling African-Americans their right to live is so conditional that it even extends to people walking into your own home and killing you out of the blue with no repercussions.
Strawman. No one here is arguing that she shouldnt have been convicted. Some think it should be manslaughter, and I am of the opinion that it shouldnt be a life sentence.
Context is always important, but it cuts both ways. Judging her more harshly because of the way police officers have been let off is no better than the police officers who are let off and shouldnt be.
There's a reason Justice is supposed to wear a blindfold.
It's good to police the police more harshly than civilians. You see, the police are issued lethal weapons and while their line of work can be hazardous, it's considerably less so than, say, garbage collection. We shouldn't keep police on a pedestal, we should hold them accountable as much as we can. And when they kill someone, that killing should be rigorously investigated and tried in court. Unfettered or weakly fettered police power is actually bad and we should be extremely against it as private citizens.
Also, somewhat relevant: Sarah Jeong isn't human garbage. The only genuinely bad thing she's done involved Naomi Wu and releasing information Naomi specifically asked not to be released.
I'm going to disagree here pretty strongly on the police thing. It's one thing to be quicker to fire a police officer than a garbage collector. That's a fine standard to uphold, imo. It's a different thing to use the criminal justice system differently for a cop. Handing down sentences to individuals in order to correct some political wrong in the society is an abuse of the justice system. Your job should not be a factor in your incarceration.
Like it or not, this trial was not taking place in a vacuum. It was taking place in a time in society where we have had example after example of extrajudicial killing by police officers going unpunished. The circumstances of this case were so cut and dry that anything less than a conviction would be telling African-Americans their right to live is so conditional that it even extends to people walking into your own home and killing you out of the blue with no repercussions.
Strawman. No one here is arguing that she shouldnt have been convicted. Some think it should be manslaughter, and I am of the opinion that it shouldnt be a life sentence.
Context is always important, but it cuts both ways. Judging her more harshly because of the way police officers have been let off is no better than the police officers who are let off and shouldnt be.
There's a reason Justice is supposed to wear a blindfold.
It's good to police the police more harshly than civilians. You see, the police are issued lethal weapons and while their line of work can be hazardous, it's considerably less so than, say, garbage collection. We shouldn't keep police on a pedestal, we should hold them accountable as much as we can. And when they kill someone, that killing should be rigorously investigated and tried in court. Unfettered or weakly fettered police power is actually bad and we should be extremely against it as private citizens.
Also, somewhat relevant: Sarah Jeong isn't human garbage. The only genuinely bad thing she's done involved Naomi Wu and releasing information Naomi specifically asked not to be released.
I'm going to disagree here pretty strongly on the police thing. It's one thing to be quicker to fire a police officer than a garbage collector. That's a fine standard to uphold, imo. It's a different thing to use the criminal justice system differently for a cop. Handing down sentences to individuals in order to correct some political wrong in the society is an abuse of the justice system. Your job should not be a factor in your incarceration.
I'm sorry, but currently police routinely commit extrajudicial executions against Black people, indigenous people, disabled people, and just about anyone (this last number is the largest). If your job is to maintain public safety and you are a threat to public safely, the law needs to come down hard on you. Police absolutely should be held to higher standards than other citizens. This is especially true since the vast majority of extrajudicial killings go unremarked, and the vast majority of police officers who come within spitting distance of an indictment at best get a slap on the wrist. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I'm sorry, but currently police routinely commit extrajudicial executions against Black people, indigenous people, disabled people, and just about anyone (this last number is the largest). If your job is to maintain public safety and you are a threat to public safely, the law needs to come down hard on you. Police absolutely should be held to higher standards than other citizens. This is especially true since the vast majority of extrajudicial killings go unremarked, and the vast majority of police officers who come within spitting distance of an indictment at best get a slap on the wrist.
She wasn’t on trial for any of this. She committed a crime, while off duty, and was found guilty of it.
Her profession should not have played any role in it just like the ethnicity of an individual shouldn’t play a role in it.
This is fake news. Apparently opinion pieces and fiction are news now.
Sarah Jeong ( human filth ) is the latest garbage to be taken out by the NY Times.
Can you explain or at least point to where this story has been discredited?
Has someone like Kirstjen Nielsen come forward and said the conversations portrayed in the article never happened?
Or is it "fake" because of the anonymity that was given to the "more than a dozen White House and administration sources" because we all know the president would never attack or wish harm on anyone who ever speaks negatively about him so they should be open and transparent of who they are.
