What happens to police officers who are fired then go to prison?
You have posted a lot of falsehoods in your question. This was a road rage incident involving an off duty Officer who beat the student. The other convicted Officers were convicted of obstruction of justice type crimes, a fifth plead guilty, and a sixth was acquitted (found not guilty). This was not some big time crime spree by these Officers. It was a one time incident. There was no old man or pregnant woman...............get your facts straight. http://michiganmessenger.com/15691/appea... http://www.toledoonthemove.com/news/news... Once you have been convicted of crimes like this you are not going to get hired as a Police Officer again. The acquitted one probably either got his job back or will get hired somewhere else. EDIT: Getting thumbs down for pointing out the obvious.........nice.
How can a cop get away with killing innocent people in the US?
Generally, police officers "get away" with unjustified shootings because they are able to convince the investigating authorities that the shooting was justified.There have been cases where it has turned out that the incident was most positively unjustified, and that the investigators turned a blind eye to the evidence or that the department (or city) actually was complicit in "covering up" the facts of the incident.I cannot deny that this has historically been the case.... The recent Chicago area shooting was pretty obviously being stonewalled by the police department and the city since they stood to loose a very large settlement. (At least, that's the presumptive reasoning for such cover-ups).These things happen. But in most cases, police shootings are justified, and the public falls for rhetoric from the survivors (who were not there) or the survivors' attorneys, who are planning to sue. In a recent local case, a young man was shot while running from the site of a drug bust. He was found with a 9mm pistol, and drugs. The family swore that the young man had not been armed (they were not present at the shooting) and that he was not involved in the drug trade (even though he ran from an active "drug house".No one wants to believe that their child was involved in being a violent criminal....
Why aren't police allowed to beat up criminals?
For example if I was a cop and was arresting a criminal I knew did something horrible I'd intentionally slam is head on the top of the car while trying to get him in the back then shove him in. Or make the handcuffs so tight it rips their skin. Or if while handcuffing someone they insulted you or said "take off the handcuffs and see how tough you are" why can't police beat them up without the media making it seem bad? Isn't that what criminals deserve?
Why do Cops get away with Police Brutality and Murder?
Okay, we know right away that "Every case involving a cop as the defendant, they always get let off", they get found get very often. The cops who beat Rodnety King went to Federal Prison. the cop Ramos who beat up Kelly got fired. So, we know that your statement is an exageration of fact. BUT.......If we make believe that what you say is true, there could be a good reason for it. Rodney King was a POS criminal who fled from the cops in a high speed chase. When they caught him, he didn't cooperate, but he put a fight and got a whuuppin. Do you REALLY think that those of us who obey the law, live decent lives and pays taxes care if the cops tune up a scum bag who flees from them? The Thomas was guy was homeless schizophrenic who was nothing but a drain on society. Do you want crazy, dirty, dangerous schozos hanging around you? the people in my neighborhood don't, and that I why we pay for cops and prosecutors. In a way, you are right. the cops probably got carried away in both of those cases. But you don't see the cops walking into the Sunday school and beating the Sunday school teacher, do you? The cops have never beaten me, or any of my friends and neighbors. Maybe it is because decent people obey the law and don't back talk or fight with the cops if we get stopped.
Why do cops in the US end up shooting innocent people?
