My book about everything you need to know about the Supreme Court is now available! Amazon: amzn.to/3Jj3ZnS Bookshop (a collection of indie publishers): bookshop.org/books/the-power-of-and-frustration-with-our-supreme-court-100-supreme-court-cases-you-should-know-about-with-mr-beat/9781684810680 Barnes and Noble: www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-matt-beat/1142323504?ean=9781684810680 Amazon UK: www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=the+power+of+our+supreme+court&crid=3R59T7TQ6WKI3&sprefix=the+power+of+our+supreme+courth%2Caps%2C381&ref=nb_sb_noss Mango: mango.bz/books/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-2523-b Target: www.target.com/p/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-paperback/-/A-86273023 Walmart: www.walmart.com/ip/The-Power-of-Our-Supreme-Court-How-the-Supreme-Court-Cases-Shape-Democracy-Paperback-9781684810680/688487495 Chapters Indigo: www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/the-power-of-our-supreme/9781684810680-item.html?ikwid=The+Power+of+Our+Supreme+Court&ikwsec=Home&ikwidx=0#algoliaQueryId=eab3e89ad34051a62471614d72966b7e
I would have sided with Graham. Denying one's ability to counter immediate medical reactions when proof that one could be and is occurring at that moment should fall under excessive force. Of course, the policeman did have the right to do the arrest, but he should have been held accountable for not handing over the orange juice. Also limiting yourself through the scope of the 4th amendment is honestly idiotic. No matter what, any possible violation of Constitutional rights should be looked at in any case, Graham wasn't an experienced lawyer for goodness sake.
@@the4tierbridge Agreed, it should have been "were his 6th amendments rights violated, due process" Aka by not complying with Grahams reasonable request for the officer to check his wallet for his medical ID, the officer denied him due process for which the arrests were then unreasonable.
Yeah, it doesn't even matter if he did rob the place, police cannot use arrest as a way to kill an arrested suspect by denying necessary medical intervention and purposefully ignore evidence that proves there is a medical need. And the leaps in logic that this was a robbery are way way below the bounds of probable cause, it's barely at the level of reasonable suspicion. Yes, it is unusual to leave a store in a rush but certainly far more likely to be for an innocent reason especially as nothing else indicates a robbery like brandishing a weapon. It's a reason to investigate like follow the suspects and call it in, there isn't even a basis to stop them.
@@Treblaine By the logic used here the cops would have reasonable suspicion to arrest everyone leaving the a busy grocer in the afternoon. They could “reasonably” assume that everyone stressed is a dangerous armed robber. It is completely insane
I would be okay with this if it wasn't for - refusing to check his wallet for the card that identified him as diabetic - not allowing him to have the orange juice
Regardless of the legal standard . . . someone was an idiot. How hard is it? Smell the orange juice. Let him drink the OJ. Shoot, take him to a store and let him BUY OJ / pop / whatever. Sincerely, dad of a Type 1 diabetic.
There's a possibility that it wasn't orange juice. We, the people looking at this case from 30 years in the future, can know it was only juice, but cops in the moment... yeah. This wouldn't even be an issue the defense would bring up in court. The fact that this started off with "He needs sugar right away!" and ended without him going into insulin shock and dying after being detained without his sugar for so long is.... strange. He collapsed after running around his car twice, but was fine after that? Going for a quick jog doesn't usually fix insulin shock... but hey I'm not a doctor.
I didn't even think of it that way, huh. I know hindsight is 20/20 but maybe they could have checked if it was orange juice and even checked his wallet for the diabetic card. But you can never really know how those involved felt when the event was going down.
Alcohol is pretty easy to sniff out - other substances not so much. From the cops perspective, letting him have it was way more of a risk - if he overdosed or got high/drunk while in custody, they'd be in way more trouble than if he went into insulin shock (which again, strangely, he didn't.)
@@drethethinker6418 Arguing “objective reasonableness” for human beings in high intensity situations often leads to subjectivity and therefore unreasonableness, and potential injury and death.
i actually somewhat understand their decision. If you read The 4th Amendment, it claims that as long as The Officer has a reasonable suspicion of The Person, then they could frisk and search for any weapons or illegal materials. They did have a reasonable suspicion, as it seemed like Graham was planning to rob the place. However, The Police did go way too far, to the point where they basically were assaulting Graham. In terms of The 4th Amendment, The Supreme Court was right. I do believe that The Officers used excessive force, though, but That was not what The Court was basing their decisions off of.
In my country cops are legally obligated to PRIORITISE medical aid if a person mentions it, whether it sounds like a weak excuse or not. Usually this means an ambulance is called and any “easy” steps to verify/aid that are no danger to the police or a risk to escape are done on the spot, in this case checking the wallet for a diabetes card. Once the card has been found, they’ll either wait for the ambulance or rush to find sugar for the suspect. Many times medical emergencies are used as an excuse which leads to scepticism, but since one man died in a situation like this the rules for medical aid are incredibly strictly in favour of providing emergency care. America should learn and adapt the way we have.
Unfortunately this would've to be done on a city-by-city or county-by-county basis, because most law enforcement is done at the local and state level and the U.S. has more than 18 000 police departments! It would take a long time, but it should most definitely be done! By the way which country are you from if you don't mind me asking?
In my country (U.S.), people usually start comments with 'in my country' but don't mention their nation leaving people wondering. I don't understand why not.
That's how it is in Texas, you're required to administer first aid and seek medical assistance if requested while maintaining control of the scene and potential suspect.
A catastrophe. It resulted in a recent Supreme Court case that potentially can give federal and joint task force officers a new special qualified immunity
@@trueblade3636 Weird that they just happened to assume that specifically a black man was a criminal when he had done nothing weirder than leave a store in a hurry
From the description of the incident, I would've absolutely sided with Graham. I don't deny that police have a difficult job and have to make life or death decisions at times, but this incident reeks of an officer abusing his power.
I deny they have a particularly difficult job. The only problem with this situation was entirely their concoction that any good and reasonable person should not have created. The cops story that they genuinely believed they had just robbed a store is so ridiculous the police are either complete morons to assume that or they're only moderately stupid in that is the most plausible lie they could come up with. The evidence suggest they didn't really think they were armed robbers, the cops didn't treat them like they were approaching armed criminals who had just threatened murder to steal, they were on a fishing expedition and this rushing was all the basis for their suspicion. It's just the only crime they could imagine would be related to rushing out of a store is armed robbery even they don't really believe it. This is beyond training, you cannot train a dishonest man to be honest, you cannot train people to follow rules that they know they don't have to follow in practice. Police were perfectly within their rights to just NOT stop and arrest them, the police had no legal obligation to act. What would they have possibly lost by following the suspects without stopping them? Nothing.
