What? The police has legally gotten away with murder on numerous occasions?
I hope you know what the legal definition of murder and manslaughter is.
In the western world it's the same definition and law enforcement is about the same.

Well fine, they get away with manslaughter. Not much better really.

What would you expect? Law enforcement without the ability to protect themself and to protect innocent Citizens?
Yes it's sometimes manslaughter but the alternative...

Remember...
Doctor's are allowed to Commit Technical Manslaughter.
The alternative?

The alternative would be perhaps more innocent people killed.
What is "Technical Manslaughter"?

What? The police has legally gotten away with murder on numerous occasions?
I hope you know what the legal definition of murder and manslaughter is.
In the western world it's the same definition and law enforcement is about the same.

Well fine, they get away with manslaughter. Not much better really.

What would you expect? Law enforcement without the ability to protect themself and to protect innocent Citizens?
Yes it's sometimes manslaughter but the alternative...

Remember...
Doctor's are allowed to Commit Technical Manslaughter.
The alternative?

The alternative would be perhaps more innocent people killed.
What is "Technical Manslaughter"?

Assisted suicide for the terminaly ill.
My Grandmother was 96. Her kidneys were failing for 6 months she didnt want to go on dialyisis then she fell and broke her hip. She went on a morphine drip for pain. After 6 days she went into a coma. She died 5 days later.
Was it the morphine drip, The kidneys failing or her ready to die?
She told us she had a nice full life and was tired of the pain. I think in her case the drip was just to ease her pain as she gave up the will to live.
So in her case the Dr. could have made the decsion to have her go on dialasys. and operated on her hip. But he didnt. So Technicaly he didnt do his job. I however dont agree with that, He eased her pain and let her die by her choice.

---

[/quote]

Old James

What? The police has legally gotten away with murder on numerous occasions?
I hope you know what the legal definition of murder and manslaughter is.
In the western world it's the same definition and law enforcement is about the same.

Well fine, they get away with manslaughter. Not much better really.

What would you expect? Law enforcement without the ability to protect themself and to protect innocent Citizens?
Yes it's sometimes manslaughter but the alternative...

Remember...
Doctor's are allowed to Commit Technical Manslaughter.
The alternative?

The alternative would be perhaps more innocent people killed.
What is "Technical Manslaughter"?

Assisted suicide for the terminaly ill.
My Grandmother was 96. Her kidneys were failing for 6 months she didnt want to go on dialyisis then she fell and broke her hip. She went on a morphine drip for pain. After 6 days she went into a coma. She died 5 days later.
Was it the morphine drip, The kidneys failing or her ready to die?
She told us she had a nice full life and was tired of the pain. I think in her case the drip was just to ease her pain as she gave up the will to live.
So in her case the Dr. could have made the decsion to have her go on dialasys. and operated on her hip. But he didnt. So Technicaly he didnt do his job. I however dont agree with that, He eased her pain and let her die by her choice.

Euthanasia. There is a divisive public controversy over the moral, ethical, and legal issues of euthanasia.
I saw a documentary about it. A briton about 50 years old who went to a clinic in Switzerland and they showed the whole procedure.
Very uncomfortable to watch. But in his case beeing that ill he was and not being able to have a "normal" life...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia

Remember...

Doctor's are allowed to Commit Technical Manslaughter.

The alternative?

And if a doctor does that, he can get sued for malpractice, or there will be a hearing to see if the doctor is still fit to practice medicine. In other words, there are severe consequences for doctors that commit manslaughter.

For the police? Well we saw it, two grand jury cases, with prosecutors that did their best to ensure the conclusion would be to not hold an actual trial. No punishments, no proper investigation, just a big f-u to the community. The cases where cops get severe punishments for killing innocent people are rare.

What would you expect? Law enforcement without the ability to protect themself and to protect innocent Citizens?
Yes it's sometimes manslaughter but the alternative...

What I expect is that every time a cop pulls a gun on anyone, there will be an investigation whether it was justified or not. And in cases where it was not justified, that cop gets reprimanded. In cases where the cop kills someone without a good reason, I expect that cop to be severely punished. The only way to curb unjustified police violence is when there are strict penalties on it.

