Current Events > Indian student killed in US after cops run over her, officer seen laughing

(+) Yeah! (+)

darkace77450 posted...

Yep. And the implication is either that she's too old to be sexually attractive to the cop and thus her life has little value to him or she's too young to have enough life experience to be a worthwhile member of society. Either possibility is repugnant.

guy's a psychopath. What do you think the punishment for him will be? Have they even suspended him without pay yet?

What is the officers name? Has he faced any discipline yet?

Kradek posted...

Sure, but a video of them literally running someone over and then the other cop laughing about how they killed her and it's no big deal is definitely enough for the public to go "these fucking killers".

Are they legally found guilty of murder? No, but it's basically the same as if you personally witnessed someone murder another and someone came in tut-tutting you with "uh uh uh, they haven't been found guilty in a court of law yet! Can't declare them as a killer!"

Even in the course of law enforcement cops are not given the authority to run over civilians in order to resolve conflicts. This is flat-out murder and I hope both of these cops, even the fucking sack of shit laughing about it, suffer the rest of their lives for it.

Also, while I don't know if turning off a camera should be considered destroying evidence, it should definitely still be considered concealing evidence because literally everything their cameras record is evidence, so they are concealing evidence by preventing the recording of it.

Unless they're in the bathroom, that absolutely should be guilty by default.

this is murder if it was two civilians itd be no question.

AceMos posted...

tenlaar defending a cop who murdered a girl what a shock

or is he defending the officer who helped him cover it up which is also a crime

I have not defended any cop here, and what are you even talking about with a cover up? Please go watch your cartoons and don't interrupt the adults.

Tenlaar posted...

I have not defended any cop here, and what are you even talking about with a cover up? Please go watch your cartoons and don't interrupt the adults.

the 2nd cop the one he is talking to by not reporting it is helping cover it up

AceMos posted...

the 2nd cop the one he is talking to by not reporting it is helping cover it up

Being an asshole is not a crime and not reporting somebody for being an asshole isn't either. Or do you think that the guy in the recording is talking to the cop that hit the girl and involved in a cover up rather than just talking about it happening? Either way it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about. Which, of course, is not a surprise.

Tenlaar posted...

Being an asshole is not a crime and not reporting somebody for being an asshole isn't either. Or do you think that the guy in the recording is talking to the cop that hit the girl and involved in a cover up rather than just talking about it happening? Either way it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about. Which, of course, is not a surprise.

Yeah. Neither cop seems to be the killer. Perhaps bodycam cop is the killer's partner. Or he's just a random cop gossipping to the other cop on the phone about what happened that day.

In other words, for those who don't understand yet, bodycam cop is talking to a cop on the phone about what the killer cop did, and they're both treating it like comedy. They're both technically innocent of any crime, but they're still psychopaths.

AceMos posted...

the 2nd cop the one he is talking to by not reporting it is helping cover it up

I think the cop in the video is just gossiping about the story to another cop, neither were involved in the incident but obviously know who the cop is.

and he's obviously showing a really cold and concerning attitude about it. I've seen some nurses get like this when discussing dead residents in my nursing home, they lose so much empathy over time

VFalcone posted...

Yeah. Neither cop seems to be the killer. Perhaps bodycam cop is the killer's partner. Or he's just a random cop gossipping to the other cop on the phone about what happened that day.

In other words, for those who don't understand yet, bodycam cop is talking to a cop on the phone about what the killer cop did, and they're both treating it like comedy. They're both technically innocent of any crime, but they're still psychopaths.

Do we even know for sure that the person the cop is talking to is another cop?

Tenlaar posted...

Do we even know for sure that the person the cop is talking to is another cop?

Huh, no. That's actually an assumption on my part.

VFalcone posted...

Yeah. Neither cop seems to be the killer. Perhaps bodycam cop is the killer's partner. Or he's just a random cop gossipping to the other cop on the phone about what happened that day.

In other words, for those who don't understand yet, bodycam cop is talking to a cop on the phone about what the killer cop did, and they're both treating it like comedy. They're both technically innocent of any crime, but they're still psychopaths.

Whattt
So the guy making comments wasn't in the car?

Do cops go through some trauma and use dark humor like this shit? It's fucked regardless to make fun of someone your coworker ran over.

Arcanine2009 posted...

Do cops go through some trauma and use dark humor like this shit? It's fucked regardless to make fun of someone your coworker ran over.

maybe but if its done during the moment its because they are fucked in the head and not safe to participate in society

Arcanine2009 posted...

Do cops go through some trauma and use dark humor like this shit? It's fucked regardless to make fun of someone your coworker ran over.

Yes. Reminds me of this episode of cops I saw years ago. There was some altercation and cops arrived on the scene. This dude had been beaten ruthlessly, covered in blood, blood was everywhere. Camera pans over and this cop is standing there eating an apple, looking like he doesn't give a shit at all.

Can't believe you guys spent nearly 100 posts entertaining a troll and sealion. It was blatantly obvious like after 2 posts that the guy was disingenuous AF. Guess there's no better bait than to defend a murdering cop but do it vaguely enough to have a tiny bit of plausible deniability.

Whether it was intentional or not, if you show no remorse for taking an innocent life, and if you somehow manage to find amusement in it, you should be charged with murder.

haloiscoolisbak posted...