Because of the Supremes' ruling an LEO can disbelieve you, think the worst about you, and regard your driver's license or state I.D. as fake 😡 ... and still be "reasonable"! 🤦🤷
So I guess the moral of the story here is if you going into a store/restaurant Etc. & there's a long line don't leave right away otherwise any police who are nearby will assume that you committed Armed Robbery
RIght? Considering an armed robbery probably takes a while. A hell of a lot longer than waking in a store and seeing a large line. These people that are supporting this verdict are fucking moron statist copsuckers.
This case, combined with Frazier v Cupp, shows that you could be stopped on the street and questioned by undercover cops who come off as criminals and don't identify themselves as LE. If they don't like your answers you could then be Terry frisked, robbed, and mugged. If you try to escape, you could be asssulted, choked, and battered. If you defend yourself they get to arrest and jail you, order any video evidence captured by bystanders destroyed, and put you on trial, all while lying about you and the encounter. And the courts will call it "reasonable"! Brownback v King and King v United States
Pulling him over when you don't know the situation is completely reasonable. Slamming a person onto the concrete and refusing to even consider the fact they are actually have a medical emergency they are telling you they are having is not. This should've been a negligence case.
Caleb Haggard well, if a person does nothing wrong, and the police have no way to prove they did something wrong, should they be beaten sing your death or have excessive force John upon them even when the situation doesn't call for it?
Cats Except that does happen in the US most of the time. One example that’s famous specifically for being different than how it should be doesn’t apply to the whole country, and beyond that why do some people think they understand the USA from a couple of videos on the internet
This is one of those cases where regardless of the consequences of the ruling itself, said ruling being made in defense of the officers in this specific case is absolutely uncalled for. Any truly reasonable person would be willing to at least check the wallet for the diabetic ID card.
Maybe in light of what happened as of the last few days, May 30 2020 at the time of comment, that police actions should be looked at again, possibly with a view of overturning this decision
@Benjamin Jacobs we have to wait and see what happens of course, but as cases like West Virginia Board of Education v Barnette and Brown v Board of Education show, the court and does can reverse itself with regards to previous decisions they've made (the two mentioned overturned Minersville School District v Gobitis, for the first one and Plessey v Ferguson for the latter)
You know what might have been both objective and reasonable? Taking a description of the suspect and the car, and then going into the store to see if anyone needs help, or at least confirm that a crime was committed. Kind of fits the 'protect and serve' theme a lot better than unlawfully and unreasonably withholding an innocent man's OJ. This one is a pretty terrible decision overall.
According to FLETC (Federal Law Enforcement Training Center), they did a FLETC Talk where in the video Officer Connor called for backup and ordered 2 officers over the police radio to return to the convenience store to verify if criminal activity was afoot. If Officer Connor had went inside the store and it turned out there was an actual robbery, the suspect would have been gone.
Certainly a controversial decision by the court. The fact that the police officers refused to listen to the calls that he was diabetic, I would have reacted the same way as he did, I would have sued the police as well. To me, police officers are human beings and (not just in the US but here in the UK as well) they should be subject to the same laws that they enforce. To use an example from over here, there is a long running saga related to the Hillsborough Disaster. This was a fatal crush during what should have been an FA Cup Semi-Final between the Soccer clubs Liverpool and Nottingham Forest in 1989. The Matchday Commander, Chief Superintendent David Duckenfied noticed that there were still thousands of fans waiting waiting to get in with kick-off just minutes away. Worse, it was feared that there was a risk to life with people pushing to get in. He gave the order to open Exit Gate "C", to relieve the pressure on those outside. There was one flaw with this course of action. The only visible direction the fans could see at the time was the terraces behind the goal at the end of the stadium Liverpool were given, Leppings Lane. Duckenfield's order didn't include the secondary instruction to close the access to the terraces after opening the exit gate. As result, 2000 people poured into the terraces that were already overcrowded. Bearing in mind, this was before the game even kicked off. The game started on time, but fans desperately trying to escape the crush, were shouting at the police by the side of the pitch to open the small gates in the fencing by the pitch (a measure intended to deter hooliganism) to let people out. When they refused, people desperately tried to climb the fences, but the police pushed them back in. Eventually, seeing the problem, some officers opened the gates to let people out, but they were too small to let people out quickly enough. Finally, after 6 minutes of play, the game was stopped, not to be restarted ultimately. When the Football Association (FA, the English Soccer governing body) communication chief went to Duckenfied to find out what was going on, the answer he was given was that fans had "broken in" to the ground. It would turn out later to be the first of many accounts that would be told subsequently as part of the local police force and the authorities' cover-up. The death toll on the day was 95, one more person would die later in hospital after being in a deep coma. 766 people were reported injured. Despite the fact that the disaster was captured on tape, there was an initial inquiry about what happened, during which time, there were attempts by the authorities to make something out of the fact that there was high levels of alcohol in the bodies of the dead, even the children. This is despite the fact that that sort of thing happens to a dead body. The hearings singularly failed to get to the truth that the fans had seen and the courts just saw the police version (not helped by the Sun newspaper making monstrous aligations about the behaviour of the fans, with no proof other than the word of police officials who were spreading their version of the "truth"). After 2 years of inquiries, juries gave the same verdict on all the deceased, "Accidental Death." This implied that the fans were somehow at fault for their own deaths. 27 years later, breaking the rule that government documents had to remain secret for 30 years, an independent panel carried out a scrutiny of the evidence and came to a very different conclusion. The Hillsborough Independent Panel, revealed that not only were the fans not to blame, but comments critical of the police handling of the disaster by the police witnesses were altered. Not just one or two either, but a total of 116 statements were altered, leaving only criticism of the fans remaining in the statements they signed. What's more, analysis of the victims revealed that more than half who died might have had a chance of survival had they been given CPR and proper treatment, going to hospital in good order, having an emergency plan, basically. As a result, in 2012, the accidental death verdicts for the victims was overturned and a new inquest was opened. Eventually in 2016, a new jury ruled that the victims were actually unlawfully killed in the disaster. It only took them 27 years to get that far. Later, those responsible that day, including David Duckenfied, were made to stand trail for Manslaughter (in my opinion they should have stood for pergary as well, as they tried to cover up their failings). Controversially, in 2019, Duckenfied was acquitted on the basis that he had never handled a soccer game before and that the force itself was more at fault than an individual
Because when you are having a diabetic emergency, your rational though process is pretty much non-existent hence his actions. When he was walking around the cop car, he most likely was confused and did not know what was going on. Police are not trained to determine the difference between being high, drunk, mentally ill, having a mental emergency etc.. and frankly they do not care because there are too many morons walking this planet. Using hindsight was required for this case. Beating the shit out of someone and then dropping them off in the front yard is pretty much the same as a mob beating.
