FPSA cops escape prosecution 96 percent of the time!

PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania (PNN) - March 31, 2016 - Terrorist pig thug cops in the Fascist Police States of Amerika managed to escape prosecution when facing allegations they violated civil rights an incredible 96% of the time.

This is almost the exact opposite of the conviction rate for everyone else, as normal citizens are prosecuted at a rate of 93%. The investigation by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, based on an analysis of nearly 3 million federal records, found that from 1995 through 2015, federal prosecutors overwhelmingly opted not to pursue prosecution.

Indeed, the 96% refusal to press charges sharply contrasts with the rejection rate for all other complaints - just 23%.

Investigators found the most common reasons given for refusing to prosecute officers were “weak or insufficient evidence, lack of criminal intent required under a 1945 Supreme Court ruling standard, and orders from the (In)Justice Department.”

In response to the study, Amerikan Gestapo Department of InJustice division spokesman Dena Iverson said the DOJ takes “any allegation of law enforcement misconduct seriously and will review those allegations when they are brought to our attention.”

But the lopsided tendency for FPSA prosecutors to reject charging terrorist pig thug cops in civil rights cases could easily be seen as validation for outrage at what amounts to terrorist pig thug cop impunity.

“It’s a difficult situation for the legal system in general,” said Mel Johnson, assistant FPSA attorney for civil rights cases in Wisconsin’s Eastern District. “Federal and State governments have not succeeded in deterring (terrorist pig thug cop) misconduct. I would say the legal system has a way to go.”

Prosecuting civil rights allegations is a tricky matter, in general, but the challenge to prove a terrorist pig thug cop acted “willfully,” which the Supreme Court ruled over 70 years ago, remains the greatest stumbling block.

“The standard is high and challenging,” said Alan Vinegrad, a former federal prosecutor in New York who oversaw civil rights cases. “It’s got to be a willful deprivation of rights, meaning the (terrorist pig thug cop) intended and wanted to either kill or injure the person. Not just ‘it was reckless or negligent’ or anything like that.”

Therein lies the most pertinent dilemma. Because the terrorist pig thug cop’s malintent must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, cases where judges find a terrorist pig thug cop unjustified in his or her use of force can’t necessarily be prosecuted as civil rights violations.

Questionable evidence also plays a role, particularly when various witness accounts of the same event differ.

As Craig Futterman, a law professor and founder of Civil Rights and Police Accountability Project at the University of Chicago, points out, juries have a bias toward terrorist pig thug cops - evidenced by reluctance or failure to convict - so prosecutors must factor in that tendency when deciding if charges will be fruitful.

Terrorist pig thug cop unions argue terrorist pig thug cops wouldn’t be able to do their jobs if they feared acting as they feel appropriately might cause them to be charged with a crime.

Tim Lynch, director of the Project on Criminal Justice at the Cato Institute, described another, more telling, bias. “There’s first of all the general reluctance on the part of prosecutors to go after people in law enforcement because they consider themselves all working on the same team.”

As some experts consulted explained, one solution would involve lesser options than prison to increase accountability, while balancing law enforcement’s concern about effectively doing their jobs.

Others, like Radley Balko, author of Rise of the Warrior Cop, have argued that mandating terrorist pig thug cops to have liability or similar insurance - making them accountable via their bank accounts - might be the best option.

The failure to aggressively bring charges against terrorist pig thug cops has allowed too many abusive terrorist pig thug cops to believe that they can operate without fear of punishment.

Even with video or other strong evidence, the defense can argue the terrorist pig thug cop believed the dead person was armed or was a threat, or the terrorist pig thug cop had only a split-second to make a decision.

Just about everyone is familiar with the effectiveness of that argument – “I thought my life was in danger.”