Cleveland Incident

[thetragichippy]

It could be seen vice versa 

 

I think history gives you a possible pattern on both sides.

[tvc184]

I think history gives you a possible pattern on both sides.

 

Maybe... but does it really matter? What does a pattern prove?

 

There is a reason that you can't bring up prior history in a criminal trial. Because you were speeding several times in the past and paid for citations (admission of guilt) so I can give you a speeding ticket today solely on history. If a guy is a convicted felon that doesn't mean an officer can shoot him without further cause because of prior history shows that he had a violent demeanor. An officer that was punished internally doesn't mean that he can't lawfully use force to defend himself. 

 

What matters is what happened at the moment in question. Prior history might tend to show cause for people looking for a "reason" that something happened but it doesn't mean that a person is always right or wrong. That is also a reason that criminal charges do not require a "motive". The only issue is that the crime was committed and why is not an issue except at the punishment phase of a trial after guilt is established.  

 

What about from the opposing viewpoint? Most often brought up is bad history but if an officer or anyone else shoots someone and he has no history, does that then mean that he is right? I have 31 years in law enforcement and haven't had any disciplinary suspensions for any cause much less use of force. Does that mean that if I kill someone that is a two time convicted violent felon that I am automatically right because I have a "good history" and he has a "bad" one?

 

That is why I could care less what Trayvon Martin had for a history. What I cared about was proof that Zimmerman killed him without cause. There was none. 

 

Whether this officer had a checkered past or not does not mean that he is guilty of anything. What if the kid was a habitual criminal even at that young age and was accused of several crimes and convicted in juvenile court? Is that evidence that the officer is justified? 

 

About the only thing I care about in the area of history is a possible understanding of the person's thought process because we like to speculate on those kinds of things. In my opinion it is meaningless at the moment in question however it might give us that "ahhhh...." moment later. 

 

Ahhhhh... THAT'S why he did that crime. 

 

EDIT: "haven't had any disciplinary suspensions"

[thetragichippy]

Good points.....

 

as always

[Chester86]

Ol' BG is not fond of the police.

[Mr. Buddy Garrity]

Ol' BG is not fond of the police.

Care to explain in detail on this assumption?