Some people don't like to eat/drink stuff before they've paid for it, for fear of someone thinking you've stolen it. I'm the same way. Hypothetically, I'm sure if someone went back in time and told him what would happen otherwise, he would have just drank the juice in line, but it wasn't like he knew a cop was going to think he robbed the store.
Jake Miller has a good point. If I want into a store and saw a long line...I would put the items down and go to another store. It was an emergency, so it would make sense to drink the juice in line and explain to the cashier your reasoning for doing so. Yet, it is possible that Graham did not see it as a matter of life and death and thought he could hold out for a little while longer as they got another juice from another store. He did not anticipate being stopped which would delay him from being able to get the sugar he needs and triggering the reaction even further.
The fact that someone going to a store, seeing there is a long line, and deciding to leave right away can justify the police to do, well...all that is a problem in of itself. The fact that it's "reasonable" that a cop can stop and arrest someone for what amounts to a "bad feeling" is one big reason why we have the problems we do.
Technically, SCOTUS ruled correctly here. The case was about whether Graham's 4th amendment rights were violated, not if excessive force was used, as many others are implying. This case does bring up problems in similar cases which does make it very annoying.
Wait..Why didn’t the officer check the convince store!? If his defense was that he suspected Graham to rob it his first response should have been to check if everyone was alright! Apart from that since the store was crowded he could’ve seen an out burst, unless he wasn’t actually paying attention!
See I actually side with the police officers up until 1:00 thing happened. When he informed them that he had identification to verify that he was a diabetic, and they refuse to even look. It wasn't even a case of not letting him reach for a glove compartment or into his pocket for fear that you may have a weapon, he was already handcuffed at that point and they simply needed to reach into the wallet themselves. That there showed a lack of reasonableness. Any reasonable objective person would have checked to verify but they didn't
I would suggest that maybe the problem with the American court system is that it arrogantly assumes all the answers are found in America and American legal precedent. Since I live in a rather small country, we don't have the luxury to assume we are superior to the rest f the world. When my country's Labor Courts examined the question of whether or not waiters could be paid in tips, they looked at the laws in other countries, in Europe and in the USA, and eventually sided with the European laws over Americans law, and concluded that every employee is entailed to at least a minimum wage, and any tips he/she might get from costumers can't be considered part of an employees salary. That was just one example I remember. perhaps If the USA 's courts looked outside the borders of the USA legal system would serve justice more and may not come to such unjust one might say even criminal verdicts.
The issue with that is the USA has a completely different country childhood than Europe or Asia. Europe's had kings and emperors for forever in a tight space with inevitable allies, while the US went full "Screw the King" and had a government designed to be self sufficient when everyone hates you and you are across the ocean from anyone else.
The US does look to other countries for guidance but usually only those which practice Common Law, so basically Britain and many places they colonized. A reason not to rely too heavily on outside influence has to do with federalism and the strict delineation between state and federal power, The Federal government is often quite limited in what it can do. This was done intentionally because the system assumed states would be the primary government for the masses (as it is closer to the people and thus better able to react and work with them). Tips are a contentious issue because the experiences of tip workers are so different. Some can barely scrape together minimum wage, while others make hundreds of dollars above minimum wage per day. Those at the bottom want minimum wage, those in the middle and top do not want the status quo. I believe there is actually fair evidence to support the idea that if people believed waiters did not need tips, then tips would not be given. After all, you don't give the cashier at a retail store a tip, no the workers at fast food restaurants. So for the people in the middle of the top suddenly drop from earning good money to earning crap, then they have every right to object (same as those at the bottom have every right to object under the current system). Each state also has its own unique laws. Like my state, Nevada, allows restaurants to pay workers who earn tips much less than minimum wage BUT if the tips + wage per hour do not equal minimum wage, then the employer has to make up the difference.
Hello Mr. Beat I'm aware you're based in america and your focus is on american precedent and case law, but have you heard of the comparable ruling of Hill v Chief constable of west yorkshire, over in the U.K.? The UKSC has recently ruled to allowed citizens to sue police if they violate private tort law ( as per robinson v chief constable of west yorkshire UKSC 4) , I was just wondering what you thought of this judgement.
Those who hold power over life and death situations should be ready to give out there own. The state should at no point serve itself just as much as the cops. It is the job of the state to prioritize its citizens. I outright disagree with the protection laws.
I think like the military, cops should accept the possibility of death and it should be preferred to the death of citizens. No one wants people to die, but as a cop you serve the community above all
+Step Back History Really? I couldn't verify this when I researched. I guess that wouldn't be surprising. Do you remember the source where you found that out?
Never seen a pig who wasn't abusive and sadistic, or just totally fine with arguing for the necessity of their pig colleagues being abusive or sadistic.
This case has come up in the Chauvin trial. Severity of the violence of the crime: 0, Resisting arrest: 5 Brutality: 10/10 from the bystander video 2/10 from the complete cop bodycams
Would it have been any different if he’d simply claimed the stop and arrest were unreasonable and his actions at the store did not reach Probable Cause? Would Terry v Ohio save the police in that case?
No, the Court held that the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle due to the actions of Graham matching that of commonly known tactics of robbery suspects. Reasonable suspicion was already determined to be the standard due to Terry v. Ohio and it already protected the officers actions.
I agree with SCOTUS up until they roughed Graham up, refused to even check the diabetes (when they already had him cuffed) and refused to let him drink the OJ.
Add this to list of cases that should be overturned this was more a violation of the 8th amendment than the 4th tho. If they ya felt him drink his oj and went through his wallet instead of arresting him and hurting him, it would have been fine.
why didn't he just drink the OJ while wating in line and pay for it by handing the empty bottle? Though I guess it's easy to miss an idea like that when you are in a rush.
