Although your point is correct, this unnecessary death of Floyd is determined by the video itself. All too often, eyewitnesses tstimony and video
recording is considered "questionable" and subject to argument and in a court setting and such argument(s) can, and often deviate from the true facts
involved. However, body-cams worn by police personnel at the scene often display facts that can't be deemed as "questionable." And, as the old saying
implies, "a picture says a thousand words" becomes more relevant in discovering the truth in a court setting. Yet, there is an ironic aspect to this
situation. Past lagal jursprudence allows police testimony to be more worthy than the public itself. And, many states have different laws concerning
the use of body-cams. The various police unions are involved in the denial of public inspections from body-cams and in certain local and state
jurisdictions are not used at all. In fact, they also argue for the need to confiscate footage recorded by non-law enforcement people at the scene.
In fact, many cases that need further inspection from court attorneys are often denied due to the fact the officer(s) involved shut the cams off
during ther interaction with the public. Or, they claim their body-cam was inoperative at the time in question. And, their argument that video
recordings "can" be "edited" later by mmbers of the pubic "may" be the a possible destruction of evidence and to be used to hinder proper police
investigations. Thus, they feel the need to confiscate personal property. However, aside from the fact this is illegal, they "assume" they are immune
to such arguments and base such assumptions from past court decisions. That, and the fact the Supreme Court "allows" this behavior with advanced
police powers. This is easily observed with the creation of "qualified immunity." But, what does that inply? That is the main question that needs more
public awareness. And, is only one aspect from many that hinders a person's defense in court. It simply allows police officers immunity if and when
they make mistakes during the detainment of public members if and when their mistakes aid in the process of detecting criminal activity by those he
detains. In other words, they have additional protections from government officials that is quite contrary to you and your liberties.
And, this is part of enhancing police powers. There is another term that supports such assumptions and again, is worthy of public knowledge. And that
is, "the police "work under the color of authority." They do, and you don't. Again, they are immune to their behavior that would be used against you n
court if and when you arrested for a crime that mirrors the same behavior of police personnel. For example, a police officer can enter your fenced
property when looking for a family relative with "wants and warrants." He may suspect that person is there but not sure. Therefore, he has no warrant
to enter your home and he claims he's only there to gain information. However, by entering your yard by opening the gate he is confronted with your
barking dog. He decides to shoot your dog for his "report" says later the dog posed a threat to him personally. Whether this may be a true fact or
not, he shot your dog dead. This has happened more than people know. And, once he leaves and you decide to make an official complaint and to seek
compensation in court, you are denied. His behavior is covered with qualified immunity.
Now, let's make a similar situation that involves your behavior. For the sake of argument, let's assume this hypothetical situation is true. You have
an older dog dying from cancer. You could have it put-down by a vet but that will cost you a hundred dollars. So, you take him out in the back yard
and shoot him in the head to put him out of his misery. A nosey neighbor witnessed the fact and calls the police. Next, you are arrested for "cruelty
of an animal and the illegal discharge of a firearm within city limits. The prosecutor charges you with a felony concerning the dog and you are
looking at seven to fourteen years in the state's lockup. You go to court, and hopefully you have a good attorney, only to see not only the
prosecutor, but a member of "ASPCA" sitting next to him. This happened here locally. In fact, my sister-in-law sat on the jury. They refused to
convict the guy for the felony, but found him quilty of a misdemeanor. He was released for time served, paid a fine, and was on probation for two
years. That is the difference. The police officer is "working under the color of authority" and relies of "qualified immunity." And, you don't or
Now although many will assume that is too trivial when discussing police powers, make no mistake, this is the core of government intrusions. You, and
your stature as a human being, i micro-managed with draconian laws that render you unworthy of self-determination. You are treated like livestock to
be managed with massive government control. Everyday another law is enacted for further control and rarely meet the standards of the constitution and
bill of rights. The government suiggests this is required with scare tactics and the propaganda that entices public acceptance based on fear. You, as
a citizen, have little to say on matters you find worthy and the nanny-police state is here to "rescue" you from the pitfalls of living. No thank you.
I prefer to exist without such determinations and I simply refuse governmental doctrine that claims otherwise. I know my rights and I won't argue with
a police officer who is ignorant of this fact, or refusing to comply with my rights. And, what I see recently, other people are also disgusted with
the same reality that we all face today and are confronting the system entirely.
And, regardless of the opinions of angry supporters of this illegal and strict system of government oppression and intrusions, I say save it. I refuse
your reasoning and your scare tactics are worthless. Too many unarmed citizens have been killed as a result of your reasoning. The police claim they
only want to go home to their families whole and intact, and I agree with that that, but they "must" realize everyone wants the same! They are trained
and funded properly to do their duties and they have other tools to rely on beside their firearm. Police unions must comply or find another career. A
radical inspection must be done and true transparency ust be ilable to anyone in our society. Period! Despite their claims otherwise, they work for
us. We pay their salaries. And, they are subject to societal norms and standards. And, those standards are based on the constitution and nothing more.
Due to the fact our rights and liberties are threatened to this degree, all police operations must be viewed for reforming directives. And, if they
"feel" that is expecting too much, they are invited to work in another career. a reply to: