You know when you turn on the TV and hear about a cop shooting and killing a civilian? Like at least once a week?
And you can be damn sure that in the next 24 hours you'll hear that the person who was killed had some sort of record, whether it be 12 drug charges or a silly misdemeanor from 2004?
How relevant do you think that is to the question at hand, which is, was that officer justified in shooting that civilian?
Obviously, what the civilian was doing at the time of the shooting is extremely relevant. But what about the years prior?
The reason I'm asking isn't just cause the media brings it up, its because people like my father think that a persons criminal record pretty much justifies their murder at the hands of law enforcement, regardless of the situation.
Now I don't have all the facts about Cleveland, and ***I DO NOT WANT TO OPEN DEBATE ABOUT IT OR FERGUSON OR BALTIMORE*** but from the info I have I believe that the officer should have at least gotten manslaughter (disagree if you want) but today my dad comes into the kitchen to tell me its okay that the officer got off because the couple "had a criminal past" and they were speeding and couldn't killed someone.
Unfortunately my dad isn't the only one to think this way. Many people even on here said maybe Eric Garner wouldn't have been killed if he hadn't been illegally selling cigarettes but WHAT THE SHIT?
Breaking the law ****DOES NOT**** give anyone the right to murder you, unless of course you're threatening another life.
What do you think?
If an unarmed man tomorrow gets shot and killed by a cop in your city and it was discovered that the officer used unnecessary force, would that young man's criminal past justify his death?
(I'm fully prepared to be called a fucking idiot by a lot of you. )
- criminal records are relevant to the questionVote A
- not relevantVote B
- I don't have an opinion because I don't care that every week a new person is slain by law enforcementVote C
Most Helpful Guy
Since criminal records are not relevant in court proceedings to determine guild or innocence (they are relevant to sentencing, however) I cannot see how they should be considered in cases where the Police reacted with deadly violence.
Besides, did the police know the record of the victims before they shot? I doubt it.
I think the Cleveland prosecutor is under serving his community by not bringing charges against all 13 officers involved. I mean, they killed two people because their car backfired. Where is the justification in that?1