tvc184

No it was not. It was not a speech. His deliver was great because it was a memorial and a testimonial to the fallen officers. Obama made a speech.

Who cleared the officers? The prosecuting attorneys and/or the grand jury whether they were county, state or federal and in some cases, some combination of them. Does clearing mean that officers followed the law? No. It means the prosecuting attorney and/or grand jury did not feel that there was sufficient evidence to bring to a trial or get a conviction. Is that different than the standard for anyone else in a criminal accusation? No. That is the same standard for all criminal accusations.

I must be having a gray moment.

People arrested do have more rights than those not under arrest or at least for practical purposes. Also, if you are not in custody and an officer in TX asks you anything, you can refuse including your name and there is no criminal penalty. In other words you cannot lawfully be arrested for remaining silent even if not under arrest. If you are under arrest you must give your name, address and date of birth but nothing else. Failure to do so can result in another criminal charge.

Instant celebrity and some kind of validation that she is now somehow significant in her opinion.

So we have people protesting based solely on the rantings of an internet junkie who loves broadcasting herself when much of what she said may be a lie. Hmmmm..... Kind of reminds us of Ferguson? I know that we still don't know what the truth is. If we defend the police we are just taking sides based on nothing but a race. If we defend the woman we are being thoughtful and responding to her legitimate complaint. It is interesting from the claim of looking at both sides argument.

......... but are ignored when the results aren't to a person's liking.

Well we read the original post differently then. I read it and answered it under the premise that politicians cannot solve our problems. They can't. Whether someone wants to attach a biblical reasoning to it or not is an individual choice. All political disagreements or social unrest are not sins. If one group wants to let states run all education and one group wants the federal government to step in, what sin are we talking about? If someone thinks we need better roads and another doesn't want to spend the money, again what sin are we talking about and why would God care? In fact when it comes to sins and politics there is actually little disagreement. You saw the word God and felt compelled to preach the Bible. That is great if you wish however I did not take the question nor did I respond as to why there is sin. The only theology that I mentioned is that we are people of free will. And no, politicians will never make everyone believe the same thing and that even goes for equally religious Christians of the same denomination. You answered the question to your beliefs about, "Why is there sin". I never noticed that in the original post nor did I attempt to answer it so there is no theological error.

Calm discussion? I believe that many people believe that there is systemic racism in police work. I think that complete nonsense. Systemic would mean something like a department condones such actions or covers it up or in other words, the system is the culprit. I find that a difficult pill to swallow. If something fairly minor like any officer is found uttering racial slurs, even at the police station behind closed doors where others are not supposed to hear (even another officer that might be offended), he will almost certainly be punished. I am not saying that two cops might not have a conversation that might offend someone and say what they want but if any person complains then there will be heck to pay. Out of almost a million police officers, can you find a true racist? Probably but you will have to dig. I find it very hard to believe in places like Beaumont, Port Arthur and Orange white officers (which is almost exclusively when it is used) would want to work around people that they despise by skin color. Is there prejudice rather than racism? I am fairly certain of it. As a police supervisor I get a lot of complaints from a lot of different people for a lot of different reasons. Almost none are for physical abuse. According to the FBI UCR stats almost 35,000 people a day are arrested and this area certainly sees its share yet we have almost no complaints of abuse. Of course deadly force is always in the spotlight and it should be when someone dies but this area (Golden Triangle) alone has thousands of arrests a year, most are on police video and many I am sure are recorded elsewhere and yet we see almost no incidents. That ones that do happen are almost always initiated by the suspect. I find that people across the board have very little idea what the laws are in various situations. They spit out the words unconstitutional or brutality or abuse as much as they do racism and know even less about it. Sure everyone knows that it is against the law to assault someone, to take another person's money or to possession unlawful drugs. What they are clueless about in the law is not the criminal laws themselves but criminal procedure. To some extent I find that officers also have some lack of knowledge in that area however they generally know what allows them to use force, make entries without warrants, etc. All you have to do is watch the news program of your choice and you can get filled with gibberish. You will hear such things (heard it many times) that the police need probable cause to detain you. That is not true and it only take "reasonable suspicion" according to the US Supreme Court almost 50 years ago. I still hear lawyers on Fox, CNN, etc., say that probable cause is needed. Nonsense. Heck, the police don't even need reasonable suspicion if they simply do not tell you words like "stop" or "come here" which are considered detentions under the Fourth Amendment. If the officers sees you walking and calmly says, "do you mind talking to me" or "can I talk to you for a moment" and you stop, you are not being detained at all and have by your actions "consented" to stopping. The officer needs nothing to justify any more than two guys in line at a grocery store talking to each other. For uses of force that often come to the media attention, again there is a huge gap in the law and knowledge of it by the public. In the case of Wardlow v. IL in 2000 (fairly recent case) the USSC said that looking at the police and running in itself was "reasonable suspicion". Wardlow was standing around and the police even testified that he was doing nothing suspicious. He noticed the cops and then turned and started running away. The USSC said that you have the right to "go about one's business" free from interference from the government (usually the police) but looking at cops and moving quickly away was not "going about one's business". In this case the police chased and tackled Wardlow and he claimed his rights were violated. The police found an illegal gun on him. The USSC did not agree that his rights were violated. The case itself is not that big of a deal however people today would argue that running by itself is not suspicious. Again, it is lack of knowledge that most officers have that the public has access to but generally does not care to understand unless they are watching the news or knows someone that is arrested. In uses of force it is the same. In Pennsylvania v. Mimms the USSC said that the police could get a driver out of a vehicle. In Maryland v. Wilson they said that the police could get the passengers out also with no reasonable suspicion needed. The fact that traffic stops are dangerous to officers gives them the limited authority to get people out if they wish so as to keep an eye on them. In the Sandra Bland case I saw people writing that an officer could not remove the driver. While he made a lawful arrest anyway, he did not need to do so in order to remove her for his safety. There was the video of the man where the police busted his window on the passenger's side of a vehicle and drug him out that went viral. Again I saw, the police can't do that. I would say that most state's laws as backed up by the USSC say (again) otherwise. The passenger needs to comply. In most cases if the officer has the authority to detain, arrest or search, you must submit to the action. Resistance in any form opens the officer up to uses of force. That force must be reasonable considering the circumstances. If a guy pushes an officer it is not grounds to use deadly force. If the guy tries to take an officers weapons, it likely is lawful to use deadly force to stop him...... as we saw in the Captain Arnold case in Orange where the off duty officer shot the guy he claimed reached for his gun. A fight or use of force by the police need not be fair and the police can use any amount of force that is needed to overcome that resistance. The question then becomes how much force is needed or is "reasonable" under the circumstances. In Orange we found out that just reaching for a gun was enough for the grand jury to no bill the officer. I can't remember that case name that I am thinking of but the police having a lesser force option are not required to use that lesser force as long as the greater force was lawful. For example a guy is standing 15 feet away with a knife and refuses to drop it and the police shoot him. Was it possible for the police to use a Taser or pepper spray instead of a gun? Maybe. The Court says that it does not matter what the officer may have done lesser as long as the greater force was justified and a guy threatening an officer with a knife a few feet away likely will be ruled as a lawful use of deadly force. Merely saying that a Taser might have worked does not negate the use of deadly force. In the Baton Rouge case I saw many comments in different forums where people said the police "could have" used different physical force or maybe used a Taser (again since the first time did not work) or pepper, etc. That does not matter as long as deadly force was reasonable. Of course some people will never believe that the police can lawfully use force in such as case but don't be shocked if the officers are cleared. If the guy has a gun and has a hand free that might be struggling for it, an officer on the ground in a fight with the guy who is unlawfully resisting arrest will likely be seen as in reasonable fear of serious injury and deadly force will likely be lawful. It always goes back to, stop resisting arrest but that apparently falls on deaf ears. I could go on for pages but you can probably see where the ignorance is used to show police misconduct where there may be none. I am not saying that there is not misconduct because there is. I have seen many police videos where the officer was not justified. I have worked with officers that were fired and had a hand in two of them getting fired. On one of them it was my word almost alone that got an officer terminated almost immediately for abuse. In fact he was sent home half way through his shift and never returned. There are many others though that are claimed as abuse or unlawful when the law allows the action. Much of what I have seen that is claimed to be murder or an unlawful use of force simply is not by law and it has been backed up in court rulings and jury decisions. An example is the Michael Brown case where I know the US Attorney General want to go public and proclaim that he got the bad officer and was a hero but the facts did not back up that wish. As much as many people wanted the hands up don't shoot nonsense to be true, in fact it was all a lie. As to your specific case of Philando Castile, it could go either way. A lot will depend on the officer's audio where it can be found what really happened and not the woman that thinks she is an internet sensation. If what I have seen in the last day is true, part of her story is unraveling. I think ABC News was told by her that there was no mention of a gun but in her "live shot" she claimed that Castile told the officer that he had a gun and had a license. That alone would be huge in the case. Of course we really do not know what happened but the officer is already convicted in the eyes of many people just like Darren Wilson was in the Micheal Brown shooting. Even the US DOJ could not find any wrongdoing to bring an indictment yet there are still people claiming that Michael Brown was murdered. The after the fact video by Castile's girlfriend will probably have very little to do with the investigation in reality if the officer had good audio of the stop. In both the Baton Rouge and MN cases the officers might be indicted but I will lean toward no criminal charges simply because of laws and court rulings. Since we really have no clue as to what really happened in either case since we only know the outcome, anything that we think will be a guess. It would be better to guess by law and not by emotion.

