tvc184

Again, do you any evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman ever confronted Martin? Any? Any?

You do realize that most of the "evidence" originally put out against Zimmerman was fabricated by several media outsets.... at their later admission. ABC covered up Zimmerman's injuries from video and photo, CNN made false claims of racial slurs and NBC altered the 911 recording to make it look like Zimmerman was calling about Martin's race.

Are you suggesting that people should not go look over their neighborhood? You have several times in different threads brought up community policing but do you know that a major part of community policing deals with citizen patrols? In fact for three years I commanded a community policing group and on many occasions have ridden in support of these patrols.

You have no idea what happened yet you want another officer to give him a kick in the butt? The us vs. them is usually brought on by them. I have not defended this officer in a single post on any forum. I have no idea what his provocation was and neither do you yet you are ready to render a verdict. With that mindset you chastise officers for rushing to judgment.

1. Instructions given by dispatchers have no legal bearing and may not even be correct. 2. Yes he was on 911 and it sounded like me that he followed his instructions.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman chased Martin down and pulled a gun on him? The backwoods justice was attempted by Martin. A listen to the entire and not edited 911 recording is about 99.5% in favor of Zimmerman not chasing Martin at all, much less catching him. Your opinion on officer salaries, at least in this area, is skewed. I believe that I make more per hour than most O&G workers. They have a distinct advantage in overtime potential.

"What happened?"

I am not so sure about the idea of doesn't get to play cop. I am not familiar with FL laws but in TX a citizen has the same authority (not right) to arrest for certain crimes. In that section of the law it is even mentioned in the same sentence. It doesn't say a cop can do this but a citizen can do that.

What someone "should" have done on most occasions has no bearing on a criminal investigation. Martin had no right to stand his ground if he was breaking the law as he was doing as he attacked Zimmerman. Who kills at will? Out of the 13 million arrests by the police each year, many against very violent criminals who many times resist arrest, how many are killed at will? What do you call "aren't paid particularly well"?

If it was in this area I can almost assure you that you will not see the footage because if it can be used in a criminal investigation, it is not public information. A department "may" release it at their discretion. Different states have freedom of information laws and what another state does depends on their laws.

He probably thought they were talking about Mensa.

Knowledge of what actually happened would be nice but I am assuming we should build the gallows after seeing a few seconds of video and having no other facts at hand.

Hopefully he will not open his mouth about it but he probably has his cell phone in his hand wondering what to tweet.

Even you must realize that those numbers are bogus. Yes unemployment is down, because many people have simply left the work force and we have the lowest worker participation in decades. Your rationale is like doing away with DWI laws and using that as evidence that drinking and driving is no longer a problem. Unemployment is horrendous and wages are down and in many cases only for part time jobs. The Dow took a dip because of a recession. In fact the Dow was about 17,000 in the late 90's so realistically it has risen but about 1,800 in almost 20 years. This meme takes a tiny snippet of time to make nonsensical comparisons.

I am all for putting officers on foot. What you do need is about a 20% increase in the size of police departments. I don't know any officers including chiefs that will turn down more manpower. Please petition your city council for that increase.

It isn't favoritism. It is self defense. I suppose by your comments that you believe that the police have no protection when upholding laws put in place by not them but the legislature. Everything should be "equal". I guess you believe that when an officer stops you it should be like two guys arguing in a bar and each has equal rights. Nothing has happened to community policing. What does that have to do with anything in this thread or the use of force?

I don't associate in any manner what happened in this case to BLM, any other group or any race. Their actions stand alone. Interesting on the police thread that some want all police held accountable for the actions of a tiny percentage But moving on..... I think the problem is if you reversed the situation. Had 4 white people beaten and cut a mentaly challenged black person while making statements that this attack was because he was black and because he voted for Obama, you wouldn't have groups or the police saying they are not sure this about hate or don't know if it is a hate crime. In that situation the cry would be often, loud and maybe followed by marches and celebrities showing up if someone suggested it was not about race Therein lies the perceived problem.

