Where is the outrage?

[scratchy]

The charge should be negligent homicide. Prosecuted fully. Badge does not grant a screw up pass.

[cstone]

The charge should be negligent homicide. Prosecuted fully. Badge does not grant a screw up pass.

All of that based on a news story you read on the Internet? You should be on the jury

[Hound]

Prosecuted fully does not mean assumed guilty. If ANYBODY shoots another person who is found to be unarmed (this is not in question, the rest will come out in trial), they should be prosecuted and put in front of a jury, period, regardless of Cop or not. And ya, cops should not get ANY special treatment for or against them. They are civillians and should be treated as such. This is not cop bashing, it is saying that NOBODY is above the law. If the cop is innocent no problem, if not... justice is served. Don't turn this into ANOTHER BS Cop bashing thread. Obviously this thread was going after the racism angle to start with, that is a whole other topic.

pros·e·cute
ˈpräsəˌkyo͞ot/
verb
past tense: prosecuted; past participle: prosecuted
1.
institute legal proceedings against (a person or organization).
"they were prosecuted for obstructing the highway"
(of a lawyer) conduct the case against the party being accused or sued in a lawsuit.
"Mr. Ryan will be prosecuting this morning"

All of that based on a news story you read on the Internet? You should be on the jury

[Great-Kazoo]

Maybe also since the NY Post's first image of the shooting victim that they could dig up was a mug shot......

http://nypost.com/2014/11/21/police-...klyn-building/

The ROOKIE should have kept his mouth SHUT and demanded his Union Rep. They'll hang his ass (literally) out to dry. IF he survives segregation / protective lock down.

[cstone]

Hound, I believe you missed a couple of steps.

1. Investigate
2. Deliberate
3. Indictment, if appropriate

When one person shoots another person, causing their death, prosecution is not always or the only possible outcome. Regardless of the shooter's chosen profession, I hope we could agree that no one in the United States should be charged with a crime solely based on the information published in a news story.

I know nothing about the shooting in this instance, and I try to be patient in letting the process work. If the shooting is investigated, the prosecutor and/or Grand Jury deliberates and decides the officer should be prosecuted, then that is likely what will happen. But it won't happen because someone in Colorado reads a few newspaper stories and makes a decision that they know what happened and how it should be handled.

Maybe jury duty is in your future.

Be safe.

[Hound]

Investigate, sure, of course. All the evidence should be put on the table.
Deliberate, that should be for the Jury.
Indictment, I think this is where the rub comes with a lot of people out there because there is a feeling of a lack of fairness. For a DA, who deals with cops regularly to make their cases, is not seen as being unbiased in this instance. This is why I say ANYBODY that shoots an unarmed person should go before a Jury. That takes most of the favoritism out of the process by design. I am not saying this is how it is done, but how it should be done, my opinion.

Getting onto people or dismissing them because they only read about it in a paper/online in a different part of the nation has nothing to do with it. This is America and we all have opinions regardless of where we are because this can and even will happen here. It does not matter if you are in NY, CA, MO or CO, we can all have an opinion on how things should work, everywhere. I nor Scratchy said the guy was guilty and should go to jail or be shot, the word was prosecute. This is where we can agree, a newpaper is not remotely enough information to go that far on guilt. But if ANY of us shoot an unarmd person, something got screwed up.... Bad. The guy should be prosecuted and a jury should be left to determine if it was the cop or some extenuating circumstance that justified it. The jury would get to see ALL of the evidence.

Again, not cop bashing, just wanting a fair prespect for justice regardless of your job.

And BTW, jury duty should be in all our futures if done right.

May we all be safe.

Hound, I believe you missed a couple of steps.

1. Investigate
2. Deliberate
3. Indictment, if appropriate

When one person shoots another person, causing their death, prosecution is not always or the only possible outcome. Regardless of the shooter's chosen profession, I hope we could agree that no one in the United States should be charged with a crime solely based on the information published in a news story.

I know nothing about the shooting in this instance, and I try to be patient in letting the process work. If the shooting is investigated, the prosecutor and/or Grand Jury deliberates and decides the officer should be prosecuted, then that is likely what will happen. But it won't happen because someone in Colorado reads a few newspaper stories and makes a decision that they know what happened and how it should be handled.

Maybe jury duty is in your future.

Be safe.

[Bailey Guns]

This is why I say ANYBODY that shoots an unarmed person should go before a Jury.

