Current Events > Indian student killed in US after cops run over her, officer seen laughing

(+) Yeah! (+)

LoZguy709 posted...

They're still defendants in criminal court and have just as much right to the "beyond the reasonable doubt" standard as anybody else. Governmental workers shouldn't be held to a different standard if you ask me, though that also means they shouldn't get qualified immunity, deferential treatment for being law enforcement, or what have you. You were probably joking, but there's no way this could be Constitutional.

I don't see how we can't treat it as evidence tampering. I mean thats literally what it is by definition.

DrizztLink posted...

And that's where you're fucking it up

The only thing I'm taking issue with isn't even relevant to the case at hand. Kloe_Rinz was basically using this as an example of what we should assume happens when cops don't have their cameras on when they should have them on.

Shadow_Don posted...

I don't see how we can't treat it as evidence tampering. I mean thats literally what it is by definition.

I don't think it's quite the same as destroying evidence after the fact, because again, there can be intervening causes. Tampering with evidence also doesn't result in an automatic guilty ruling for other defendants (at least not procedurally), but it can be brought as its own separate charge.

Kloe_Rinz posted...

whats the justification for not assuming automatic guilt for turning off a camera during an incident? Its no different than destroying evidence
the fact is police need to be held to a higher standard than regular people. Yes that means harsher punishments. Theres no such thing as benefit of doubt when they destroyed evidence incriminating them

My main point is that it them turning off the camera can be treated as highly important evidence, but it's not a definitive way to prove guilt.

Shadow_Don posted...

I don't see how we can't treat it as evidence tampering. I mean thats literally what it is by definition.

If you or I did it, then yes, it would be evidence tampering. This is a cop. They can do whatever they want for the most part.

Tenlaar posted...

The guy is a remarkably heinous asshole but what crime do you think he committed?

I think people are confusing him as being the same person who hit the girl.

But regardless, this should be an immediately termination from his job. You'd get canned at almost any job if you were speaking like this about a customer, why do cops have the lowest standards in society?

Shadow_Don posted...

I think people are confusing him as being the same person who hit the girl.

But regardless, this should be an immediately termination from his job. You'd get canned at almost any job if you were speaking like this about a customer, why do cops have the lowest standards in society?

Their unions literally allow them to get away with murder.

Even if he's fired, he'll just be hired by another department in a nearby town.

LoZguy709 posted...

My main point is that it them turning off the camera be treated as highly important evidence, but it's not a definitive way to prove guilt.

Yea but you can get jail time from evidence tampering or perjury regardless of guilt of the underlying crime.

LoZguy709 posted...

The only thing I'm taking issue with isn't even relevant to the case at hand. Kloe_Rinz was basically using this as an example of what we should assume happens when cops don't have their cameras on when they should have them on.

I don't think it's quite the same as destroying evidence after the fact, because again, there can be intervening causes. Tampering with evidence also doesn't result in an automatic guilty plea for most defendants (at least not procedurally), but it can be brought as its own separate charge.

My main point is that it them turning off the camera be treated as highly important evidence, but it's not a definitive way to prove guilt.

It is a way to prove guilt because the theres no reason they need to turn off the camera other than them being guilty

if the body cam is off any and all arrests made in that time period should be void

if an officer has 1 shred of falsifying evidence every arrest they have ever made should be over turned and the officer should be fined everything they own

think this is to harsh well tough shit the police should be held to higher standards than every one else

only way to fix this corruption is with extreme punishments

as for this officer both officers here life in prison every thing both of them own goes to the girls family

Tenlaar posted...

The guy is a remarkably heinous asshole but what crime do you think he committed?

Right on time!!! I was afraid that for once you wouldn't defend a pos cop.

Shadow_Don posted...

Yea but you can get jail time from evidence tampering or perjury regardless of guilt of the underlying crime.

Right, I addressed your post in my edit and it would be a crime of its own.

Kloe_Rinz posted...

It is a way to prove guilt because the theres no reason they need to turn off the camera other than them being guilty

Let's just say that I would hope a jury would take very high consideration of the fact the camera was turned off, especially if it can be shown it was left off intentionally.

Shadow_Don posted...

I think people are confusing him as being the same person who hit the girl.

