I strongly believe the defendents of George Floyd's case should be tried seperatrely. It would be extremely unwise to have them tried them together. If merely two white men together have the ability to murder someone and (<em>almost</em>) get away with it, then together in court they could do far worse. White supremecy is unjust and segregated. In court, every detail matters, as it will affect the defendent's outcome. By allowing white supremecy to get the upper hand by doubling it (this by having two defendents), the facts will be shifted and altered tremendously to support the side of the defendent, and the defendents' outcome will be unjustified.
Hope this helps!
I love writing stuff like this, it feels good. Plus, this took me like 5 minutes :P
Um I dk, Idek who your dad is-
Why is this a useful question on this app.
Answer:
Explanation:
1. As a leader of police officer, you have many years of policing under your belt, so with that role in mind you can establish new rules and regulations for your officers as the chief.
2. As someone who is new to the community, listening to the thoughts of the community leader will be essential to helping reduce crime and protests.
3. Gathering of evidence of the case of the police officer killing the unarmed man can 1. help determine if there really was a case of self defense or not 2. familiarizing yourself to the case more on evidence and less of word of mouth and 3. reappealing the verdict to manslaughter.
4. Establish a compromise with the community leader to address "de-policing" as unproductive counter to the rising crime rates.
5. Establish new regulations for the community leaders so no similar reoccurring incidents may repeat themselves in such turmoil.
I think the answer is A and D