Politicians (or anyone else) can never fix mankind's ills until politicians can make us all think alike. I think that I have a fair good grasp of the situation and believe that will never happen. Our situation is man's doing and not God's unless God intentionally creates turmoil. We are all people of free will. If a person is a believer in God but does not believe that we are all on our own to make decisions (free will), that negates any responsibility for our sins. If God is in all control or does not exist, mankind will never come into agreement. It doesn't matter about politicians. Mankind had disagreements and all sorts of crime long before there were established government. Doing away with all politics tomorrow will end nothing and in fact would likely make it worse.

Has the media hound girlfriend's story (looking for her 15 minutes of fame) now changed or are the fringe media reports wrong?

Unless they caught an officer trying to cover something up like falsifying a report or have some video of an officer getting in a extra shot on someone already in custody and no longer resisting, the whole thing is a scam by a prosecutor for personal reasons. There should be one more prosecution and a huge lawsuit. That would be against at least the head of the prosecution.

There are two general ways to do police work. There is proactive and there is reactive. In proactive you actively look for crimes that have happened or are about to happen. You look for suspicious situations or at people that appear to be doing something criminal. In reactive you simply wait for people to call the police. People call because of a fight in a park, they heard shots fired or they saw an accident. The police will always respond to a reactive situation from a caller. In situations like Baltimore it would not be very shocking if some officers' eyesight was not quite as sharp as it once was. When the city leaders try to throw them under the bus, don't be surprised if they don't get near the road.

Claiming that someone isn't looking at both sides is often like the pot calling the kettle black. I can quote law word for word on some issues and it be completed ignored by someone because it completely kills their stance. Looking at both sides usually means, you need to have my point of view or you are wrong.

I'd bet that it has happened at least to some extent. You can dispatch an officer to a call and make him go. You can tell what his eyes might miss as he becomes a little less observant while on patrol.

I don't know i it is true but I read some media reports that said crime was up significantly after the Baltimore riots and police arrests were down. That seems to go hand in hand and I believe that it is certain possible that officer simply quit patrolling. The Baltimore officers would likely respond to all calls as normal if a person calls the police. I am sure that some of them quit looking quite as closely at things that might have looked suspicious to them before the riots.

I am assuming that you mean Black's Law Dictionary?

Correct.

It is evidence in a crime and an investigation. If it was taken as is the claim, it is then in evidence. Whether the store owner can get it back depends on the criminal procedure laws of that state. Evidence seized at a crime scene does not require a warrant in many or even most situations. Had the police seized something like a cell phone to preserve the evidence from being destroyed, they would need a warrant to view the contents but not to grab the phone. Merely seizing things to be searched usually requires no warrant. Just as an example, if the police have probable cause of a felony happening inside of a home and the evidence may be destroyed, they can seize the home by removing the people from inside and keeping people from entering until a warrant can be obtained or refused. That means that with the proper information, the police can keep you out of your own home without a warrant in order to obtain a warrant and keep evidence from being destroyed. There is also the issue of "standing" to complain but that may be for another day. [Hidden Content] Feel free to peruse legal issues on entering even homes (possible our most protected place under the law) without a warrant. Of particular interest may be the sections Is my private property really that private? and Are search warrants required for every search? You might find some interesting tidbits of lawful searches and when a warrant is needed. Of course, that is just going by the law........

About as nervous as you might feel if you felt you might be dead in a few seconds. I never approach anyone without the feeling that this might be "the" encounter. I have been in that encounter a few times and have been treated at the hospital for on duty injuries caused by suspects on at least three occasions that I can remember. Five times I have been involved in shooting incidents either by being fired upon from close range, me firing at a person or having a partner shoot and kill a guy about 10 feet in front of me. Rather than getting used to it, it makes you more wary the older you get.

It is too easy to comply with lawful orders when confrontation is the desire.

I have only said that let the facts come out. I have not said a single time that any of the officers involved were innocent. Your response to the incidents is that the officers are wrong until proven innocent and there is no evidence that can prove that. Now that is sad. You don't want facts, you want rhetoric. Approximately 7% of the country are black males. They have killed police officers an average of 40% of the police officers killed each year according to FBI statistics for 6 years (2008-2013 or the last years available) or at almost 600% more than their population. Care to explain how you complain on the number of blacks killed by the police but are very likely to ignore the reasons such deadly confrontations are happening? How does one group kill at 6 times their population and it is almost completely ignored? Try to spin that as a half full glass. Feel free to show where any of what I said was twisted.

1. The "most" vital organs means what in the scope of things? The chest also has the most places that you can shoot repeatedly without hitting anything vital. There are hundreds of examples of people taking multiple rounds in the chest and living. I had a friend (now deceased) that was an officer that I worked with that shot a guy 6 times with a .45 in the chest at point blank ranges and the guy cut the officer's throat after he was shot. They both survived and the suspect was sentenced to prison. 2. Shooting is to stop aggression or to restrain, according to the circumstances. 3. What does pinned have to do with anything? If he gets a hand free and gets to that gun, he can shoot the officers without even drawing it, especially if it is a revolver where he can likely empty it without ever taking it out of the pocket. I have watched two different videos multiple times and cannot tell what happened or if he was reaching or at least had the potential to reach for a gun. 4. The body cam seems to be the biggest nonsense at all. The news reports say they came off. That is not shocking in the least. They have clips like a cell phone. Go fight with someone and see if a cell phone comes out of its case or the entire case/clip comes off. The police often lose equipment during struggles and about 99% of the time they wish they hadn't. I have lost my baton, gun (twice) and radio just off the top of my head. Also, according to which system is used, the cameras have to be turn on manually. When officers jump out on a man with a gun, I am not so sure that thinking of holding down the "on" button for a few seconds is the most pressing thing on their mind. Where they activated and came off or where they simply not used? I have seen any updates on it but maybe you have more information. You seem to be trying to make the case that lack of body cameras is proof of something. With all the claimed evidence of wrongdoing, why do they even need body cameras in this case? I keep hearing that the two videos made public are enough to show murder. I can envision the officers' conversation now and to do so we need to say that they met up while responding to this hot call or at least contacted each other like by cell phone. If it was ironic as you say, that both did not work, we can only assume it was a conspiracy for your innuendo to be accurate. Here we go.......... Officer 1: Hey, let's not use our cameras! Officer 2. Great idea, what are we going to do? 1. Let's toss them on the ground as we are getting out of our cars and say they were lost in the rush to the suspect. 2. Awesome! Let's even turn them on to make it look like we wanted to use them. 1. Great idea. Hey and while we are at it, let's shoot the guy with a Taser but hope it doesn't work, that way you will have an excuse to tackle him. 2. Oh my gosh, you are on your A game today. Let's finish it off by saying that he was going for a gun.................

Maybe when you say I "agree 100%" with the MN shooting, you need to choose your words more carefully. Of course you did also say "not all the facts were out", I guess meaning that you weren't really 100% sure.... but then... "seems like the cop was the one wrong". Yeah, I then had the audacity to ask you based on what. You know, facts? Like I said, the only fact we knew at the time is that the guy was dead and it was from an officer shooting him. Almost nothing else was known. Now it at least appears that this had nothing to do with a taillight out but rather being a possible suspect in a recent (I believe just happened) armed robbery. I guess that puts me on a high horse for wanting to see what we can prove and you I suppose, needing to choose your words better since it appears what you wrote was not what you meant.