tvc184

This will fall on deaf eyes but how do you know the officer was wrong?

The problem at reviewing the MN video is that the video is almost meaningless. It shows nothing but a guy was shot and we know that without a video. Knowing almost nothing about what happened and people have already made a judgment which is ludicrous.

A carry license = crooked cops? That might make some kind of rational sense to someone but not me. What does having a concealed carry license have to do with this guy getting shot? Are you saying that if he didn't have a license, the officer would have been justified?

Chris Rock did a pretty funny skit a few years back that has probably been seen about 100 million times on how not to get shot by the police. While it is funny, the message is clear.

So what?

Did he really die "because he had a gun"? I would agree 100% it's a cop walked up and said you've got a gun and shot him. From what I saw on the video the officer ordered him to the ground, then tackled him to the ground when he refused and he still continue to fight and during that fight the officer yelled that he found a gun. Even when they found the gun (supposedly since we do not know) and an officer pulled out a gun, the guy continued to fight. That is not being killed because you have a gun. Killed because he had a gun is nothing but a smoke screen.

I am sure the investigation is far from over. What is probably public at the moment from news reports is that the police were responding to a man with a gun and was claimed to be pointing it at the person that called the police. In case that didn't sink in, the police did not initiate this contact. Someone called the police of a many threatening another with a gun. Two officers responded and you could hear a pop on the camera that sounded to me like a Taser being fired. The store owner reported to the media that an officer did use a Taser on the man. If the officer did it either did not work or both darts did not hit the target. Tasers are far from foolproof. Then he was ordered to the ground which could be heard on the video. After a couple of seconds of no compliance by the guy, an officer tackled him. During the struggle you can hear an officer that sounded like he said, "He's got a gun.... gun" . At that point at least one officer pulled out his firearm. A few seconds of continued struggle (where the deceased could have given up at any time but would not) the shots were fired. The store owner where this happened stated that one of the officers did pull a gun out of the suspect's pocket. Were the officers in reasonable fear of their lives from a man that another person claimed was pointing a gun at him? Who then refused officers commands to get on the ground? Who continued to fight after officers claim to have found a gun on the suspect, yelled it out for the other officer but the suspect had to hear that the officers found the gun and after theirs were drawn, he continued to fight? This continued fight made it a risk to officers that the suspect could get the gun, assuming the report of the gun in his pocket are correct. The store owner is reported to have said, the suspect didn't have his hand on the gun.... yet. I am guessing that some people think that officers should wait until a suspect actually gets the gun out.... you know, to make it more fair. None of the above is proven but it is what has been reported. Hopefully an investigation will get to the bottom of what happened. Looking at it from a video several feet away and viewing it from the eyes of people that were not in a struggle for their own lives, it is easy to blame the officers. Obviously that is easy to do when the video shows very little of anything that is going on while the officers are on the ground struggling. I cannot tell if the officers were correct or not but I know that many people are ready to build the gallows with no evidence needed. Like almost every one of these incidents, it could have been completely avoided by simply complying with an officers commands which in a situation like this (reported a man with a gun) are almost always lawful. If someone reports to the police that a man is waving a gun at people on the street or at an individual, there is almost no court in the land that does not think the officer can restrain that person, with force if needed, to find out if he is a threat to the public. I do not know Louisiana law but I'm sure that is similar to Texas. In Texas law clearly states that you cannot resist even an unlawful arrest. The place you fight whether an arrest was lawful is in court, not on the side of the street. In Graham v. Connor the US Supreme Court stated in a rare unanimous decision that use of force by officers must be viewed from the officer's prospective, who have to make a split second decision and not have months to sit back and go over evidence that will come out long after the incident is over. Just for a real quick note on that case, a completely innocent person was detained by officers after it was believed that one of them saw what he believed to be an armed robbery when a guy ran into and a very short time later back out of the store. In fact the guy was having a medical crisis and needed sugar (I think he was going into insulin shock). When officers stopped him, he resisted since he had signs of intoxication which was later found to be the result of the medical crisis. The guy ended up going to the hospital after being injured by the officers but for minor injuries. So we had a completely innocent man who was having a medical issue that had force used against him by officers. The Supreme Court ruled in the officer's favor because even though the facts later came out that the guy was innocent, the officers had no way of knowing that at that moment in time. Their actions were reasonable from their viewpoint. Again, it is easy to sit back and criticize when you are not on the ground fighting and a gun is not a few inches from you with a guy struggling maybe to get the gun. People have that luxury of 20/20 hindsight. The Supreme Court says that legally we have to look at it from the eyes of the guy in the fight. None of that means the officers were correct and maybe they will be charged with the incident. Neither does a video seen from a different viewpoint mean that they are guilty. What is a shame is that no one wants to find out what really happened and simply wants to convict the officers. Much like the Freddie Gray fiasco in Baltimore showed us, a rush to judgment is very easy but may not render the truth. Assuming that the suspect really did have a gun, was pointing it at people and had it within reach in his pocket, who can look at that video and tell me that the officers were not in any danger? With nothing more than that if video people are demanding a conviction for murder of the officers. That shows that rational thinking is no longer available in incidents like this. And again and again and again… The blame never seemsto be on the person who violated the law but resisting the officers. This is the person who was given lawful commands by an officer and refuse to do so. These people are always made out to be angels and victims of an illegal system. Do you know why officers almost always are found not guilty in cases like this? It is because the law is on their side. If an officer tells you to stop then you have to stop. If he believes you have a weapon and orders you to the ground then you had better get on the ground. We can look at some US Supreme Court cases and while they often go against officers on illegal searches, they almost always side with the police on uses of force or issues of safety. In Pennsylvania v. Mimms they said that an officer can order a driver out of a vehicle. In Maryland v. Wilson they extended the officers' authority to ordering passengers out of the vehicle. In Plumhoff v. Rickard a unanimous nearly Supreme Court (2 justices agreed with parts if the ruling) that officers were not acting unlawfully when they fired several shots into a fleeing vehicle and not only killed the driver but the passenger who was just sitting there. That case was fairly recent being only in 2014. Again and it is so easy, when the police tell you to stop ..... stop.

