politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
This is a very reasonable take but I simply don't think it works like this in US. It's not "the wheels were turned like that and he revved the engine and so on". It's "I looked to me like like she is going to hit me" or "I thought she is going to drag officer X". It can be obvious from the video that he was wrong but you can't really prove it didn't looked like that from his perspective. It's stupid and it shouldn't work like that but this is how justice system treats cops in US. Daniel Shaver and Philando Castile are some cases that come to mind. 100% unjustified police murders that got acquitted by a jury because the guy looked behind him in first case or reached for his documents in the second. The standard is extremely low and if the defense can come up with any justification it will most probably work. In this case the justification is stronger than in those two cases. She didn't follow orders, she was driving when ICE agent reached inside her car and she didn't stop when the shooter stepped in front of her car. If he gets convicted it will mark huge shift in public perception of law enforcement. It's possible but it would be unprecedented.
Absolutely. I really am arguing for how the law is written, but it's unfortunately just not applied fairly to police. Americans should demand that it is, especially since protection from the government is the whole point of major sections of the Constitution.
Shaver's a great example of how excluding evidence is used to just 100% give the case to the cops. They couldn't use the video OR the "you're fucked" engraving on the cop's gun? Fuck outta here with that. Maybe you can make the prejudicial > probative argument on the etching, but... no. And the video being excluded is just beyond the bounds of reasonable.