Attack the police or fail to comply with orders and you can likely expect unpleasant yet lawful results.

No, the legal system overwhelmingly favors the accused and unfortunately for many people, that includes police officers accused also. Use of force does favor the police as well it should. A person does not have any right to resist, assault or flee from an officer. Police and citizen interactions are generally not with consent meaning you have no rights to resist in any manner as listed previously and it doesn't matter if you don't like or don't trust the police. It doesn't matter if the police are talking to a family member or good friend. You cannot lawfully interfere. The laws have to give officers that authority or all law enforcement becomes voluntary. You can fight them in court, not on the side of the road. Many times the US Supreme Court is split 5-4 on cases but there are many 7-2, 8-1 and 9-0 rulings favoring the police. Safety is not a liberal or conservative issue. The Court realizes that officers and the public are endangered when that authority is not given or upheld. You will find that the Court often goes against officers in questions of detention, searches, etc., and on some occasions by those same wide votes. The rulings against officers is not uncommon on searches and seizures but is uncommon on uses of force in self defense. It is simple and stated all the time. When the police order you to do something, comply. You can get a lawyer and fight them later but in face to face contacts you are correct, the laws heavily favor the police and that is the way it should be.

Where do you see "all of them had it coming"? He said "handled appropriately" which means lawful. There is a huge difference. It is hard to take you seriously with such reasoning skills.

Hate only goes in one direction.

That is great stuff. So this is "one incident". If one officer (out of a million) does something... it covers everyone. Apparently that broad brush only goes in one direction. In Lois Lerner's case, she was alone at the top of exempt organizations. I guess in her case it was 100% crooked...... But it was only "one incident".

Where is the bias? If you ever see me say that there aren't corrupt or brutal officers, please point it out. I have made excuses for none of them. I have gotten officers fired because of abuse. I have submitted felony charges against an officer. In many forums I have sided with people that an officer in a particular case used improper force. Where is the bias. Is it bias to point out that if 40 thousand cops are crooked, 96% of them are not involved? So what is your perception on the number of bad officers? 100,000 perhaps? If so then 9 out of 10 are not included. Let us see your bias on how bad you believe officers are and how many are committing criminal acts to cover for other officers. Perhaps for your bias, you might take a look in the mirror.

You can't take a group of about a million people and say "any". That in itself is nonsense. Take a group that large of anyone and you can make any claim that you wish. Movie stars are murders. So are athletes. Democrats are child molesters. Republicans are racists. Why can we say those things with that true belief? Easy, we can find members of those groups that do exactly that. Yes, officers "snitch" on each other all the time. As a police supervisor I have had on several occasions had officers report misconduct or criminal acts by other officers. On many occasions I have questioned officers on misconduct of fellow officers and sometimes even friends and had them give information that incriminated the friend. Like screaming racism, it is easy to paint with a broad brush from the outside. Is it possible to find two officers alone and one cover for the other at the risk of his own career and even prison? Absolutely. It is common? Not hardly. If there are 20,000 crooked officers out there, that is about 2% of all federal, state and local officers. Want to double it to a horrendous 40,000 officers? Okay, 96% of officers do not fit in that category. I have no clue what you umbrella statement is about. Are you saying to have maybe in the Golden Triangle, that the Beaumont police chief controls the officers in Nederland? That would mean that Beaumont would be setting the tax rate for Nederland? Wow, talk about a truly liberal concept. No more local control. Let what is good for Houston (or bad) be forced on Beaumont because everyone knows that Houston officers have more training resources? The way your statement is laid out that we have "too many" police departments, you are also saying "we have too many city councils". The citizens of a city elect their own representatives who set their own tax rates who run their own police departments. Apparently that is wrong in your opinion. Ooooookay...............

That code of silence crap is... just that, crap. Some people would have you believe that it is 1948 and officers cover for each other at the expense of their own freedom. That is patent nonsense.