Video by passerby showed officer shooting black man in the back and then altering the scene of the crime
This is why police hate the fact that people can record their encounters with the police. They can actually (albeit rarely) be held accountable for their actions.
In this case, Justice was served.
I’m sure his fellow prisoners will treat him with respect. Heh.
Word will travel fast that he is a former policeman that needlessly shot a Black man. I would bet that he only serves five or six years of his sentence at the end of which he will be paroled. Partial justice has been served…if that is all a person’s life is worth?
Finally some justice, but why didn’t he get life for murder one, with no parole
For murder in cold blood, he should have got the chair.
I look at it as a “glass half full” - at least he got convicted. Somehow, I think, as @SkepticTank noted, his fellow prisoners will ensure justice.
Now, now, Pony.
Let’s stay calm where the (irreversible) death penalty is concerned. Especially considering the multiple cases that are over-turned:
It obvious for a very long time that killing unarmed people, poor people mostly, has been US foreign policy which trumps law. (no pun intended)
The black panthers had it right.
Tank, Back in the late 60’s, I was a “Bleeding Heart” Liberal that believed murderers could be rehabilitated. Young, stupid, and naive I was.
And, at that moment in history, the world population was ‘half’ of what it is today.
I agree with your statement about false convictions, however the world watched this cop shoot this man in the back, what, 7 or 8 times, so, there clearly was no respect for life in that moment.
Now, warehousing people for decades, at taxpayers expense, is not sustainable.
If one has no respect for another human’s life, and ends that life with extreme prejudice, they should forfeit their life.
I apologize for sounding heartless, however, an “eye for an eye” sounds appropriate in today’s world.
I can understand the “punishment fitting the crime” viewpoint.
Nonetheless, we’ll have to “agree to disagree” on this issue.