TheWorx

And, if history is any indication, it may just help his defence--civil or criminal case. The Scotus decisions enable the judge, jury, and prosecutors to give deference to the cop. That's my message to CNN's Joey Jackson who otherwise is spot on. How does he explain police brutality with abandon?  Btw, I wonder if Mr. Jackson received a call from Chris Cuomo asking him to play offence. I am sure Cuomo didn't like what I had to say about him on last night's post. It's all an effen priesthood, you notice it when the first thing you see at a hearing is your lawyer shaking hands with the prosecutor. There's little righteousness among those in the legal profession. But law, Mr. Jackson, was never meant to be righteous--it's just as we say in biology, a spandrel. Let's see if Laura Coates continues to do a good job of representing the little guy. Right on to Rodney King's daughter who is a bit skeptical of camaraderie between law enforcement and protester...

Laura Coates, Joey Jackson, we the people need to tell the old stodgy and political hacks at SCOTUS that their cop brutality-enabling decisions need to be revisited before civil war is unleashed thanks to their shortsightedness. Let's have a layman's look at the two top decisions. Graham v. Connor The court said that "the reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. [This and other legal material is taken from a post on PoliceOne.com] That's right SCOTUS, leave it up to the 'reasonable' officer. I, like you, am positive that the officer would admit to the use of excessive force..AND BE FIRED or imprisoned. It, of course, would never come to that because by the time the shit is even thinking of hitting the fan, the police union representatives have begun to coach the reasonable officer. In the Michael Brown case, even the FBI came to the cop...