This case was decided on a year before the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), I wonder if they would have decided differently if the events had taken place after its passing. The ruling essentially holds that police are under no obligation to consider disabilities and other medical factors/conditions, even when they are verbalised and even if they are made aware of verifiable proof of such a condition. That's scary as hell to me, as that sounds an awful lot like the reason people like Derek Chauvin don't take their suspects seriously when they say they "cannot breath". I am not expecting officers to jeopardise their own safety in an arrest, however they should absolutely be required to take the safety of their suspects into consideration and face consequences if they don't. People shouldn't have to die for this to apply, that's already far too late. What happens if someone with a disability is physically incapable of following an order and the police officer sees this as "resisting arrest"? Providing sugar that is already on the scene to a suspect in no way jeopardizes officer safety. This officer acted entirely without regard for suspect safety and did so probably out of the egotistical view that "the officer is always right". He didn't want to be proven wrong about his assessment that suspect was not a diabetic.
this man is not only qualified but he did the research, if you don’t believe him look up the information yourself. you owe it to yourself to find out the information.
I think it makes sense for cops to assume the worst in certain situations, but how they assess and solve the situation is what really determines the outcome, in my opinion.
Plenty of stores would mind, and some would even call the police in that context since it's unsold merchandise under what is known as "shopkeeper's privilege"
I understand this decision and think that the cops used excessive force. So the decision in how to apply the fourth Amendment is right...but the idea that Connor was in any way in the right is wrong.
"Police officers have incredibly difficult jobs" bullshit, it's well known that applicants for open police positions way way exceed the available positions, there is huge demand to become a police officer because for the qualifications needed, the pay/benefits and the actual difficulty of the job are really really good. And once you've become a cop it's really easy to get a job as a cop somewhere else. Being a cop is transparently a great privilege, it's a highly prestigious position. The lack of strict education requirements and value of "experience" results in police recruitment being a highly politicized and corrupt process. The selection of police recruitment by police department is extremely biased to protect those already on the gravy train.
The cop could have checked the store to see if it was robbed but committing attempted murder is just more fun. This is why i think the minimum sentencing for cops who break the law should be life without the possibility of parole. Maybe that will teach them to act right.
My book about everything you need to know about the Supreme Court is now available!
Amazon: amzn.to/3Jj3ZnS
Bookshop (a collection of indie publishers): bookshop.org/books/the-power-of-and-frustration-with-our-supreme-court-100-supreme-court-cases-you-should-know-about-with-mr-beat/9781684810680
Barnes and Noble: www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-matt-beat/1142323504?ean=9781684810680
Amazon UK: www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=the+power+of+our+supreme+court&crid=3R59T7TQ6WKI3&sprefix=the+power+of+our+supreme+courth%2Caps%2C381&ref=nb_sb_noss
Mango: mango.bz/books/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-2523-b
Target: www.target.com/p/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-paperback/-/A-86273023
Walmart: www.walmart.com/ip/The-Power-of-Our-Supreme-Court-How-the-Supreme-Court-Cases-Shape-Democracy-Paperback-9781684810680/688487495
Chapters Indigo: www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/the-power-of-our-supreme/9781684810680-item.html?ikwid=The+Power+of+Our+Supreme+Court&ikwsec=Home&ikwidx=0#algoliaQueryId=eab3e89ad34051a62471614d72966b7e
I would have sided with Graham. Denying one's ability to counter immediate medical reactions when proof that one could be and is occurring at that moment should fall under excessive force. Of course, the policeman did have the right to do the arrest, but he should have been held accountable for not handing over the orange juice.
Also limiting yourself through the scope of the 4th amendment is honestly idiotic. No matter what, any possible violation of Constitutional rights should be looked at in any case, Graham wasn't an experienced lawyer for goodness sake.
The question was “Were the man’s 4th Amendment right violated”. They were not.
Maybe he should have hired a better lawyer?
@@the4tierbridge Agreed, it should have been "were his 6th amendments rights violated, due process" Aka by not complying with Grahams reasonable request for the officer to check his wallet for his medical ID, the officer denied him due process for which the arrests were then unreasonable.
Yeah, it doesn't even matter if he did rob the place, police cannot use arrest as a way to kill an arrested suspect by denying necessary medical intervention and purposefully ignore evidence that proves there is a medical need.
And the leaps in logic that this was a robbery are way way below the bounds of probable cause, it's barely at the level of reasonable suspicion. Yes, it is unusual to leave a store in a rush but certainly far more likely to be for an innocent reason especially as nothing else indicates a robbery like brandishing a weapon. It's a reason to investigate like follow the suspects and call it in, there isn't even a basis to stop them.
Yes but have you forgotten the most important part of the 4th amendment: if the guy is black, you can do whatever you want.
@@Treblaine By the logic used here the cops would have reasonable suspicion to arrest everyone leaving the a busy grocer in the afternoon. They could “reasonably” assume that everyone stressed is a dangerous armed robber. It is completely insane
I would be okay with this if it wasn't for
- refusing to check his wallet for the card that identified him as diabetic
- not allowing him to have the orange juice
not to mention the way they handled him, causing him to sustain multiple injuries
Agreed. I have a hard time believing it was necessary to beat him up when they did, especially when he was outnumbered and had just passed out.
Regardless of the legal standard . . . someone was an idiot. How hard is it? Smell the orange juice. Let him drink the OJ. Shoot, take him to a store and let him BUY OJ / pop / whatever. Sincerely, dad of a Type 1 diabetic.
mighty white of you Goebbels.
@@dugroz scary isn't it. I have kids too. One with psychotic episodes, and I fear for them. Almost all Cops are sadists.
Why not let him drink the Orange juice though. I can see why police can defend their excessive force in court. But why deny a man his OJ?
There's a possibility that it wasn't orange juice.
We, the people looking at this case from 30 years in the future, can know it was only juice, but cops in the moment... yeah. This wouldn't even be an issue the defense would bring up in court.
The fact that this started off with "He needs sugar right away!" and ended without him going into insulin shock and dying after being detained without his sugar for so long is.... strange. He collapsed after running around his car twice, but was fine after that? Going for a quick jog doesn't usually fix insulin shock... but hey I'm not a doctor.
I didn't even think of it that way, huh. I know hindsight is 20/20 but maybe they could have checked if it was orange juice and even checked his wallet for the diabetic card. But you can never really know how those involved felt when the event was going down.
