Updated: Oct 21, 2021
We have white officers killing black people at a rapid rate, even when they are unarmed, or even
children. Yet these officers are not held accountable or prosecuted in many cases. After the fact, then
the law finds a way to excuse, justify, rationalize, and minimize the killing with excuses that would never
stand up in court if anyone else used it. "I feared for my life" That is all they have to say, and they
automatically get a "out of jail free" card. We call this justice? We are taught that if you are white and
part of the government then you are above the law. In fact, are we aware of how many cases there are
where our government officials do not report crimes committed by other government officials? Stay
tuned because this article is fast approaching. Recently they just found guilty a black officer who killed
someone. . . [need details]. Why double standards?
In truth there are no consequences behind our government officials who violate the law. When white
officers shoot and kill black citizens, or violate other parts of the law it is meaningless. Our prosecutors
have basically absolute immunity. They are rarely ever held accountable for their actions. So when the
break rules, they get a reprimand, and they just say "opps, I'm sorry I didn't mean it."
How many times do they withhold exculpatory evidence, or allow perjured testimony to go through
just so they can get a conviction. Have we ever thought of why the government consistently has a 98%
or better win ratio? Yet no other lawyer in this nation has that. The only one who had it that I can find
was Paul Bergin of New Jersey. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nj.com/news/2020/09/disgraced-attorney-serving-six-life-sentences-f He used to be a prosecutor and they loved him. Then he switched sides
and defended people charged with crimes. He held his win ratio, and the government said that was
impossible. That he must be doing something illegal. Why is it impossible for him, but possible for the
government? Have we ever asked ourselves this question? Here we go with double standards again.
Take for example at how once in order to be convicted you had to be proven guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. Just circumstantial evidence would not do. For murders you had to have a body or a
murder weapon, and proof they were actually dead. Now a days, any circumstantial evidence will do,
you do not need a body, a weapon, or even a body. You can be convicted without any of them. People
have been found guilty of murder and years later the victim is seen walking around healthy and alive.
Yet we say our system is just?