I do not chase twitter blue check marks, neither should you or anyone else.
What does having a blue check mark have anything to do with the linked story?
Like it or not, this trial was not taking place in a vacuum. It was taking place in a time in society where we have had example after example of extrajudicial killing by police officers going unpunished. The circumstances of this case were so cut and dry that anything less than a conviction would be telling African-Americans their right to live is so conditional that it even extends to people walking into your own home and killing you out of the blue with no repercussions.
Strawman. No one here is arguing that she shouldnt have been convicted. Some think it should be manslaughter, and I am of the opinion that it shouldnt be a life sentence.
Context is always important, but it cuts both ways. Judging her more harshly because of the way police officers have been let off is no better than the police officers who are let off and shouldnt be.
There's a reason Justice is supposed to wear a blindfold.
It's good to police the police more harshly than civilians. You see, the police are issued lethal weapons and while their line of work can be hazardous, it's considerably less so than, say, garbage collection. We shouldn't keep police on a pedestal, we should hold them accountable as much as we can. And when they kill someone, that killing should be rigorously investigated and tried in court. Unfettered or weakly fettered police power is actually bad and we should be extremely against it as private citizens.
Also, somewhat relevant: Sarah Jeong isn't human garbage. The only genuinely bad thing she's done involved Naomi Wu and releasing information Naomi specifically asked not to be released.
I'm going to disagree here pretty strongly on the police thing. It's one thing to be quicker to fire a police officer than a garbage collector. That's a fine standard to uphold, imo. It's a different thing to use the criminal justice system differently for a cop. Handing down sentences to individuals in order to correct some political wrong in the society is an abuse of the justice system. Your job should not be a factor in your incarceration.
I'm sorry, but currently police routinely commit extrajudicial executions against Black people, indigenous people, disabled people, and just about anyone (this last number is the largest). If your job is to maintain public safety and you are a threat to public safely, the law needs to come down hard on you. Police absolutely should be held to higher standards than other citizens. This is especially true since the vast majority of extrajudicial killings go unremarked, and the vast majority of police officers who come within spitting distance of an indictment at best get a slap on the wrist. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I'm sorry, but currently police routinely commit extrajudicial executions against Black people, indigenous people, disabled people, and just about anyone (this last number is the largest). If your job is to maintain public safety and you are a threat to public safely, the law needs to come down hard on you. Police absolutely should be held to higher standards than other citizens. This is especially true since the vast majority of extrajudicial killings go unremarked, and the vast majority of police officers who come within spitting distance of an indictment at best get a slap on the wrist.
She wasn’t on trial for any of this. She committed a crime, while off duty, and was found guilty of it.
Her profession should not have played any role in it just like the ethnicity of an individual shouldn’t play a role in it.
The off duty part of this is important, so I sympathize with this sentiment. But I disagree for two reasons where I think her profession still matters and needs to be taken into account:
She used her service weapon, a weapon that she was issues and is licensed to use because of her profession. By using it she make her job part of the situation.
Given that she is a trained professional, the decision to go in alone & without backup or confirming the situation was even worse. She should have known better, which can't be said about a panicked random person.
To give an analogy for the 2nd point: usually, you can't be held to account if you try to help an injured person but make the situation worse by mistake & ignorance. OTH if you are a medical doctor who has the training to avoid the same mistake, you should be called to account.
EDIT:
Also, I just wanted to add that certain professions serving the state/community require high ethical standards which do not stop when they go off work. Police officers, politicians, attorneys are all examples. So it is reasonable to me that a violations of these standards should carry a harsher penalty.
I'm sorry, but currently police routinely commit extrajudicial executions against Black people, indigenous people, disabled people, and just about anyone (this last number is the largest). If your job is to maintain public safety and you are a threat to public safely, the law needs to come down hard on you. Police absolutely should be held to higher standards than other citizens. This is especially true since the vast majority of extrajudicial killings go unremarked, and the vast majority of police officers who come within spitting distance of an indictment at best get a slap on the wrist.
She wasn’t on trial for any of this. She committed a crime, while off duty, and was found guilty of it.
Her profession should not have played any role in it just like the ethnicity of an individual shouldn’t play a role in it.
The off duty part of this is important, so I sympathize with this sentiment. But I disagree for two reasons where I think her profession still matters and needs to be taken into account:
She used her service weapon, a weapon that she was issues and is licensed to use because of her profession. By using it she make her job part of the situation.
Given that she is a trained professional, the decision to go in alone & without backup or confirming the situation was even worse. She should have known better, which can't be said about a panicked random person.
To give an analogy for the 2nd point: usually, you can't be held to account if you try to help an injured person but make the situation worse by mistake & ignorance. OTH if you are a medical doctor who has the training to avoid the same mistake, you should be called to account.
EDIT:
Also, I just wanted to add that certain professions serving the state/community require high ethical standards which do not stop when they go off work. Police officers, politicians, attorneys are all examples. So it is reasonable to me that a violations of these standards should carry a harsher penalty.
I agree, with your two points, but I was more talking about verdict and sentence.
If anyone else would have been found guilty of manslaughter and not murder than manslaughter should have been the verdict. @bleusteel enlightened me however on the difference between man slaughter and murder in Texas, and now agree the right verdict was given out.
Higher ethical standards deal with that person keeping their job and not being found guilty of a crime.
An 12 yo who used an unregistred firearm to defend himself from an house invasor of 27 years old "According to the prosecutor, the girl acted with too much self-defense, without giving the victim a chance of defense, and will be responsible for the crime of attempted murder, illegal possession of a weapon and omission of help, as she fled the scene without helping the victim. and can face up to 3 years in prison as he is under 18.
"
Any arguments that this officer should have gotten manslaughter are complete and utter garbage. When you point a lethal weapon at somebady, you shoot them with said weapon, and they die, you cannot claim that it was unintentional. You KNEW what the gun was capable of, you INTENTIINALLY pulled the trigger. Murder is the only accurate description of it.
I'm sorry, but currently police routinely commit extrajudicial executions against Black people, indigenous people, disabled people, and just about anyone (this last number is the largest). If your job is to maintain public safety and you are a threat to public safely, the law needs to come down hard on you. Police absolutely should be held to higher standards than other citizens. This is especially true since the vast majority of extrajudicial killings go unremarked, and the vast majority of police officers who come within spitting distance of an indictment at best get a slap on the wrist.
She wasn’t on trial for any of this. She committed a crime, while off duty, and was found guilty of it.
Her profession should not have played any role in it just like the ethnicity of an individual shouldn’t play a role in it.
Yeah, she was off-duty. But a core part of her defense was ALSO directly related to her work, which was that she was confused because she had just worked a 12+ hour shift (which I'm sure everyone here has done at one time or another and managed to get home to the right apartment without killing someone. The point is, while she didn't kill him in her capacity as a police officer, her defense was loaded with the same type of sob stories we see in every one of these cops who kill situations. She feared for her life, she has a stressful job, she was tired blah blah blah blah. Moreover, her INSTINCTS to shoot first and ask questions later was almost certainly instilled directly because of her police training. So I think it's a hell of a stretch to pretend her being a cop didn't have anything to do with what happened.
Another reason the conviction happened is the widely-known detail that Botham Jean was eating ice cream on his coach when it happened. This humanized him when the standard playbook in these cases is for law enforcement to dehumanize the victim, almost always by leaking it to the press that they had been "smoking marijuana", the implicit point of which is to say "see, just another black druggie, no big loss". I believe they even tried that in this case (as if I'd trust officers not to plant it after the fact). It didn't work this time because the other side of the story was too strong viscerally:
The cops went to the mattresses for her just like they do with everyone else. It's a playbook as old as it is predictable. To say they get to play the cop card and all the institutional power that brings to bear yet the other side isn't allowed to take that into account is......well, it's pretty typical actually. Not sure why I would be surprised. The only difference here is the jury didn't buy into the usual bullshit. Maybe because they've seen the same movie as many times as I have.
When are we all going to vote for governments that cut/end funding to Saudi Arabia and Israel. We are all being fooled with false narratives to keep us off the real issues.
Now the Sultan of Arabia is trying to straight out blackmail all us serfs.
Chuck Schumer speaks at AIPAC conferences, as do many other prominent figures in both parties, since they are one of the biggest lobbyists. It's very safe to say AIPAC support is bipartisan. You can really see how bad the pandering gets when it is foreign countries bribing politicians.
Money can't always buy votes the way it used to, but it buys policy, which is worse.
Comments
She absolutely killed a man, and is going to be punished. I'm less certain that I think life in prison is a justifiable sentence for her (I wont comment on Manslaughter vs Murder here. Dont know nearly enough about the case to argue one way or the other).