I think the cop in the video is just gossiping about the story to another cop, neither were involved in the incident but obviously know who the cop is.

and he's obviously showing a really cold and concerning attitude about it. I've seen some nurses get like this when discussing dead residents in my nursing home, they lose so much empathy over time

you work in a nursing home? sad that some workers in one, may do that

DerWillZurMacht posted...

Can't believe you guys spent nearly 100 posts entertaining a troll and sealion. It was blatantly obvious like after 2 posts that the guy was disingenuous AF. Guess there's no better bait than to defend a murdering cop but do it vaguely enough to have a tiny bit of plausible deniability.

Which 2 posts? Thread is too long and I'm too lazy to scroll.

LoZguy709 posted...

It can be asked of them, and I would hope it would be, but you can't use it as definite proof of guilt. If that's enough to convince a jury, great. Hopefully defense counsel doesn't appeal or motion for a retrial.

If you're guilty for refusing to take a breathalyzer test, there's no reason you can't be guilty in other circumstances.

Also, this cop has cost city tax payers millions of dollars in lawsuits prior to this.

Imagine if you cost your business millions, you'd probably be fired. Hell, if you cost them hundreds you'd probably be fired.

LoZguy709 posted...

Turning off the camera before committing a crime is definitely a crime in of itself if you ask me, though I don't know what the best classification for the charge would be. Tampering with evidence seems like it would be a stretch, but I'll take it for ordinary conversational purposes.

The words "guilty by default" are all I need to see that you don't really care to abide by due process in these instances.

Lol you agree with me and then disagree with me.

Those cameras are meant to record evidence, often to exonerate the officers accused of wrongdoing. If they manually turn them off during any interaction with civilians, especially in cases where the civilians claims their was police misconduct, then that should definitely be something like "concealing evidence" be default because turning those cameras manually be default leads to the concealment of the evidence those cameras would have recorded.

Civilians do not have an equivalent of using body cameras in order to record official part of their jobs so already you can't treat the situations as equal because there is no civilian equivalent for what we're discussing.

Like I said, they should be held to higher standards, not lower.

If you're gonna guzzle cop cum over something like that then that looks poorly on you, not me.

Smallville posted...

you work in a nursing home? sad that some workers in one, may do that

Yeah in the dementia section/unit. It's more a situation where if a particular resident is difficult(like a biter or yeller) people will freely admit they're happy she's gone when the resident passes away(they're usually only moved in for the final few years of their life) Almost from a "well my job is now 10x easier perspective". Maybe the occasional joke too, which is certainly a weird way to talk about the dead. Not much tact basically.

Though in a situation like this, where a cop fucked up and it's his fault some young bystander is dead, it's far more unsettling to hear the way the victim is being spoken about

LoZguy709 posted...

The Constitution sees all citizens, regardless of profession or having a governmental position, as private citizens entitled to due process rights when brought to a court as a criminal defendant

Soldiers serving in the US and forces are seen differently in a different court with a different standard for due process

As one example, do you know what kind of standards soldiers are held to before being allowed to open fire on suspected terrorists walking up on their base? Do you know what standards cops aren't?

Kradek posted...

Also, while I don't know if turning off a camera should be considered destroying evidence, it should definitely still be considered concealing evidence because literally everything their cameras record is evidence, so they are concealing evidence by preventing the recording of it.

Also obstruction of justice and interfering in police investigations. Let it all pile on.

Woah

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

"We've investigated ourselves and found that we did nothing wrong."

most jobs would fire you for saying something so horrendous

Holy shit, people were still going on? I'm sorry if you guys have a simplistic outlook on how the justice system in the US operates. I tried my best, but you can live in your own ignorance on how criminal convictions are secured. I'm not trying to defend cops, and I especially have no desire to defend these cops in a situation where there doesn't seem to be a lack of video evidence. These cops in particular can eat a bag of dicks. But again, I'm done with this nauseating discussion with obtuse people.

Boot lickers? On my CE?

DerWillZurMacht posted...

Can't believe you guys spent nearly 100 posts entertaining a troll and sealion. It was blatantly obvious like after 2 posts that the guy was disingenuous AF. Guess there's no better bait than to defend a murdering cop but do it vaguely enough to have a tiny bit of plausible deniability.

Dark_Koopatrol posted...

Which 2 posts? Thread is too long and I'm too lazy to scroll.

These two:

LoZguy709 posted...

They're still defendants in criminal court and have just as much right to the "beyond the reasonable doubt" standard as anybody else. Governmental workers shouldn't be held to a different standard if you ask me, though that also means they shouldn't get qualified immunity, deferential treatment for being law enforcement, or what have you. You were probably joking, but there's no way this could be Constitutional.

Anyways, this is a very easy story to enrage complete strangers like me, going from that clip, and I obviously doubt she was doing anything threatening of imminent harm toward anyone to call for them to run her over beforehand.

LoZguy709 posted...

I just think people that post here have some of the most unrealistic solutions to legal issues going on within the country and think the answer should be very simple. So before people take that idea seriously and run with it, I think it's important to consider how they will come off to people with more moderate views and people that recognize actual Constitutional limits.

I'm fine with there being punishments for not abiding by protocol with their bodycams, but using it as de facto evidence they committed a crime just doesn't work in a criminal court setting.

Also, there's nothing I've seen in this case that even remotely makes we want to defend these cops, but I think people are eager to come up with overgeneralizing solutions.

"I'm just sealioning questions over here!"