Dit is het officiële RU-vid-kanaal van National Geographic Channel Benelux. Bekijk hier de leukste hoogtepunten uit onze series op National Geographic Channel en Nat Geo Wild. Voor meer informatie, foto's en video's ga naar natgeotv.com/nl
Two things, 1) You don't hit a person for grabbing your bag. Have some patience. 2) If you have 2 dollars in your hand and an orange juice in your bag, you just don't walk away.
Keep in mind, even this is a " sanitized" version of the news footage, far worse happened that day that was at first broadcasted, but the reality of the evil that took place that day, and the murderous actions of the rioters that had once been revealed by news copters cameras, has been suppressed , the lull you into a false sense of acceptability.
bs latasha was a regular shoplifter at the store and she beat up an old lady .. she doesnt deserve to be shot but shes not an angel like rodney king and george floyd
If someone’s wrong, Does the police officer have the right to physically abuse someone to the point of almost getting paralyzed for life?, they caught them and they would’ve been legally punished that’s how the law works
Harlins wasn't shot over a bottle of orange juice, she was shot because she punched the clerk in the face. She initiated the violence. If you punch people in the face, you might get shot. Just like if you put things in a store in your backpack, you may be suspected of being a thief trying to sneak them out the store. It's not worth punching a woman in the head because she wants to look in your backpack. That is an act of violence. Of course it is not justified to shoot a girl in the back who is walking away, even after getting repeatedly punched. Nor is it ever justified to kill someone over a bottle of orange juice. I'd rather let a girl steal it from me than kill her. But the clerk was convicted of the appropriate sentence, voluntary manslaughter, meaning she voluntarily killed the girl but it happened during circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to lose their emotional control (like getting punched in the face). Due to the circumstances, that's the appropriate kind of crime that was committed here. The judge sentenced the killer to ten years imprisonment, but suspended the sentence. It's legitimate to question the suspended sentence with no time in prison required. She did shoot a girl in the back as the girl was apparently leaving. There would not have been the same outrage if the killer was sentenced to imprisonment. The clerk was guilty and was found guilty in court of involuntary manslaughter for fatally shooting that girl in the back unnecessarily. The clerk did not have self-control and acted provocatively, inappropriately, and violently. But the conviction and sentence were not more harsh because Harlins own violent behavior was a mitigating after. If Harlin had just handed over the orange juice or her backpack or even just not punched the woman in the face, the gun would not have been fired. The clerk got a light sentence because it was supposed that after being punched in the face, her judgement was impaired. Although I haven't examined the trial closely, I personally think that she probably should have done some jail time for making a huge and criminal mistake that got a girl killed. Shooting that girl was a severe crime, even if the girl had been aggressive. Also note that it doesn't matter what color you are or what you look like, if a shopkeeper sees you sliding store items into a backpack they are going to get suspicious. This should be obvious to anyone with any sense. Even as a child I knew to bring the items in my hands or in a provided shopping basket or cart to the counter to pay for them before putting them in my bag, so that I wouldn't look like a thief. I've met many clerks who would obviously yell at anyone who seemed to hide an item from their eyes. Harlins was unreasonable and provocative and violent. She wasn't like over a bottle of orange juice. She was killed for assaulting the clerk. But the clerk was also provocative and unreasonable and violent, which is why the jury found her guilty. I'm not blaming Harlins, her killer was more hostile, provocative, unreasonable, and violent. But the reason for the light sentence was that Harlins assaulted the woman. If a white man punched someone in the face, he could get shot too. If he slips a bottle into his backpack, he could be accused of theft, too. I don't think this case was about racism, it was about bad judgement and violence and shooting someone in the back after they just punched you in the face. The legitimate outage in this case was because of the perceived light sentence. Murders happen all the time, but they're no cause for social upheaval if the murderer receives appropriate justice. There is an element ready to riot just because a black girl was shot by a Korean woman, but what upset reasonable people is that judge seemed to excuse the behavior. Judge Karlin is seen in this video clip saying she knows what kind of person presents a threat to the community. She's not taking about Harlins, she's talking about whether Du the clerk is a threat to the community. The judge didn't think so. I disagree, I don't think Du should remain in a customer service job in an environment like that where she is likely to continue to suspect shoplifters and may get into another altercation. Du was in jail before sentencing, but was not sentenced to any time, just parole and fines and payments and community service. Later the store was made to pay $300,000 to the family of Harlins. So the outrage should be directed against the judge. But the judge wasn't allowed to "get away with it". The LA District Attorney called her sentence "a stunning miscarriage of justice" and barred her from presiding over criminal cases. In effect, she was fired for the Harlins sentencing. She heard Juvenile Dependency cases for a few years before retiring. She was pushed out and changed her name. So was the Harlins case a just reason to cry racism and burn down neighborhoods? The shooter was convicted. The judge who gave a perceived light sentence was fired and never heard another criminal case. So how wasn't justice done? The law, the system, and public option all sided with Harlins. She was innocent, her killer guilty, and when the judge of her own volition let the killer go free the community turned on the judge and forced her out. There's no one to be angry at but the killer, the judge who gave a light sentence, and Harlins' parents. As usual, good parenting could have prevented this. "Don't put things for sale out of sight in your pockets or bag like a thief before you've paid for them", "don't punch people in the face when they make you angry", etc. But I want my bottom line to be that the shooter was guilty as convicted, and at least six months to year in jail would have been appropriate. She absolutely should not have killed Harlins and though it's not like she got off scot-free, it's appropriate to do time in prison for what she did. I wouldn't mind if she had been sentenced to a couple of years. I'm not sure if voluntary manslaughter is a felony in Los Angeles. It probably is. It carried a maximum sentence of 16 years. As a felon, Du would lose her gun rights, which is appropriate since she demonstrated fatally poor judgement. It is worth remembering that if Du had violated her probation, such as by committing another crime, she would have had to serve the sentence of ten years in state prison for killing Harlins. But yeah, the judge let Du off the hook after she killed that poor girl for a bad reason. I don't blame a child for not having the social slills to put a suspicious and violent grown woman at ease. Du is a criminal who is guilty of murder or voluntary manslaughter which is almost murder. A definitely unjustified shooting. If I did it, I'd expect to spend years in jail.