Individual officers are subject to commission of error. Of the millions of contacts, there are a few instances wherein mistakes are made, and fewer incidents of misfeasance. Other incidents are misrepresented, due to being subjected to interpretation by suspects and others with no expertise; and there are those individuals who are also susceptible to human error and bias (bias as evident in the question).An officer making an arrest or approaching a situation wherein there are articulable circumstances warranting it has the legal authority to do so with a drawn weapon. A civilian not confronting an intruder on their own property, is guilty of a criminal offense if they approach someone with a pointed weapon. The purpose of an officer doing so is to make it obvious that the logical reaction of the suspect is to surrender rather resist. See:https://www.quora.com/Why-isnt-p...Police use of excessive force is a constant concern, and a few officers get prosecuted: 54 police officers have faced criminal charges for fatally shooting someone while on duty in the past decade. However, there are factors that mitigate in favor of officers involved in such incidents; such as, an expectation of veracity on the part of the officer with regard to their perception of probable cause as to the necessity for use of force, coupled with the duty to act (which is not present for the public), assuming the officer can articulate the circumstances necessitating the decision to use that level of force, see:http://www.quora.com/Why-do-American-police-always-shoot-to-kill/answer/Dan-Robb-2https://www.quora.com/Why-is-sho...Dan Robb's answer to Why is shoot to kill so frequent in the US police force? Are police officers in the US punished appropriately if they wrongfully shoot and kill a person without sufficient reasoning, especially an unarmed victim?http://www.quora.com/Does-being-a-cop-make-you-less-compassionate-Why-or-why-not/answer/Dan-Robb-2http://www.quora.com/Where-are-the-boundaries-between-racial-age-and-gender-profiling-prejudice-and-prudence/answer/Dan-Robb-2https://www.quora.com/Does-Georg...http://www.quora.com/What-do-police-officers-think-about-how-the-police-department-in-Ferguson-MO-is-handling-the-aftermath-of-the-Brown-shooting/answer/Dan-Robb-2http://www.quora.com/In-light-of-police-brutalities-in-San-Francisco-I-am-terrified-of-calling-911-for-help-Or-interacting-with-the-police-for-my-own-safety-Am-I-over-reacting/answer/Dan-Robb-2
Why do cops get away with everything?
I know that they do a lot for us and that they protect us and put their lives on the line. I am not debating that. No matter how much you respect cops, you CANNOT deny that their are lots of bad apples out there. They mistreat people, they cuss at people, they use excessive force when arresting people (they use the term "resisting arrest" EXTREMELY loosely), and they even shoot people who are innocent. How can you say that they are there to protect us when they do all this? They protect people by tackling them and shooting them? THAT MAKES NO SENSE! I understand that people make mistakes, but these mistakes need to be punished to the same extent that anyone else would be. If a cop shoots and kills someone they should be PUT TO DEATH like anyone else would be. If they attempt to kill someone but fail they should be beaten up and thrown in prison for the rest of their lives. If they tackle someone unless it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, they should serve 10 years in prison and not be allowed to get a job with authority when they get out. They deserve no better treatment than ordinary citizens. Yes, they do a lot for us, but I am an engineer. I do a lot for people too. Does that mean I should get away with murder? does it? I do a lot more for people than any idiot cop does. Why are police officers never punished they way they should be?
How did the police in the Rodney King incident get acquitted?
They were charged both by the California and by the US government. They were acquitted of the state charges. Two of the officers were convicted of the US charges. The convicted officers spent more than two years in prison.The racial makeup of the jury is often given as the reason for the acquittal in state court.. That might have been a factor, but the prosecutor's job is to understand the possible biases of the juries, and then to tailor the presentation to overcome the biases. A little bit more of an explanation: In violent crimes, the victim is rarely pure as the driven snow. There are the rare instances where the victim was doing nothing and then is attacked by a stranger. But, usually the victim has made poor choices and is not particularly sympathetic. E.g., a homeless person is attacked by one of his friends. A prosecutor has to work with victim and present the victim in the best possible light. In the King case, the truth is that the state prosecutors did a terrible job. To be specific, the charge against the officers in both cases was excessive force. So, the question was, "Were the officers' justified in beating King?" Or, to put it another way, "Did King's conduct create a sufficient threat to the officers?"The whole criminal case therefore was based on the conduct of Rodney King and whether he created a threat sufficient to justify what the officers did. So, a crucial part of the case was what did Rodney King do and what did he think?Believe it or not, the prosecutors did NOT use Rodney King as a witness. So, in a violent crime, the prosecutors did not have the victim testify. It was a poor decision.In the US case, King did testify. And, two of the officers were convicted.