Alcohol is pretty easy to sniff out - other substances not so much. From the cops perspective, letting him have it was way more of a risk - if he overdosed or got high/drunk while in custody, they'd be in way more trouble than if he went into insulin shock (which again, strangely, he didn't.)
I agree with you, but I think the most disturbing facts of the case were the injuries.
Definitely, even if they thought he robbed the store breaking a guys leg is a bit much.
The Supreme Court really screwed up on this
How so?
That would be an understatement!
@@drethethinker6418 Arguing “objective reasonableness” for human beings in high intensity situations often leads to subjectivity and therefore unreasonableness, and potential injury and death.
i actually somewhat understand their decision. If you read The 4th Amendment, it claims that as long as The Officer has a reasonable suspicion of The Person, then they could frisk and search for any weapons or illegal materials. They did have a reasonable suspicion, as it seemed like Graham was planning to rob the place. However, The Police did go way too far, to the point where they basically were assaulting Graham. In terms of The 4th Amendment, The Supreme Court was right. I do believe that The Officers used excessive force, though, but That was not what The Court was basing their decisions off of.
@@thee-coin No, he didn't have reasonable suspicion. A guy went quickly in and out of a store with NOTHING visible on their person.
In my country cops are legally obligated to PRIORITISE medical aid if a person mentions it, whether it sounds like a weak excuse or not. Usually this means an ambulance is called and any “easy” steps to verify/aid that are no danger to the police or a risk to escape are done on the spot, in this case checking the wallet for a diabetes card. Once the card has been found, they’ll either wait for the ambulance or rush to find sugar for the suspect. Many times medical emergencies are used as an excuse which leads to scepticism, but since one man died in a situation like this the rules for medical aid are incredibly strictly in favour of providing emergency care. America should learn and adapt the way we have.
Unfortunately this would've to be done on a city-by-city or county-by-county basis, because most law enforcement is done at the local and state level and the U.S. has more than 18 000 police departments! It would take a long time, but it should most definitely be done!
By the way which country are you from if you don't mind me asking?
In my country (U.S.), people usually start comments with 'in my country' but don't mention their nation leaving people wondering. I don't understand why not.
That's how it is in Texas, you're required to administer first aid and seek medical assistance if requested while maintaining control of the scene and potential suspect.
@@w_6880 They didn’t seem to do that in Uvalde
This decision was a disaster.
MegaVergan
Was!?
It’s still a disaster and wreaking havoc!
☹️
A catastrophe. It resulted in a recent Supreme Court case that potentially can give federal and joint task force officers a new special qualified immunity
In my opinion, this belongs in the Top 10 worst supreme court decisions
Calkin Garg Plessy v Ferguson is definitely worse
Calkin Garg
Buck v bell is far far worse than this
Roe v Wade
@@callmecharlie37 Why is that case bad. It has nothing to do with you what some random skank does with some half developed drooling little oaf thing.
@@ethanrichter3444 Buck v. Bell, Korematsu v. United States, and Hirabayashi v. United States we're all FAR, FAR, worse.
This could not be more relevant.
Yes. Cause it's about police brutality. *Not* about skin color
Why?
They failed the American people big time with this.
@@trueblade3636 Weird that they just happened to assume that specifically a black man was a criminal when he had done nothing weirder than leave a store in a hurry
From the description of the incident, I would've absolutely sided with Graham. I don't deny that police have a difficult job and have to make life or death decisions at times, but this incident reeks of an officer abusing his power.
I deny they have a particularly difficult job. The only problem with this situation was entirely their concoction that any good and reasonable person should not have created.
The cops story that they genuinely believed they had just robbed a store is so ridiculous the police are either complete morons to assume that or they're only moderately stupid in that is the most plausible lie they could come up with. The evidence suggest they didn't really think they were armed robbers, the cops didn't treat them like they were approaching armed criminals who had just threatened murder to steal, they were on a fishing expedition and this rushing was all the basis for their suspicion.
It's just the only crime they could imagine would be related to rushing out of a store is armed robbery even they don't really believe it.
This is beyond training, you cannot train a dishonest man to be honest, you cannot train people to follow rules that they know they don't have to follow in practice.
Police were perfectly within their rights to just NOT stop and arrest them, the police had no legal obligation to act. What would they have possibly lost by following the suspects without stopping them? Nothing.
"More relevant than ever" ... vid is 3 years old yet that applies now very strongly.
he's talking 'bout the case, which took place back in the 80s
Connor seemed to be caring about the situation and airing on the side of caution... Until he refused the man's own offer of proof of his condition.
Because of the Supremes' ruling an LEO can disbelieve you, think the worst about you, and regard your driver's license or state I.D. as fake 😡 ... and still be "reasonable"! 🤦🤷
So I guess the moral of the story here is if you going into a store/restaurant Etc. & there's a long line don't leave right away otherwise any police who are nearby will assume that you committed Armed Robbery
RIght? Considering an armed robbery probably takes a while. A hell of a lot longer than waking in a store and seeing a large line. These people that are supporting this verdict are fucking moron statist copsuckers.
And, not to mention, only if you're black. If he had been white, I highly doubt any of this would have happened.
This case, combined with Frazier v Cupp, shows that you could be stopped on the street and questioned by undercover cops who come off as criminals and don't identify themselves as LE. If they don't like your answers you could then be Terry frisked, robbed, and mugged. If you try to escape, you could be asssulted, choked, and battered. If you defend yourself they get to arrest and jail you, order any video evidence captured by bystanders destroyed, and put you on trial, all while lying about you and the encounter. And the courts will call it "reasonable"! Brownback v King and King v United States
I had a dream about this. Walking into a store and leaving to later be confronted by a police officer. weird.
Pulling him over when you don't know the situation is completely reasonable. Slamming a person onto the concrete and refusing to even consider the fact they are actually have a medical emergency they are telling you they are having is not. This should've been a negligence case.
And people wonder why some think america is barbaric
Teddy Boragina As opposed to Iran where if a woman shows her ankle in public she gets stoned to death.
Caleb Haggard well, if a person does nothing wrong, and the police have no way to prove they did something wrong, should they be beaten sing your death or have excessive force John upon them even when the situation doesn't call for it?
Why can't both be barbaric?
Caleb Haggard As opposed to countries that call an ambulance for suspects in distress. Not being last on the list doesn’t mean you’re on top.