Some people on this forum keep blabbering on and on about how America supposedly believes in strictly checking the power of the government because they believe all power corrupts. But strangely those same people are defending the practice of cops being able to gun down anyone they please without any consequences. Perhaps they have forgotten that the police is part of the government? Or perhaps they feel that lawyers and pencil pushers are a bigger threat to their liberty than those who are armed and have the legal rights to shoot citizens for as little reason as 'being afraid'.

Remember...

Doctor's are allowed to Commit Technical Manslaughter.

The alternative?

And if a doctor does that, he can get sued for malpractice, or there will be a hearing to see if the doctor is still fit to practice medicine. In other words, there are severe consequences for doctors that commit manslaughter.

For the police? Well we saw it, two grand jury cases, with prosecutors that did their best to ensure the conclusion would be to not hold an actual trial. No punishments, no proper investigation, just a big f-u to the community. The cases where cops get severe punishments for killing innocent people are rare.

I would say that the cases where cops killing innocent people are extremly rare.

I would say that the cases where cops killing innocent people are extremly rare.

Not in the US.

I would say that the cases where cops killing innocent people are extremly rare.

Not in the US.

I wrote cops killing innocent people.
Not killing people by accident.
And US have a lot of hand guns compared to Europe!
Both legally and illegally.

Did you know that TV and movies for children now are showing more deadly violence than for adults?
Absurd!

Did you know that TV and movies for children now are showing more deadly violence than for adults?
Absurd!

No they don't.

There was a study that suggested such a thing, but that study was meant as a joke.

I wrote cops killing innocent people.
Not killing people by accident.
And US have a lot of hand guns compared to Europe!
Both legally and illegally.

No, when you hold someone in an illegal chokehold and that person then dies, you are not killing that person by accident. Thats manslaughter, pure and simple. When you aim your gun at someone and pull the trigger, you don't kill that person by accident. Again, manslaughter, or perhaps even murder.

Killing someone by accident is when a cop fires his gun, misses his target and accidentally hits some by stander.

Did you know that TV and movies for children now are showing more deadly violence than for adults?
Absurd!

No they don't.
There was a study that suggested such a thing, but that study was meant as a joke.

https://translate.google.se/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fnyheter24.se%2Fnyheter%2Fforskning%2F782092-vald-i-datorspel-och-film-gor-oss-inte-mer-valdsamma&edit-text=
They do show more deadly violence for childrens but violence in computer games and movies do not make us more violent.
A research was led by Christopher Ferguson, professor of psychology at Stetson University in Florida. Ferguson has long argued that the link between film or computer game and reality is small when it comes to violence.
And the research was NOT a joke.
However it's very absurd...

When you aim your gun at someone and pull the trigger, you don't kill that person by accident.

Yes you can do that. Do you know how difficult it is to shoot someone in the leg?

Did you know that TV and movies for children now are showing more deadly violence than for adults?
Absurd!

No they don't.
There was a study that suggested such a thing, but that study was meant as a joke.

https://translate.google.se/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fnyheter24.se%2Fnyheter%2Fforskning%2F782092-vald-i-datorspel-och-film-gor-oss-inte-mer-valdsamma&edit-text=
They do show more deadly violence but violence in computer games and movies do not make us more violent.
A research was led by Christopher Ferguson, professor of psychology at Stetson University in Florida. Ferguson has long argued that the link between film or computer game and reality is small when it comes to violence.
And the research was NOT a joke.
However it's very absurd...

You said that there is now more deadly violence in tv shows and films for kids than in tv shows and movies for adults, but the research you quote is about the link between media and actual behavior. In other words, irrelevant to the point you were making.

Did you know that TV and movies for children now are showing more deadly violence than for adults?
Absurd!

No they don't.
There was a study that suggested such a thing, but that study was meant as a joke.

https://translate.google.se/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fnyheter24.se%2Fnyheter%2Fforskning%2F782092-vald-i-datorspel-och-film-gor-oss-inte-mer-valdsamma&edit-text=
They do show more deadly violence but violence in computer games and movies do not make us more violent.
A research was led by Christopher Ferguson, professor of psychology at Stetson University in Florida. Ferguson has long argued that the link between film or computer game and reality is small when it comes to violence.
And the research was NOT a joke.
However it's very absurd...