Really? So a young woman who weighs 105 pounds, in her home, who's being raped and brutalized by a 260 pound "unarmed" man shouldn't have the right to use her gun to defend herself without being brought to trial, despite all evidence pointing to reasonable self-defense? Why do you not like the "Make My Day" law in Colorado? Why do you disagree with longstanding Colorado law that allows innocent persons to use deadly force against some unarmed criminals who are committing certain crimes like kidnapping and violent sexual assaults? Do you even realize that under Colorado law virtually all criminals can potentially be armed with a deadly weapon just by virtue of having certain body parts such as hands, arms, legs and feet?

Not "EVERYONE" who shoots an unarmed person should be prosecuted and not EVERY shooting of an unarmed person is a bad thing that warrants prosecution, despite your nonsensical attempt to prove otherwise. INVESTIGATED? Yes. PROSECUTED? No.

NOTE: This is not a commentary on this particular shooting instance.

[hurley842002]

Really? So a young woman who weighs 105 pounds, in her home, who's being raped and brutalized by a 260 pound "unarmed" man shouldn't have the right to use her gun to defend herself without being brought to trial, despite all evidence pointing to reasonable self-defense? Why do you not like the "Make My Day" law in Colorado? Why do you disagree with longstanding Colorado law that allows innocent persons to use deadly force against some unarmed criminals who are committing certain crimes like kidnapping and violent sexual assaults? Do you even realize that under Colorado law virtually all criminals can potentially be armed with a deadly weapon just by virtue of having certain body parts such as hands, arms, legs and feet?

Not "EVERYONE" who shoots an unarmed person should be prosecuted and not EVERY shooting of an unarmed person is a bad thing that warrants prosecution, despite your nonsensical attempt to prove otherwise. INVESTIGATED? Yes. PROSECUTED? No.

NOTE: This is not a commentary on this particular shooting instance.

completely agree

[Hound]

Really? So a young woman who weighs 105 pounds, in her home, who's being raped and brutalized by a 260 pound "unarmed" man shouldn't have the right to use her gun to defend herself without being brought to trial, despite all evidence pointing to reasonable self-defense?

A trial would be quick then, what is there to fear? Are you saying that in your example there is a question not brought up or that the "people" are not smart enough to see the obvious? Are you against the Judicial branch of governance?

Why do you not like the "Make My Day" law in Colorado? Why do you disagree with longstanding Colorado law that allows innocent persons to use deadly force against some unarmed criminals who are committing certain crimes like kidnapping and violent sexual assaults?

I never said I did. Why do you always seem to change what is actually said? You have a distinct tendency of making false assumptions to bolster your Know-It-All positions with anybody that disagrees with you. The "Make my day" law would be an excellent defense.

Do you even realize that under Colorado law virtually all criminals can potentially be armed with a deadly weapon just by virtue of having certain body parts such as hands, arms, legs and feet?

And a jury would be able to make that determination.

Not "EVERYONE" who shoots an unarmed person should be prosecuted and not EVERY shooting of an unarmed person is a bad thing that warrants prosecution, despite your nonsensical attempt to prove otherwise. INVESTIGATED? Yes. PROSECUTED? No.

NOTE: This is not a commentary on this particular shooting instance.

Here is where we will disagree. Why are you so afraid of a jury? If it is so obvious, a jury should be able to make that determination. Do you not believe in all three branches the Constitution created? Is it so easy to take a life and not be judged for that action by what is setup to be an impartial process called a Jury made up of the community? Or do you think that only a few "professionals" that work together day in and day out should be the only say regardless of any bias, conflict of interest or even say from the community for which they all serve/work? Is the Constitution "non-sensical" to you?

Now come on back with your standard BS.....

[Bailey Guns]

Because a jury trial in EVERY instance would be an unnecessary waste of resources in an already overburdened court system. Murder trials, more specifically the process leading up to a murder trial, is never "quick". It would also be an unnecessary financial burden on an innocent person to have to defend themselves in a murder trial. My defense in a civil case where I didn't even kill anyone cost $480,000, give or take. That's after an internal investigation and an outside investigation by the FBI had already cleared me. Why would you want to subject an innocent victim to the emotional torture and financial burdens of going to trial for murder when a thorough investigation has already cleared them of any wrong doing.

You've crossed the line (again) from nonsensical to just plain stupid and you're obviously ignorant of how the "justice" system works and Colorado law in general...despite having so many family and friends in law enforcement.