Cats Except that does happen in the US most of the time. One example that’s famous specifically for being different than how it should be doesn’t apply to the whole country, and beyond that why do some people think they understand the USA from a couple of videos on the internet
This is one of those cases where regardless of the consequences of the ruling itself, said ruling being made in defense of the officers in this specific case is absolutely uncalled for. Any truly reasonable person would be willing to at least check the wallet for the diabetic ID card.
Maybe in light of what happened as of the last few days, May 30 2020 at the time of comment, that police actions should be looked at again, possibly with a view of overturning this decision
@Benjamin Jacobs we have to wait and see what happens of course, but as cases like West Virginia Board of Education v Barnette and Brown v Board of Education show, the court and does can reverse itself with regards to previous decisions they've made (the two mentioned overturned Minersville School District v Gobitis, for the first one and Plessey v Ferguson for the latter)
@Benjamin Jacobs Congress, judges immunity, usually un-qualified. #1 #EndSelfDiscipline boards, unions, campaign bribes. #EndPoliceJudgeImmunity unless under deadly attack.
@Benjamin Jacobs Congress, judge immunity, often un-qualified. #1 reform #EndSelfDiscipline boards, unions, campaign bribes. #EndPoliceJudgeImmunity unless under deadly attack.
You know what might have been both objective and reasonable? Taking a description of the suspect and the car, and then going into the store to see if anyone needs help, or at least confirm that a crime was committed. Kind of fits the 'protect and serve' theme a lot better than unlawfully and unreasonably withholding an innocent man's OJ.
This one is a pretty terrible decision overall.
According to FLETC (Federal Law Enforcement Training Center), they did a FLETC Talk where in the video Officer Connor called for backup and ordered 2 officers over the police radio to return to the convenience store to verify if criminal activity was afoot. If Officer Connor had went inside the store and it turned out there was an actual robbery, the suspect would have been gone.
Great video. thanks for including the Eric Garner footage for a point of reference
So it looks like More Perfect did an episode about this case, and you can thank Jake and myself for giving them the idea.
One last thing I can't believe Thurgood Marshall ruled that way. I'm going to go cry now
How is it objective to assume someone robbed a store when NOBODY reported the store as robbed nor called 9-1-1.
What if Graham died there. I'd think the courts would be singing a different tune.
Wow this is so relevant rn holy crap
He didnt even check in the store to see if it was robbed first?
He would lose the suspect. He could stop them and get another officer to check
@@timothyfolds6961 Or he could have gotten the license plate number, make and model of the car, and then check if the store was robbed.
@@Quinntus79 This was in 1984 , much harder to track a car.
Ah yes, because he definately would have used that orange juice to escape custody
Certainly a controversial decision by the court. The fact that the police officers refused to listen to the calls that he was diabetic, I would have reacted the same way as he did, I would have sued the police as well. To me, police officers are human beings and (not just in the US but here in the UK as well) they should be subject to the same laws that they enforce.
To use an example from over here, there is a long running saga related to the Hillsborough Disaster. This was a fatal crush during what should have been an FA Cup Semi-Final between the Soccer clubs Liverpool and Nottingham Forest in 1989. The Matchday Commander, Chief Superintendent David Duckenfied noticed that there were still thousands of fans waiting waiting to get in with kick-off just minutes away. Worse, it was feared that there was a risk to life with people pushing to get in. He gave the order to open Exit Gate "C", to relieve the pressure on those outside. There was one flaw with this course of action. The only visible direction the fans could see at the time was the terraces behind the goal at the end of the stadium Liverpool were given, Leppings Lane. Duckenfield's order didn't include the secondary instruction to close the access to the terraces after opening the exit gate. As result, 2000 people poured into the terraces that were already overcrowded.
Bearing in mind, this was before the game even kicked off. The game started on time, but fans desperately trying to escape the crush, were shouting at the police by the side of the pitch to open the small gates in the fencing by the pitch (a measure intended to deter hooliganism) to let people out. When they refused, people desperately tried to climb the fences, but the police pushed them back in. Eventually, seeing the problem, some officers opened the gates to let people out, but they were too small to let people out quickly enough. Finally, after 6 minutes of play, the game was stopped, not to be restarted ultimately. When the Football Association (FA, the English Soccer governing body) communication chief went to Duckenfied to find out what was going on, the answer he was given was that fans had "broken in" to the ground.
It would turn out later to be the first of many accounts that would be told subsequently as part of the local police force and the authorities' cover-up. The death toll on the day was 95, one more person would die later in hospital after being in a deep coma. 766 people were reported injured. Despite the fact that the disaster was captured on tape, there was an initial inquiry about what happened, during which time, there were attempts by the authorities to make something out of the fact that there was high levels of alcohol in the bodies of the dead, even the children. This is despite the fact that that sort of thing happens to a dead body. The hearings singularly failed to get to the truth that the fans had seen and the courts just saw the police version (not helped by the Sun newspaper making monstrous aligations about the behaviour of the fans, with no proof other than the word of police officials who were spreading their version of the "truth"). After 2 years of inquiries, juries gave the same verdict on all the deceased, "Accidental Death." This implied that the fans were somehow at fault for their own deaths. 27 years later, breaking the rule that government documents had to remain secret for 30 years, an independent panel carried out a scrutiny of the evidence and came to a very different conclusion.
The Hillsborough Independent Panel, revealed that not only were the fans not to blame, but comments critical of the police handling of the disaster by the police witnesses were altered. Not just one or two either, but a total of 116 statements were altered, leaving only criticism of the fans remaining in the statements they signed. What's more, analysis of the victims revealed that more than half who died might have had a chance of survival had they been given CPR and proper treatment, going to hospital in good order, having an emergency plan, basically. As a result, in 2012, the accidental death verdicts for the victims was overturned and a new inquest was opened. Eventually in 2016, a new jury ruled that the victims were actually unlawfully killed in the disaster. It only took them 27 years to get that far.
Later, those responsible that day, including David Duckenfied, were made to stand trail for Manslaughter (in my opinion they should have stood for pergary as well, as they tried to cover up their failings). Controversially, in 2019, Duckenfied was acquitted on the basis that he had never handled a soccer game before and that the force itself was more at fault than an individual
For the 96 justice ruclips.net/video/-z3mBIi084Q/видео.html
This is probably the most interesting case I’ve heard in the entire series
And one of the worse SC decisions as well !
Here is what I don't get. Why the hell didn't Graham just drink the orange juice at the first gas station while he was in line waiting to pay for it?
Good point, but I guess he felt guilty?
Great observation!
