posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 06:28 PM
Interesting things to ponder here.
First, the jury verdict was based on the idea that Thomas did not die FROM the beating, but from something else. So, to make an extreme example: If
cop A beats a guy and sends him to the hospital, but while there the guy dies from pneumonia contract while at the hospital, said cop is not
Now. Does Ramos feel great because this quirk of "law" absolves him?
Do we all now accept Ramos as a cool cop because the quirk of law absolves him? Are we good citizens now supposed to treat him well, or should we all
Does the jury verdict concerning a policeman who beat a man to that extent validate his actions?
Ramos' police policy says everything is fine, and the court says everything is fine, so is everything fine?
The family can still sue Ramos under civil law, which, a civil jury will not be so forgiving.
How did we get to the place where that kind of violence toward another is simply a matter of policy? Meaning: policy (police=policy) says a beat-down
is okay if you think it is necessary during your duty. But a beat-down is not okay for anyone not covered by this policy, as they are covered by
criminal law, which is a separate policy. Policy enforces are not covered by criminal law or humanitarian moral codes but by policy created by policy
Two rules, one human? In fact, it would seem we are not at all equal under either the law or any other measurement. Why is it that policy enforcers
are not subject to the same moral guidelines as the rest of us - and "because there job is dangerous" is not a reason but an justification which is