One officer is seen standing at her door and repeatedly telling her to “get out of the car”.
“For what?” she responds twice, adding: “I’m not going to do that.”
One officer seen in front of the car has his left hand on the hood, his gun drawn in the other hand.
“Are you going to shoot me?” she says moments before a single shot is fired and the officer quickly moves out of the car’s path.
The cop who killed her was in no danger, and has time to casually stroll out of the way of the vehicle.
What he doesn’t have is a name or a face — as often happens, the police haven’t been named, and their faces have been blurred in the video.
Why?
If they weren’t cops — if they were just a pair of random dudes killing a black pregnant woman, and there was video footage — would their names remain secret, their faces blurred?
I’d argue that any accused criminal should remain unidentified until proven guilty or if there is an important reason why their name should be released.
I understand the sentiment, but down that path are secret trials — nobody knows you’ve been arrested, and then nobody knows you’ve been convicted and sentenced. I do find the American fascination with mugshots troubling.
More pertinent to this, let’s have one standard. If anyone but a cop shot and killed a pregnant black woman, that person’s name and face would be all over the evening news.
deleted by creator
There is a big difference between secret trials and posting peoples mugshots and what they were arrested for before they’re convicted. It can haunt you as much or more than an actual conviction. Like all those mugshot websites that charge money to remove a mugshot even if the charges were dropped.
The solution would be to make the activities of those mugshot sites illegal.
Making arrests non-public also means wrongful arrests are non-public as well.
Yeah making trials public has problems, but the alternative is worse.