Why is it a historical civil rights case? It should just read, murderer found guilty.

Historic in that sometimes it's not ok for the police to kill black men?

It is a civil rights case because when it was a case of a murderer killing a man, the murderer was not found guilty. So it became a federal civil rights case. It is historic because justice was served in a case involving a police officer.

Thats where I guess i'm confused. He was convicted, was he not?

Edit: From the article i get the impression he killed a man in cold blood. Lied about it. Truth came out, was tried and convicted. Did i miss something? (aside from skin color)

Usually it doesn't go how it should. In this case if a random stranger hadn't used his cell phone camera to record what happened it is unlikely the cop would have even been fired. And some cases just a few years ago just like this one have seen the cop do no jail time.

I fully understand that. Theres many cases that would not be won if not for video footage and in this case a person of authority would have been believed and gotten away with murder if not for that video. But in this case, he was and it did go how it should. I wouldn't call this a historic civil rights case. Bastard murderer convicted in court, yes.

Technically he plead guilty to a lesser charge.

It's kind of bullshit because the cop isnt admitting wrong doing for murder but for impinging upon someone's human rights. Still a step in the right direction

THANK YOU!! I was unaware he pled to a lower charge and as I said earlier, no knowledge of the case and wasn't about to research it. The article makes it sound like he was convicted for murder. Yeah thats BS, he should have been convicted of murder.

That's right folks, you too can get justice so long as there happens to be video recording of an event you can compare to the police's version of events.

Can anyone tell me why anyone except cops oppose bodycams again?

I look fat in the footage!

I don't think anyone opposes them but studies have shown they do not significantly change police behavior and possibly increase the rate of fatality in encounters.

It's really the training. The whole drawing your weapon and pointing at someone to get them to comply is a horrible policy that escalates; rather than de-escalates.

This guy in particular though, based on the footage, was hell bent on not letting the guy get away by any means necessary. Again, training cops to make the arrest above all other considerations at work.

Training isn't the issue. There will always be lapses in proper protocol, no matter how thorough the training. The issue is that the police do not face consequences for those lapses.

How about bodycams, training, and consequences? No need to make it an either/or situation, I'm sure there's plenty of things that can be fixed in our law enforcement's make up.

The increase in fatality is certainly a point to consider, and I would be interested in something more in depth as to why that is. However, from the standpoint that they do not change police behavior... that's fine with me.

I am not looking to change police behavior (at least not with cameras) but to ensure that A) no one has to question a hero cop's actions ever again, and B) that shitty cops who lie, over-react, or otherwise breach public trust be held accountable.

As for how we train police, I don't disagree, but I have to point out that in a country with liberal access to guns there isn't really much of a choice from a personal safety to the responding officer perspective.

Edit: And for what it's worth, I am sorry Norok. It's pretty clear you are not a troll. I was wrong.