You said that there is now more deadly violence in tv shows and films for kids than in tv shows and movies for adults, but the research you quote is about the link between media and actual behavior. In other words, irrelevant to the point you were making.

My point is that kids are more exposed to deadly violence than adults!
That doesn't mean they are going out on the streets killing others.
But it sure make's it more accepted that people are killed in real life.

My point is that kids are more exposed to deadly violence than adults!
That doesn't mean they are going out on the streets killing others.
But it sure make's it more accepted that people are killed in real life.

Evidence please.

My point is that kids are more exposed to deadly violence than adults!
That doesn't mean they are going out on the streets killing others.
But it sure make's it more accepted that people are killed in real life.

Evidence please.

That excessive and sometimes fatal violence used today are increasing is probably no surprise.
There are many studies that show this.
Even school fights are more violent nowadays.
Kicking the head, for example instead of a punch on the nose.
Massacres in schools often happens more and more often nowadays by young people.
Both in the US and Europe.

Remember...

Doctor's are allowed to Commit Technical Manslaughter.

The alternative?

And if a doctor does that, he can get sued for malpractice, or there will be a hearing to see if the doctor is still fit to practice medicine. In other words, there are severe consequences for doctors that commit manslaughter.

For the police? Well we saw it, two grand jury cases, with prosecutors that did their best to ensure the conclusion would be to not hold an actual trial. No punishments, no proper investigation, just a big f-u to the community. The cases where cops get severe punishments for killing innocent people are rare.

Please stop saying that Grand Juries are yes men or woman to prosecutors. You nor I know what was said in those Grand Juries. Until one of them speaks up about what went on you are just speaking BS.
Maybe there was a white wash going on, Maybe eveidence was withheld. But its up to the integrity of each indvidual jusrist to vote point of law.If they have doubts then dont vote for a trial. Or vote for one.

In some parts of the world you are guilty unless proven innocent. Here in the US you are innocent untill proven guilty.
I will admit that abuses for both the D.A. and Defense lawyers exist.
And no I dont have any answers to cure it.

---

[/quote]

Old James

My point is that kids are more exposed to deadly violence than adults!
That doesn't mean they are going out on the streets killing others.
But it sure make's it more accepted that people are killed in real life.

Evidence please.

That excessive and sometimes fatal violence used today are increasing is probably no surprise.
There are many studies that show this.
Even school fights are more violent nowadays.
Kicking the head, for example instead of a punch on the nose.
Massacres in schools often happens more and more often nowadays by young people.
Both in the US and Europe.

And non of that is support for your assertion that children are more exposed to violence than in the past.

And I asked for evidence, not assertions.

Please stop saying that Grand Juries are yes men or woman to prosecutors. You nor I know what was said in those Grand Juries. Until one of them speaks up about what went on you are just speaking BS.
Maybe there was a white wash going on, Maybe eveidence was withheld. But its up to the integrity of each indvidual jusrist to vote point of law.If they have doubts then dont vote for a trial. Or vote for one.

I'm not saying these jury members are yes men or women. I'm saying that a prosecutor, who has a huge conflict of interest given their ties to the police department, can set up a grand jury and present evidence in such a way he manipulates the jury into a desirable outcome, namely to not prosecute.

You don't think its the least bit suspicious that a grand jury coming from a mostly black town, looking at the shooting of a black man by a white officer consists mostly of white people in the American south? You don't think its the least bit suspicious that the prosecutor was openly against having any kind of further investigation into the shooting of Micheal Brown? You don't think it is suspicious that the prosecutor, instead of showing piece of evidence after piece of evidence, just dumps all the evidence on the jury at the same time?

And if we look at the bigger picture, American grand jury have a absolutely miserable record of voting in favor of continuing the prosecution when it comes to police officers involved in shooting citizens.

In some parts of the world you are guilty unless proven innocent. Here in the US you are innocent untill proven guilty.

Irrelevant really. If the grand jury indicts you, it doesn't mean you are guilty, nor does it presume guilt. It simply means that they want this to be further investigated in an actual court of law.

Furthermore, its a bit strange that when it comes to police officers, DA's presume innocence and are extremely reluctant to do any kind of prosecuting, while if its a normal person charged with something, those same DA's will presume guilt and seek the maximum allowed penalty against them (cuz you know, they gotta be tough on crime).