About 200 but some different ones (not ones that might not come to most people's minds) ...... Old Dogs, Children and Watermelon Wine Redneck Mother King Of The Road 40 Hour Week Okie From Muskogee I Fall To Pieces 16 Tons Ring of Fire Witchita Lineman Mama Tried

That is like asking what move I can't pass up.........

Bait tonight.

Bullets, the water has cleared up quite a bit as of last night.

Did I call that or what?

The paradigm of police officers is many times very narrow.

It is not hard to call it on cops. I have been hunting in south Texas on ranches and day leases. We naturally speak to a lot of people from different parts of the state, ages, backgrounds and many different jobs. After talking to various people for a few minutes, on only two occasions I have asked where they worked. Both of them smiled and said, "Why?". I thought, no need to say now, they just answered the question. One was a Corpus Christi PD patrol officer and the other was a lieutenant at Houston PD. They never said anything about their jobs but I could tell by the way they measured their responses to any questions and their demeanor.

I am not sure how BB is played but the average cops usually make crappy Survivor players. They have too hard of a time trying to pull off the lies that are needed to build and tear apart the alliances. Now some veteran undercover officers.........

I am not watching this season. Then again, I didn't watch the previous 17 either.

It is a national story only because it fit an agenda. The unarmed teenager attacked a man, slammed his head in the ground and was killed in self defense. That is not national news and if it was then we need a self-defense news channel to cover all such local incidents. Just like the Michael Brown self defense case, the local DA did an investigation and found no evidence to prove a criminal offense. In Florida they have a law that allows a prosecutor to coming in and indict without a grand jury. The probable cause affidavit in that case was laughable. Then with all the evidence they could muster, they could not find a guilty verdict from a jury, which one of the jurors publicly stated, wanted to convict but could find no evidence to support it. In Missouri the US Justice Department came in and spent who knows how many thousands or possibly millions of dollars to try to indict a local officer but they were stuck with the fact that they had to go to a grand jury (unlike FL) and again, could find no evidence to even indict, much less convict. Oh wait, the DA in both cases had it correct before a local issue became a national incident to try and push that agenda.

There are all kinds of excuses and names for such people as Lt. Col. West, that side with "them".