Because when you are having a diabetic emergency, your rational though process is pretty much non-existent hence his actions. When he was walking around the cop car, he most likely was confused and did not know what was going on. Police are not trained to determine the difference between being high, drunk, mentally ill, having a mental emergency etc.. and frankly they do not care because there are too many morons walking this planet. Using hindsight was required for this case. Beating the shit out of someone and then dropping them off in the front yard is pretty much the same as a mob beating.
Some people don't like to eat/drink stuff before they've paid for it, for fear of someone thinking you've stolen it. I'm the same way. Hypothetically, I'm sure if someone went back in time and told him what would happen otherwise, he would have just drank the juice in line, but it wasn't like he knew a cop was going to think he robbed the store.
Jake Miller has a good point.
If I want into a store and saw a long line...I would put the items down and go to another store. It was an emergency, so it would make sense to drink the juice in line and explain to the cashier your reasoning for doing so. Yet, it is possible that Graham did not see it as a matter of life and death and thought he could hold out for a little while longer as they got another juice from another store. He did not anticipate being stopped which would delay him from being able to get the sugar he needs and triggering the reaction even further.
The fact that someone going to a store, seeing there is a long line, and deciding to leave right away can justify the police to do, well...all that is a problem in of itself. The fact that it's "reasonable" that a cop can stop and arrest someone for what amounts to a "bad feeling" is one big reason why we have the problems we do.
That's just completely insane.
What the hell. We can sue doctors for malpractice but not police officers then. Barbaric.
Graham all the way. People have died from diabetic reactions either from too much or too little. Excessive force was absolutely at work here
worst decision ever
This is probably why police calls for EMS for "medical evaluation"
Technically, SCOTUS ruled correctly here. The case was about whether Graham's 4th amendment rights were violated, not if excessive force was used, as many others are implying. This case does bring up problems in similar cases which does make it very annoying.
Wait..Why didn’t the officer check the convince store!? If his defense was that he suspected Graham to rob it his first response should have been to check if everyone was alright! Apart from that since the store was crowded he could’ve seen an out burst, unless he wasn’t actually paying attention!
You forgot the part where Graham was thrown into the back of the squad car and broke his foot
See I actually side with the police officers up until 1:00 thing happened. When he informed them that he had identification to verify that he was a diabetic, and they refuse to even look. It wasn't even a case of not letting him reach for a glove compartment or into his pocket for fear that you may have a weapon, he was already handcuffed at that point and they simply needed to reach into the wallet themselves. That there showed a lack of reasonableness. Any reasonable objective person would have checked to verify but they didn't
Yet another time the supreme court got it wrong...
This is the kind of thing I point to when I say that the justice system of this country is in unsalvageable
This is the first one of these that literally made my blood boil
I would suggest that maybe the problem with the American court system is that it arrogantly assumes all the answers are found in America and American legal precedent.
Since I live in a rather small country, we don't have the luxury to assume we are superior to the rest f the world.
When my country's Labor Courts examined the question of whether or not waiters could be paid in tips, they looked at the laws in other countries, in Europe and in the USA, and eventually sided with the European laws over Americans law, and concluded that every employee is entailed to at least a minimum wage, and any tips he/she might get from costumers can't be considered part of an employees salary.
That was just one example I remember. perhaps If the USA 's courts looked outside the borders of the USA legal system would serve justice more and may not come to such unjust one might say even criminal verdicts.
The issue with that is the USA has a completely different country childhood than Europe or Asia. Europe's had kings and emperors for forever in a tight space with inevitable allies, while the US went full "Screw the King" and had a government designed to be self sufficient when everyone hates you and you are across the ocean from anyone else.
The US does look to other countries for guidance but usually only those which practice Common Law, so basically Britain and many places they colonized. A reason not to rely too heavily on outside influence has to do with federalism and the strict delineation between state and federal power, The Federal government is often quite limited in what it can do. This was done intentionally because the system assumed states would be the primary government for the masses (as it is closer to the people and thus better able to react and work with them).
Tips are a contentious issue because the experiences of tip workers are so different. Some can barely scrape together minimum wage, while others make hundreds of dollars above minimum wage per day. Those at the bottom want minimum wage, those in the middle and top do not want the status quo. I believe there is actually fair evidence to support the idea that if people believed waiters did not need tips, then tips would not be given. After all, you don't give the cashier at a retail store a tip, no the workers at fast food restaurants. So for the people in the middle of the top suddenly drop from earning good money to earning crap, then they have every right to object (same as those at the bottom have every right to object under the current system).
Each state also has its own unique laws. Like my state, Nevada, allows restaurants to pay workers who earn tips much less than minimum wage BUT if the tips + wage per hour do not equal minimum wage, then the employer has to make up the difference.
Thanks for this video.
I like your channel.
I will subscribe.
You're underrated.
+MoneyFolder Thanks so much :D Welcome!
Hello Mr. Beat
I'm aware you're based in america and your focus is on american precedent and case law, but have you heard of the comparable ruling of Hill v Chief constable of west yorkshire, over in the U.K.? The UKSC has recently ruled to allowed citizens to sue police if they violate private tort law ( as per robinson v chief constable of west yorkshire UKSC 4) , I was just wondering what you thought of this judgement.
When Does a Police Officer Go Too Far?
Tuesday?
Can you make Supreme Court case videos more regularly please
+Nipun Sharma I will certainly try. I wish more people watched this series compared to my other videos. Glad you like them :D
Agreed! These are absolutely fascinating cases, and some of the most profound law has been judge-made.
Those who hold power over life and death situations should be ready to give out there own. The state should at no point serve itself just as much as the cops. It is the job of the state to prioritize its citizens. I outright disagree with the protection laws.
I think like the military, cops should accept the possibility of death and it should be preferred to the death of citizens. No one wants people to die, but as a cop you serve the community above all
I would probably use this video in one of my university classes, had it not opened with men's briefs showing in the first screen. Dr. Winborne
You could always skip that part.
Surprise surprise Dethorne Graham, the person the police went full gestapo on was black...
yea, the moment he said they roughed him up, I thought "wait, he was black, wasn't he"
+Step Back History Really? I couldn't verify this when I researched. I guess that wouldn't be surprising. Do you remember the source where you found that out?
Just a handful of articles that talked about this case when Ferguson happened. I haven't gone into the history texts or anything.
I had assumed you intentionally left that part out in order to leave race out of it - but I likewise assumed he was black, hah!
Reminds me of the case of Tennessee v. Garner!
