In our growing police state, the accused are always very stupid. No matter how outnumbered they are and how many guns are pointing at them, they always making—the phrase seems standardized now—“a quick movement to his waistband.” And—Pow!—we are left with bullet-riddled corpse that can’t offer any testimony to contradict the story of the Miami Dade police.
Even a man who had already dropped his firearm while fleeing, and thus had nothing in his waistband to grab, made this quick movement. Perhaps that is because, while being told not to move his hands, he was also told to reach down and show he had no guns in his waistband.
Even in the case of a snitch who had a safety phrase, that he had been using on mic several times during the night—“I’m going to Disney World”—he too forgets to use it and then, under the scope of massive firepower, “makes a quick move to his waistband.”
But wait! He was wearing a watch with a recording device that logged all his statements that night… Except, no, that watch, which he had been wearing, was missing from his cold dead wrist. Whoever knows what happened to it isn’t sharing that information with anyone else.
Here’s the video from NBC Miami:
More than 100 officers staked out a county-owned home that night, where confidential informant Rosendo Betancourt lured three men suspected of home invasions. He told them drugs and money awaited. Betancourt offered to help police, saying he was concerned about the escalating level of violence in previous home invasions involving at least one of the other men.
When a Miami-Dade officer shoots someone, the agency’s homicide detectives investigate the officer-involved shooting. Fernandez Rundle says police officers investigating their own can be a conflict of interest and she wants the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to take over those investigations.
Still, Fernandez Rundle said, she can’t be certain a different agency investigation would have produced a different result in this police-involved shooting.
“I wouldn’t jump to there could be charges filed, but what I would say is this: We wouldn’t be asking these questions,” Fernandez Rundle said.
Prosecutors believe one shooting was justified. The other three are “troubling,” but since all the witnesses are dead, and the police aren’t talking or else are telling a justifying story, they say they have no evidence of wrongdoing.
So if I shot three people under such circumstances, even if two of them were felons, would there be no way to prosecute me? I don’t think a “civilian” would be let go in such circumstances—not even if he claimed that the dead people were holding Wii remotes. They tried to prosecute George Zimmerman without any video evidence at all.
It seems odd to me that “innocent until proven guilty” works this way for cops. If you have been videoed shooting to death an unarmed man, then you have been caught in a crime. Claiming that you thought he was armed is something your defense attorney should be saying to a jury. What about a reckless indifference charge?
Beyond that, the police are supposed to work for the public. If the public has lost faith in the police, no matter who is at fault, the relationship needs to end. Basically, union rules mean the public has no right to hire and fire law enforcement. The consent of the governed is nullified by the police union.
I guess the point of this story is, Conservatives need to read the recent National Review piece on the Conservative love affair with the police.
The romance is long gone.