I think in some ways it's deeply unfortunate that she was a police officer. I say that because I do believe there's a segment of the country that wants the absolute maximum penalty because of this, and another segment of the country that wants her to be exonerated for that same reason.
In my opinion - her profession isnt a particularly good reason to judge her.
In the end, my suspicion is that the jury make-up is the only reason she wasn't acquited or gifted a hung jury. It was mostly women and people of color.
Like it or not, this trial was not taking place in a vacuum. It was taking place in a time in society where we have had example after example of extrajudicial killing by police officers going unpunished. The circumstances of this case were so cut and dry that anything less than a conviction would be telling African-Americans their right to live is so conditional that it even extends to people walking into your own home and killing you out of the blue with no repercussions.
Strawman. No one here is arguing that she shouldnt have been convicted. Some think it should be manslaughter, and I am of the opinion that it shouldnt be a life sentence.
Context is always important, but it cuts both ways. Judging her more harshly because of the way police officers have been let off is no better than the police officers who are let off and shouldnt be.
There's a reason Justice is supposed to wear a blindfold.
Essentially, Pompeo has been trying to strong-arm all State Department employees into not cooperating. This is a mutiny, and one that is beyond justified. Keep in mind, this is after Pompeo not only lied about knowing about the call, but it was revealed days later he was LISTENING to it as it happened. This cover-up envelopes the entire hierarchy of the Executive Branch. It's unprecedented.
This is fake news. Apparently opinion pieces and fiction are news now.
Sarah Jeong ( human filth ) is the latest garbage to be taken out by the NY Times.
Can you explain or at least point to where this story has been discredited?
Has someone like Kirstjen Nielsen come forward and said the conversations portrayed in the article never happened?
Or is it "fake" because of the anonymity that was given to the "more than a dozen White House and administration sources" because we all know the president would never attack or wish harm on anyone who ever speaks negatively about him so they should be open and transparent of who they are.
I do not chase twitter blue check marks, neither should you or anyone else.
That doesnt make it "fake news". Unverified, perhaps. But not fake news.
The Times verified it before publishing it. The times is millions of times more reliable than the President. SAD.
Anyway, here's some real news based on facts and figures. Thanks directly to the Trump tax scam and Republican Agenda for the elites. The Republican de-regulation spree allows extremes of predatory capitalism and we get results like these. We have the US Income Inequality at the worst level it has been in 50 years
Let's break it down: alligators (presumably to eat migrants), snakes (to posion them), guns (to just kill them outright) and guns again (when told it's probably not the best idea to kill them, he suggests crippling them instead). Frankly, anyone who was in that meeting and didn't immediately walk outside and tell any press representatives they could find "this guy is f*****g nuts and I'm not spending another moment in this White House" is also pretty damn pathetic. What's worse is that 40% of the country thinks this is PEACHY. And I'm so tired of this "trolling" excuse. He's a 70-year old man. Normal people grow out of this kind of junvenille cruelty by their mid-teens.
The link is to a NY Times article, not some random twitter musings of an individual. The story refers to alleged behavior taking place at one particular meeting and names multiple people who attended the meeting. The story also refers to events that actually happened (such as dismissal of Nielsen, introduction of increased regulation on migrants and shifting of funding for the wall) and puts those in context. It also refers to an on the record interview with the paper where Trump made statements consistent with this story.
None of the above suggests this is fake news. The only doubt would be whether the language suggested to have been used by Trump has been exaggerated. Given his public statements I would be surprised if that is the case. If it is then I would expect Trump to sue, but I would lay good odds that won't happen. Trump frequently threatens to sue people, but very rarely does so - a court of law where everyone is expected to tell the actual truth (and subject to punishment if it's found that they have not) is far less favorable territory to him than the 'alternative truths' he can post on social media.
The most important person to be skeptical of is yourself, because you're the one best equipped to fool yourself. There is a rich history of people slamming legit, trying to be objective journalists. Not a history I think you want to be part of.
It's good to police the police more harshly than civilians. You see, the police are issued lethal weapons and while their line of work can be hazardous, it's considerably less so than, say, garbage collection. We shouldn't keep police on a pedestal, we should hold them accountable as much as we can. And when they kill someone, that killing should be rigorously investigated and tried in court. Unfettered or weakly fettered police power is actually bad and we should be extremely against it as private citizens.
Also, somewhat relevant: Sarah Jeong isn't human garbage. The only genuinely bad thing she's done involved Naomi Wu and releasing information Naomi specifically asked not to be released.