The cops went wayyyy tooooo farrrr!!!
Can I say that this was a horrible decision? Because I personally think it is.
land of the free.....
home of the scared police...
Home of the rich!
All other citizen's rent or the bank owns it through the mortgage cycle! They just pretend they own their home.
Wrong decission...
They didn't ask "Hey, man. Did you get robbed by this guy?"
Never seen a pig who wasn't abusive and sadistic, or just totally fine with arguing for the necessity of their pig colleagues being abusive or sadistic.
I found out about you through Austin Petersen. I'm really liking your stuff.
Oh awesome. Welcome, and thanks for watching :D. I like Austin Petersen, and I'm glad he's running for the Senate.
This is why the ACAB movement started…
Wow! This is an excellent video, I'm your latest subscriber!!
Thanks for subscribing! I got a whole 46 other episodes of this series. :)
@@iammrbeat - I watched like 5 episodes! They're great!! I'll look out for more videos👍😃
Get rid of these cops and their corrupt union. Charge them with attempted murder and sue them. Or do you have to shoot it out to live.
I’m ashamed that Justice Marshall did not dissent
This case has come up in the Chauvin trial. Severity of the violence of the crime: 0,
Resisting arrest: 5
Brutality: 10/10 from the bystander video
2/10 from the complete cop bodycams
They always side with police.
@@carltonjordan4752 add Kisela v Hughes and Brownback v King to the pile
Why not just drink the orange juice in the first store but pay before you leave?
The Store could call the police using shopkeeper's privilege and it's frowned upon in many places in the United States.
My sister was born 2 days after the relevant incident.
Would it have been any different if he’d simply claimed the stop and arrest were unreasonable and his actions at the store did not reach Probable Cause? Would Terry v Ohio save the police in that case?
No, the Court held that the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle due to the actions of Graham matching that of commonly known tactics of robbery suspects. Reasonable suspicion was already determined to be the standard due to Terry v. Ohio and it already protected the officers actions.
I agree with SCOTUS up until they roughed Graham up, refused to even check the diabetes (when they already had him cuffed) and refused to let him drink the OJ.
Apparently entering and exiting a store quickly is a crime.
Thank you God for that wonderful SCOTUS decision. I feel much safer from cops, now.
Thomas Colbert
🤣🤣🤣🤣
No one should assume anything because assuming makes an "a**s out of u & me"
The new Dred Scott descision
Add this to list of cases that should be overturned this was more a violation of the 8th amendment than the 4th tho. If they ya felt him drink his oj and went through his wallet instead of arresting him and hurting him, it would have been fine.
How did it violate the 8th amendment? Have you ever read the 8th amendment?
That has so many consequences!
You may wanna do briefs on tennessee v garner (1985) and heien v north carolina (2014).
why didn't he just drink the OJ while wating in line and pay for it by handing the empty bottle? Though I guess it's easy to miss an idea like that when you are in a rush.
Some store owners would call the police anyways even if you did attempt to pay.
This case was decided on a year before the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), I wonder if they would have decided differently if the events had taken place after its passing. The ruling essentially holds that police are under no obligation to consider disabilities and other medical factors/conditions, even when they are verbalised and even if they are made aware of verifiable proof of such a condition. That's scary as hell to me, as that sounds an awful lot like the reason people like Derek Chauvin don't take their suspects seriously when they say they "cannot breath". I am not expecting officers to jeopardise their own safety in an arrest, however they should absolutely be required to take the safety of their suspects into consideration and face consequences if they don't. People shouldn't have to die for this to apply, that's already far too late. What happens if someone with a disability is physically incapable of following an order and the police officer sees this as "resisting arrest"?
Providing sugar that is already on the scene to a suspect in no way jeopardizes officer safety. This officer acted entirely without regard for suspect safety and did so probably out of the egotistical view that "the officer is always right". He didn't want to be proven wrong about his assessment that suspect was not a diabetic.
Mr Beat I think this is ridiculous and I think this should have not happened and if this had happened Graham should have won!
Yeah, I tend to agree with you.
I was surprised about the outcome too.
Nothing is going to change.
Here, you finally covered one that will not be reversed by the current Supreme Court.
This is the worst decision in American history
I call BS on this one
this man is not only qualified but he did the research, if you don’t believe him look up the information yourself. you owe it to yourself to find out the information.
In case people wonder if awful supreme court rulings is a new thing.
3:10 funny coincidence that the Supreme Court case took place four years after the incident & that the video came out four years ago!
I think it makes sense for cops to assume the worst in certain situations, but how they assess and solve the situation is what really determines the outcome, in my opinion.
This was a horrible decision for the Supreme Court!!!
Why didn't he just drink the orange juice while waiting in line at the store? I'm sure the store wouldn't have minded as long as he paid for it.
Plenty of stores would mind, and some would even call the police in that context since it's unsold merchandise under what is known as "shopkeeper's privilege"
as a diabetic myself, this video was p a i n f u l to watch.
If police officers are so concerned about their safety, why did they become cops? Danger comes with the job whether you like it or not.
I understand this decision and think that the cops used excessive force. So the decision in how to apply the fourth Amendment is right...but the idea that Connor was in any way in the right is wrong.
Where did they use excessive force? Possibly by pushing him onto the hood to search him, but other than that there's really no force used.
this made me so angry
if I were a justice I would vote for Graham because it is not fair to use force unless they prove that someone did a crime
By far one of the worst decisions handed down by the the Supreme Court
"Police officers have incredibly difficult jobs" bullshit, it's well known that applicants for open police positions way way exceed the available positions, there is huge demand to become a police officer because for the qualifications needed, the pay/benefits and the actual difficulty of the job are really really good. And once you've become a cop it's really easy to get a job as a cop somewhere else.
Being a cop is transparently a great privilege, it's a highly prestigious position. The lack of strict education requirements and value of "experience" results in police recruitment being a highly politicized and corrupt process. The selection of police recruitment by police department is extremely biased to protect those already on the gravy train.
This is so f***ed up.
Color of Law form should be filed.
As a type 1 diabetic I can die if my blood sugar is too low and I don't get suger
The cop could have checked the store to see if it was robbed but committing attempted murder is just more fun.
This is why i think the minimum sentencing for cops who break the law should be life without the possibility of parole. Maybe that will teach them to act right.
I hate this decision, I think I would have sued under the 8th ngl.
The cops assumed he was guilty without even a crime being reported and refused to belive his very plausable explenations