• SulaymanF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      11 months ago

      Absolutely. Assault on an unarmed civilian, clear unnecessary use of force on video, over a stop for a mud flap.

      Why didn’t the prosecutor charge him yet? The video isn’t enough evidence?

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        11 months ago

        Presumably he was fired for forgetting to turn his camera off. Not for the action itself.

        It’s a PR move to try to limit fallout.

        Full on criminal investigations take ages, so the firing comes now and by the time the prosecution gets round to criminal charges the police force can have distance themselves nicely in that time.

        • Madison420@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          Bingo, they intentionally fired him in such a way that union arbitration will get him a reinstatement where he’ll get letters of recommendation and a lateral to another department.

        • CoderKat@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          While criminal investigation does take time, yes, that doesn’t stop them from arresting people ahead of time if there’s even a moderate amount of evidence. I mean, that’s never stopped police from arresting “suspicious” black people (eg, someone who simply happened to be black in an area where a crime was allegedly committed by another black person; even if they look nothing alike). Police consistently treat themselves with kid gloves while treating people of colour as hyper dangerous and must be immediately arrested (or shot).