Mistrial For Alabama Officer Charged After Assaulting Elderly Indian Man

[Linux23]

This makes me friggin sick but I'm not surprised at the outcome.

 

[Darwin333]

More proof that cops are above the law. There is no justice when they break the law, even when said crimes permanently injure a frail and helpless old man minding his own business.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

The bottom line is that it's not simply a police issue. It's a broken legal system mixed up with a few social/cultural issues in the larger society (i.e. too much deference to "authority" & racial and class issues).

It IS a police issue. It is completely irrelevant if other problems exist as well; there still is a huge police issue. They have universally fought to be exempt from the rules. As a group they and their unions have spent millions lobbying for special rules and rights that everyone else is exempt from. I would be surprised if there weren't lots of this cop's buddies present at this trial to support him. They LIKE doing these things to people and getting away with it. So yeah, it is a huge police issue.

If there are other issues as well, let's get to those too. You can't fix all issues in a Utopian unicorn-land simultaneous manner. Fix the biggest one first and move on to the next.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

More proof that cops are above the law. There is no justice when they break the law, even when said crimes permanently injure a frail and helpless old man minding his own business.

The biggest issue to me is not just that the cops injured the guy, it was they apparently did so out of rage that he didn't immediately obey their orders. These cops are taught that rage and violence against people who don't immediately and completely obey them is right and good and moral and necessary. It doesn't matter if the non-obedient is blind, deaf, don't speak English. And these cops are stupid enough to believe it.

I think this is the reason that police departments like to hire people with solidly mid-level intelligence. The middling intelligence is smart enough to do the job, but too stupid to realize or even care if what they are doing is morally wrong. Blindly follow procedure, blindly enforce law regardless of circumstances, and don't think for yourself. Just stop thinking and enforce.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Wow... it's clear that the jury was looking for a way to not to convict the cop. I really don't know what else to say...

Other than this really sucks for our nation.

I'm all to happy to hate on some cops - a good number seem to be drunk on power but...

Wait, what? It sounds like this recent jury wasn't convinced. It sounds like they *may* have thought he did something wrong, but not wrong enough for a long sentence. They also asked for clarification on what willful meant - a good clarification to make sure they've got.

Under the federal civil rights charge, the jury must not only find Parker deprived Patel of the right to be free from unreasonable force, but the jury must also find Parker acted willfully. Basically, he had to intend to violate Patel's rights on that cold Friday morning.

The defense likely argued that Patel stuck his hands in his pockets after repeatedly resisting pat downs, and as a result the LEO felt threatened. Now - the officer SHOULD have recognized the language barrier and with two officers just contained him until a translator could be found. However, I can see where the jury would have a problem. Did he intend to violate his right to freedom from excessive force? Or did he feel threatened? It isn't even did he reasonably feel threatened.

I feel like this is LESS about people being racist or something (I know, doesn't fit the narrative people want) but rather about how the law is/that the prosecutor may have overcharged and not given the option to convict of a lower crime.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

It sounds like they *may* have thought he did something wrong, but not wrong enough for a long sentence.

That is not for them to decide. The judge decides sentence, not the jury. Their job is to determine conviction or no conviction. The judge even denied their request to learn potential sentencing for that very reason.

It isn't even did he reasonably feel threatened.

This CAN'T be true. If it were, then any cop can just walk up to someone and shoot them and then say "I felt threatened". Since the jury couldn't say "well it wasn't reasonable", then that cop would walk.

 

[Rhonda the Sly]

After a review of the federal trial testimony, it does not appear that there would be sufficient evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt," [Alabama Attorney General Luther] Strange said in a statement. "Thus, we have a duty to move to dismiss the charge.

Parker, 27, still faces a civil lawsuit in connection with the incident.

Via NBC News

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm not an apologist or anything near that, but let me say this. This happened in my town, around people I know, and 99% of the town thinks the cop is totally guilty. Madison Alabama isn't a backwards town, and I'm honestly sad that it's getting this reputation because of this story. Even our super-conservatives we have around the town think that the officer is guilty, but the system is twisted. A broken system is what let the officer walk free, not all the cops in the department, not the laws surrounding it, and for sure not the citizens of the town.

In the end, the blame falls on us as a city/state/nation for not supporting those that do speak out. What is in it for a good cop to speak out, only to get slandered for it, when the citizens of his town will eventually forget about him? You can't say that good cops need to stand up to the bad ones unless you're willing to do it yourself. And while I believe many would, imagine what a tiny fraction that is of the U.S. population.

It's the same reason people don't vote for third-party candidates. They're scared they won't be heard, and no one wants to be first, and we end up in silence.

Please. It wasn't a broken system. It was at least one person on the jury who refused to convict.

Or are you claiming that trial by jury is a broken concept?

 

[Oyeve]

Please. It wasn't a broken system. It was at least one person on the jury who refused to convict.

Or are you claiming that trial by jury is a broken concept?

In this case yes.

 

[HomerJS]

The system is already in place to ensure blue lives matter.

I don't want to hear it.