Ah, that makes sense. Yeah, no question that the guy in the video should have been fired long ago.

LoZguy709 posted...

Right, I addressed your post in my edit and it would be a crime of its own.

Let's just say that I would hope a jury would take very high consideration of the fact the camera was turned off, especially if it can be shown it was left off intentionally.

it should be assumed it was turned off intentionally. Thats the point. Police need to be held to higher standard. No oopsies even if it wasnt intentional and was merely negligent. End of story.

Shamino posted...

Right on time!!! I was afraid that for once you wouldn't defend a pos cop.

Asking what crime the other poster was talking about isn't defending the cop. Stop making things up.

mario2000 posted...

Their unions literally allow them to get away with murder.

Or child rape.

https://www.wcvb.com/article/former-boston-police-leaders-express-deep-disappointment-with- citys-release-of-documents-from-patrick-rose-case-1650898310/39814484

A former Boston Police Department officer who later went on to become head of the police union had plead guilty to several charges of child rape.

Do you want the over or under a Danny Masterson on this cop's sentence?

Sentence: "Rose was sentenced to 10 to 13 years in prison followed by 10 years of probation."

Tenlaar posted...

Asking what crime the other poster was talking about isn't defending the cop. Stop making things up.

Ah, I thought you meant the other cop.

Also we need to make a college degree (4 year) 100% a requirement to be a cop.

We don't let untrained nurses into hospitals, why do we let anyone be a cop?

It should be hard as fuck to become a cop and cops should be college-educated professionals, not roided-up "good" ole boyz.

Robot2600 posted...

Also we need to make a college degree (4 year) 100% a requirement to be a cop.

We don't let untrained nurses into hospitals, why do we let anyone be a cop?

It should be hard as fuck to become a cop and cops should be college-educated professionals, not roided-up "good" ole boyz.

it actually is like that in other countries, and I believe they less likely to pull a gun on people as well

Kloe_Rinz posted...

it should be assumed it was turned off intentionally. Thats the point. Police need to be held to higher standard. No oopsies even if it wasnt intentional and was merely negligent. End of story.

Alright, well I'm just telling you it's going to be a long battle reconciling that with how US courts recognize due process by the US Constitution.

tenlaar defending a cop who murdered a girl what a shock

or is he defending the officer who helped him cover it up which is also a crime

LoZguy709 posted...

Alright, well I'm just telling you it's going to be a long battle reconciling that with how US courts recognize due process by the US Constitution.

Dont give a rats ass if its a long battle. It has to be done. Same with gun control. Same with spread of misinformation leading to death. Theres no ethical justification you can provide for not doing this

Talk2DaHand posted...

https://twitter.com/Xbox_Series_XS/status/1702826417308696613?t=yo4UEuXSnLPE-c9oEyKcXg&s=19

Jeeeeeeeeesus Christ. He needs life in solitary. That's a Joker-level psychopath

He was being so cartoony evil about it. Like wtf?

so villanious how is that funny? Killing a girl is funny? scary shit out here

Kloe_Rinz posted...

Dont give a rats ass if its a long battle. It has to be done. Same with gun control. Same with spread of misinformation leading to death. Theres no ethical justification you can provide for not doing this

I'll admit they aren't my biggest political priorities (except to some extent with the spread of misinformation) because I really don't think any political issue should be treated as high of a priority as priority as climate change or potential nuclear war, but that's just me. So when it comes to these cases, you could say I prefer to go a politically practical route.

His punishment needs to be that he gets hit by a car going the same speed

It's hard to give my own personal opinion on this incident without catching a warning.

Just, absolutely fuck this fucking disgusting pig.

LoZguy709 posted...

Governmental workers shouldn't be held to a different standard if you ask me

People literally charged with the enforcement of the law should absolutely be held to higher standards than civilians who don't choose to be civilians, that's just what we're all born into.
They're given authority over us and we're not even allowed to defend ourselves from them raping, assaulting, and murdering us, due to their occupation making that a crime.

Yet cops get far more leniency and understanding when they wantonly murder civilians and civilians get put on public trial like they're expected to internalize every law, public code, and de-escalation tactics ever since childhood.

