We shot him graveyard dead......

An officer was just acquitted for running away from a school shooter. They have no duty to protect, contrary to what most slogans say. When they do, that should be celebrated. Whether that is applying a tourniquet to save a life or squeezing a trigger to save a life.

I agree gloating is not the right way to go about it.

 

Of course you don't

 

Grady shouldn’t say graveyard dead like it’s a given. The SOB might be cremated instead of buried.

He should have mentioned both.

 

yeah because I’m not a simp for performative macho bullshit

 

I'm not sure about that

 

Sounds like something Bobby Bowden would have said

 

I think it depends on his motive for the gloating. Is he doing it to bring public attention to what actually happened? That's what it seems like. I don't know much else he would accomplish by gloating in that scenario. Grady stated the rationale in his remarks. Apparently, a lot of people in the community want his deputies to ignore the drug trade. I think he was trying to highlight "hey this is what we are dealing with because of these drugs".... "do you really want that sort of person on the streets in your neighborhood?" I think he was also trying warn meth users that "hey, this is what this drug can do to you. You can be driven to think it's a good idea to claim you have baby inside of a car you just led on a high speed chase and then fire shots at deputies. We will have no other choice but to make sure you're very dead in that situation."

 

@Trickster, you cool with this behavior?
Polk sheriff defends spying on minority group

 

this doesn’t even make sense.

I’m guessing your next reply is going to be something along the lines of “I know you are but what am I?”

 

I'm always concerned about police misbehavior, especially as it relates to treatment of blacks. As for the nine year old article's recitation, I'm not overly concerned. The PCSO may have had legitimate concerns. The police engage in undercover operations all the time.

I try not to be knee-jerk about most things, but try to look at the facts of each case. The devil is always in the details. Here, were I the presiding judge, I'd want to know whether there were legitimate concerns or whether it was just a pretense.

 

If the cops couldn't concoct some explanation for why their concerns were "legitimate," I'd say they're very dumb chaps. There's a long history of the cops sending in undercovers and informants to try and destroy civil rights groups/movements. It's reprehensible behavior. Grady Judd's words and actions speak more than loudly enough.

 

See, you stand in concrete and generalize. Your opinion of Judd prevents you from soberly looking at the facts of this case. I was in the legal field for 40 years. I don't know how long you've been, but my experience was that rigid lawyers were not very effective. I'm not trying to insult you, but to suggest you be a bit more flexible.

 

He should be celebrated for taking the job in the first place. If you win a case, you get props. If I keep our organization on budget of create a great marketing campaign, I get props.

Sprinting toward the potential end of your life to save others and then actually saving others is to be celebrated.

In this (Judd) case, i said Im not a fan of the style, but I disagree that it's all clearly political. My guess is that is really who he is and that attitude keeps getting him elected.

But he was that dude before he got elected and thats why the people like him.

Also we dont know that it doesnt work.
He has had ups and downs statistically, but saw crime plummet for a good while.

So who really knows?

 

None of this has anything to do with what I'm criticizing. One can compliment the officer's bravery here without gloating about killing the guy.

If this is who Grady Judd is, that only reinforces my comments earlier that he's a bad person.

 

My experience is that attorneys who bend over backwards to make excuses for cops are not effective civil rights lawyers. And that's what I do. In my area of the law, we don't give the government the benefit of the doubt. Yet, we are quite effective.

The facts are that Judd sent in undercover cops to spy on a nonviolent minority group advocating for civil rights (advocating specifically against Grady Judd's mistreatment of children in his jail). You want to give Judd the benefit of the doubt and assume he had a legitimate reason to do it. I don't. I wonder if your willingness to extend Judd the BOTD has anything to do with YOUR opinion of the man.

 

You do good work. We need people like you to keep power honest.