Quote:
Originally Posted by Lester Burnham
The problem with the prosecutor's justification for not bringing charges (i.e., the "no malice" excuse) is you don't need to show malice for a manslaughter charge. If you kill someone without malice (i.e., you were just stupid), you can be held liable for manslaughter. Its not like you only need to prove 1st degree murder.
It is what it is, and people should not be surprised. The department says the cop's actions were "not justified", yet no criminal punishment? Ok, so cops can basically "unjustifiably kill people", yet face no criminal repercussions.
Seattle, for all its "we're so liberal" bullshit, it really is no different than any other big city. The city is segregated (what little black population it has resides mostly in the south end), and they love minorities as long as they don't get in the way of the establishment. At least in the deep south, they're honest and up-front about their stereotypes, racism and biases. In Seattle, they're just "smarter" about covering up their tracks.
|
While I explained what the duty of the D.A. is...I agree that a manslaughter (most if not all states have a voluntary and involuntary manslaughter charge available to them) charge should of held up for a conviction...but then again I do not know what the officer's story to the D.A. is or who may have been present to dispute any story he told...in other words I do not know what evidence was available to the D.A. that he could use to have a successful prosecution.
It does seem to me that anyone that cares could call for the FBI to investigate to see if the Feds think they could bring a successful prosecution for a violation of the man's civil rights...as was brought against the cops that beat Rodney King...when they were aquitted in state court...by a jury.