It's fucking bullshit and a sickening mentality in this country that has created the quasi-police state we live in.

Kradek posted...

People literally charged with the enforcement of the law should absolutely be held to higher standards than civilians who don't choose to be civilians, that's just what we're all born into.

Yet cops get far more leniency and understanding when they wantonly murder civilians and civilians get put on public trial like they're expected to internalize every law, public code, and de-escalation tactics ever since childhood.

It's fucking bullshit and a sickening mentality in this country that has created the quasi-police state we live in.

Ok, let me rephrase. I think that as citizens we should hold them to a higher threshold of responsibility, but I wouldn't go so far as to deny them due process rights every US citizen has.

LoZguy709 posted...

Ok, let me rephrase. I think that as citizens we should hold them to a higher threshold of responsibility, but I wouldn't go so far as to deny them due process rights every US citizen has.

The due process is you destroyed evidence, because you are guilty

LoZguy709 posted...

Ok, let me rephrase. I think that as citizens we should hold them to a higher threshold of responsibility, but I wouldn't go so far as to deny them due process rights every US citizen has.

Or, and bear with me, they should have more accountability since otherwise this shit happens.

Kloe_Rinz posted...

The due process is you destroyed evidence, because you are guilty

Right, that's up to a jury to decide, and hopefully not see the case overturned for that reason. The best way for it not to be overturned is for them to consider as part of the evidence of the entire case the prosecution puts on.

DrizztLink posted...

Or, and bear with me, they should have more accountability since otherwise this shit happens.

I agree we should aim to have better systems of accountability for police misconduct, which is how we ended up with body cameras being mandated in the first place, but again, changing the due process standard for police officers is not a length I am willing to go.

Nasty_Nitro posted...

so villanious how is that funny? Killing a girl is funny? scary shit out here

You're going to anger Tenlaar whose only question or concern here is "Yes...but did he do anything illegal???"

LoZguy709 posted...

Right, that's up to a jury to decide, and hopefully not see the case overturned for that reason. The best way for it not to be overturned is for them to consider as part of the evidence of the entire case the prosecution puts on.

I agree we should aim to have better systems of accountability for police misconduct, which is how we ended up with body cameras being mandated in the first place, but again, changing the due process standard for police officers is not a length I am willing to go.

They have their time in court so what due process standard is being changed? We are saying that they should be punished far harsher is all and that things such as turning off their body cam is proof of guilt in and of itself

Holy shit! That isn't just laughing, tc!!!

Kloe_Rinz posted...

They have their time in court so what due process standard is being changed? We are saying that they should be punished far harsher is all and that things such as turning off their body cam is proof of guilt in and of itself

Them having their body cameras off is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt they committed a crime alleged to have occurred while the body cameras were off. To automatically assume otherwise, you'd be denying them due process as modern US courts see it.

LoZguy709 posted...

Them having their body cameras off is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt they committed a crime alleged to have occurred while the body cameras were off. To automatically assume otherwise, you'd be denying them due process as modern US courts see it.

Beyond reasonable doubt is proven when they are destroying evidence

Kloe_Rinz posted...

Beyond reasonable doubt is proven when they are destroying evidence

I mean, no, not really... Even more so when you haven't even effectively established turning it off was intentional to constitute they were actively destroying anything, let alone it being something you could consider evidence in that moment of a crime yet to be committed. You're skipping way too many steps.

LoZguy709 posted...

Ok, let me rephrase. I think that as citizens we should hold them to a higher threshold of responsibility, but I wouldn't go so far as to deny them due process rights every US citizen has.

Sure, but a video of them literally running someone over and then the other cop laughing about how they killed her and it's no big deal is definitely enough for the public to go "these fucking killers".

Are they legally found guilty of murder? No, but it's basically the same as if you personally witnessed someone murder another and someone came in tut-tutting you with "uh uh uh, they haven't been found guilty in a court of law yet! Can't declare them as a killer!"

Even in the course of law enforcement cops are not given the authority to run over civilians in order to resolve conflicts. This is flat-out murder and I hope both of these cops, even the fucking sack of shit laughing about it, suffer the rest of their lives for it.