I'm going to disagree here pretty strongly on the police thing. It's one thing to be quicker to fire a police officer than a garbage collector. That's a fine standard to uphold, imo. It's a different thing to use the criminal justice system differently for a cop. Handing down sentences to individuals in order to correct some political wrong in the society is an abuse of the justice system. Your job should not be a factor in your incarceration.
I'm sorry, but currently police routinely commit extrajudicial executions against Black people, indigenous people, disabled people, and just about anyone (this last number is the largest). If your job is to maintain public safety and you are a threat to public safely, the law needs to come down hard on you. Police absolutely should be held to higher standards than other citizens. This is especially true since the vast majority of extrajudicial killings go unremarked, and the vast majority of police officers who come within spitting distance of an indictment at best get a slap on the wrist. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Just to be clear, I do not hold police in any esteem whatsoever. They're not heroes, they're not really risking their lives to the extent that is claimed, and police officers are more likely to be domestic abusers.
She wasn’t on trial for any of this. She committed a crime, while off duty, and was found guilty of it.
Her profession should not have played any role in it just like the ethnicity of an individual shouldn’t play a role in it.
What does having a blue check mark have anything to do with the linked story?
Things that other police have done are not relevant to the question of what this individual deserves.
The off duty part of this is important, so I sympathize with this sentiment. But I disagree for two reasons where I think her profession still matters and needs to be taken into account:
To give an analogy for the 2nd point: usually, you can't be held to account if you try to help an injured person but make the situation worse by mistake & ignorance. OTH if you are a medical doctor who has the training to avoid the same mistake, you should be called to account.
EDIT:
Also, I just wanted to add that certain professions serving the state/community require high ethical standards which do not stop when they go off work. Police officers, politicians, attorneys are all examples. So it is reasonable to me that a violations of these standards should carry a harsher penalty.
I agree, with your two points, but I was more talking about verdict and sentence.
If anyone else would have been found guilty of manslaughter and not murder than manslaughter should have been the verdict. @bleusteel enlightened me however on the difference between man slaughter and murder in Texas, and now agree the right verdict was given out.
Higher ethical standards deal with that person keeping their job and not being found guilty of a crime.
"
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.painelcentral.com/2019/10/promotoria-jovem-garimpeiro-fazenda.html
That is the modern state in nutshell No way that this girl would be persecuted during imperial times...
Yeah, she was off-duty. But a core part of her defense was ALSO directly related to her work, which was that she was confused because she had just worked a 12+ hour shift (which I'm sure everyone here has done at one time or another and managed to get home to the right apartment without killing someone. The point is, while she didn't kill him in her capacity as a police officer, her defense was loaded with the same type of sob stories we see in every one of these cops who kill situations. She feared for her life, she has a stressful job, she was tired blah blah blah blah. Moreover, her INSTINCTS to shoot first and ask questions later was almost certainly instilled directly because of her police training. So I think it's a hell of a stretch to pretend her being a cop didn't have anything to do with what happened.
Another reason the conviction happened is the widely-known detail that Botham Jean was eating ice cream on his coach when it happened. This humanized him when the standard playbook in these cases is for law enforcement to dehumanize the victim, almost always by leaking it to the press that they had been "smoking marijuana", the implicit point of which is to say "see, just another black druggie, no big loss". I believe they even tried that in this case (as if I'd trust officers not to plant it after the fact). It didn't work this time because the other side of the story was too strong viscerally:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/09/14/dallas-police-shooting-search-for-marijuana-in-victims-home-was-attempt-to-smear-him-attorneys-say/
The cops went to the mattresses for her just like they do with everyone else. It's a playbook as old as it is predictable. To say they get to play the cop card and all the institutional power that brings to bear yet the other side isn't allowed to take that into account is......well, it's pretty typical actually. Not sure why I would be surprised. The only difference here is the jury didn't buy into the usual bullshit. Maybe because they've seen the same movie as many times as I have.
Now the Sultan of Arabia is trying to straight out blackmail all us serfs.
Saudi Arabia Owns the 45th Floor of Trump Tower, and It Shows
https://truthout.org/articles/saudi-arabia-owns-the-45th-floor-of-trump-tower-and-it-shows/
I'm with you on this one.
LoL, if you think that only Republicans are fond of BiBi then I have some land in Mecca to sell you.
Money can't always buy votes the way it used to, but it buys policy, which is worse.