Also, while I don't know if turning off a camera should be considered destroying evidence, it should definitely still be considered concealing evidence because literally everything their cameras record is evidence, so they are concealing evidence by preventing the recording of it.

Unless they're in the bathroom, that absolutely should be guilty by default.

LoZguy709 posted...

I mean, no, not really... Even more so when you haven't even effectively established turning it off was intentional to constitute they were actively destroying anything, let alone it being something you could consider evidence in that moment of a crime yet to be committed. You're skipping way too many steps.

Based on what? They are the police and already know not to destroy evidence. Therefore, the only reason they would destroy evidence in a case like this is if the evidence proves their guilt. Thats beyond reasonable doubt

Vicious_Dios posted...

Yeah, THIS is indefensible.

I'm glad he had the decency to record himself committing the crime for the courts to see so they can put him away. They shouldn't stop there. They need to investigate him for priors as well.

Put him away? Put a bullet in his head.

When even V_D is mad, you know this was horrific.

Kradek posted...

Sure, but a video of them literally running someone over and then the other cop laughing about how they killed her and it's no big deal is definitely enough for the public to go "these fucking killers".

Are they legally found guilty of murder? No, but it's basically the same as if you personally witnessed someone murder another and someone came in tut-tutting you with "uh uh uh, they haven't been found guilty in a court of law yet! Can't declare them as a killer!"

Even in the course of law enforcement cops are not given the authority to run over civilians in order to resolve conflicts. This is flat-out murder and I hope both of these cops, even the fucking sack of shit laughing about it, suffer the rest of their lives for it.

Also, while I don't know if turning off a camera should be considered destroying evidence, it should definitely still be considered concealing evidence because literally everything their cameras record is evidence, so they are concealing evidence by preventing the recording of it.

Unless they're in the bathroom, that absolutely should be guilty by default.

Yeah, just from watching that video, I really want these guys to feel the effect of their disregard for human life too.

Turning off the camera before committing a crime is definitely a crime in of itself if you ask me, though I don't know what the best classification for the charge would be. Tampering with evidence seems like it would be a stretch, but I'll take it for ordinary conversational purposes.

The words "guilty by default" are all I need to see that you don't really care to abide by due process in these instances.

Kloe_Rinz posted...

Based on what? They are the police and already know not to destroy evidence. Therefore, the only reason they would destroy evidence in a case like this is if the evidence proves their guilt. Thats beyond reasonable doubt

Again, you're skipping way too many steps and making way too many assumptions in obtaining a solid guilty verdict.

I'm not some cop apologist and was very disturbed watching this video, but seriously guys, there's still rules you have to follow in getting a guilty verdict. Rules that would be very hard to change, and for good reason.

Also, once again, I never said anything to indicate I'm sympathetic toward the cops in this instance. I was never arguing about the facts of this story at all actually. It's just really easy to fall into these reactionary distortions of what we can do within the framework of the country's justice system.

LoZguy709 posted...

Ok, let me rephrase. I think that as citizens we should hold them to a higher threshold of responsibility, but I wouldn't go so far as to deny them due process rights every US citizen has.

You should cut your losses and shut the fuck up now

Gritty posted...

You should cut your losses and shut the fuck up now

I was about to because I didn't think there was anything else that needed to be said so please do the same yourself. I'd like to get on with life on not this nauseating topic. Thanks.

Sputnik1337 posted...

For anyone wondering: this happened in January so theyve been hiding the footage of the cop joking about murdering this girl for 8 months.

iirc , in this case a police employee saw how offensive the video was and turned him in

I watched the video without listening to the audio, but did one cop seriously say, "Write a check..11,000..limited value, she's only 26." Wtf?

LoZguy709 posted...

I was about to because I didn't think there was anything else that needed to be said so please do the same yourself. I'd like to get on with life on not this nauseating topic. Thanks.

You can just choose to stop posting. That choice does not rely on anybody else.

Arcanine2009 posted...

I watched the video without listening to the audio, but did one cop seriously say, "Write a check..11,000..limited value, she's only 26." Wtf?

Yep. And the implication is either that she's too old to be sexually attractive to the cop and thus her life has little value to him or she's too young to have enough life experience to be a worthwhile member of society. Either possibility is repugnant.