That is it entirely. The claim of it isn't a crime is a political straw man. It was not about a criminal act of not sending help when the battle started. That is a judgment call of the commander in chief/president. Not having enough personnel on hand for protection of the State Department personnel and ambassador was a judgment call between the head of the State Department, Hillary Clinton and the commander in chief. There is no law that I have ever heard of that demands the president or secretary of state act. Those, again, are judgment calls. The problem is not a legal duty to act but the outrageous attempt at the cover up of that failure. With the election pending, they were afraid that it was close enough that any big mistake (like Benghazi) would alter the election. Hillary even went public, cheering the arrest of the film maker and made public statements that the US government had nothing to do with the film.... that she now claims was of no consequence. She stood as the caskets were brought back, standing in front of them and claimed the attack was about a film. Susan Rice was sent forward for the weekend shows as the spokesman again stating that it was a spontaneous attack and precipitated by a film. Now they say that there was no such claim of a film being responsible and that they knew immediately it was a terror attack. Why the claim of the film then? Again, we all know why. It is because they tried to spin it away from blame but not a criminal act by the Obama administration and Clinton's failure to protect her people. Was that a crime by Hillary? Not that I can see but her supporters love to cry out, "She committed no crime!!!". In that limited issue, it is probably true. But to stick on that thought is to know that it is a straw man argument. She and other members of the administration got caught in lies to the public in order to try and hang on to an election. Now the erasing of the emails, running a private server, not turning over all documents including email to the government on her separation from the service and other such issues likely are crimes and with Obama in office and if Hillary succeeds him, she will never be charged.

It isn't a national news story. Even if it was noteworthy (which it isn't)..... 1. No one died. 2. A good guy shot and stopped the bad guy. 3. There is no political agenda. NOW with that in mind.... If someone ever says Trayvon Martin or Michael Brown, we should all be saying, "who are they?". Those should never have been national news stories either. For any explanation, see #3 above.

That is a mighty broad brush. I have on several occasions said that officers were wrong. In the case of Captain Robert Arnold, I said that he was legally correct when it happened or at the very least as much as could be proven. The officer had the authority to make the arrest even while off duty (in fact TX law gives anyone the authority to make the same arrest) and if a guy tried to take his gun then Arnold likely had the lawful right of self defense. I read many of the witness statements and they seemed to back up Arnold's version of the incident. The officer's race doesn't change any of that. If someone thinks the officer was wrong based on race or the dead guy's race or service as a Marine then they are hypocrites at the very least.

You didn't ask anything about time frames. You asked what crimes she committed and I listed those that could be seen on camera. Time frames have nothing to do with her crimes. The officer's anger or actions have nothing to do with her crimes. Not that you are likely concerned what the law actual says but.... In Pennsylvania v. Mimms the US Supreme Court says that a driver can be ordered out of a car. While the USSC do not say that refusing to do so was a crime (they don't make law per se), refusing a lawful order by an officer in TX is a crime. Under the Penal Code it is Interference With Public Duties. Part of which states.... "A person commits an offense if the person with criminal negligence interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with a peace officer while the peace officer is performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by law". That is with "criminal negligence" which means that there does not even be any need to show "intent". Clearly when the officer tells her to step out of the car, as the the USSC has upheld as lawful, the officer is performing a public duty granted by law and she refuses. That is a crime. In the video she says "you don't have the right to arrest me", I am assuming for the minor traffic violation of fail to signal intent of turn. The USSC in Atwater v. Lago Vista TX ruled that TX has the lawful right to arrest for minor traffic violations even if the violation itself carries no jail time as punishment but in order for the accused offender to be brought to jail to post bail. She appears to be (and almost certainly is) resisting arrest when the officer is reaching into the car. Under TX law a person cannot resist even a lawful arrest. The place to contest an arrest is in the court, not on the side of the roadway. In fact in this case the officer asked her to sign the citation as a field release and then several times asked her to get out of the car and at one point stated "I am giving a lawful order" which is correct as I have explained on two above USSC rulings. Under TX resisting arrest law is states.... "A person commits an offense if he intentionally prevents or obstructs a person he knows is a peace officer from effecting an arrest".... and.... "It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the arrest or search was unlawful" Merely not liking or agreeing with an arrest is no lawful excuse to resist arrest or fail to comply with an officer's commands. As in almost all cases like this, an officer gives a lawful command and usually several times (which is not required) in order to give the person a chance to submit to lawful authority and not use force. In almost all cases like this, the person wants to make a show and refuses. According to the FBI statistics, about 35,000 people a day are arrested in the USA by the police. Out of all those people, most go to jail for even very serious charges without any use of force needed or given. The USSC has said in many cases that officers can make arrests, can order people out of cars (even passengers), can arrest for minor crimes that don't even carry jail time and can use what the officer believes is reasonable force even if the reason that the officer used that force later turns out to be incorrect. Such a case was Graham v. Connor where the officers stopped a guy for an armed robbery that did not happen. They saw a guy run in and out of a store so quickly they thought it was a robbery. In fact it was a guy having a diabetic crisis and needed sugar (I believe this guy normally drank orange juice for it). When he was stopped he was showing signs on intoxication from the medical issue and not any illegal substance and in that state of mind, resisted the officer's commands. They roughed him up enough to put him in the hospital to be treated and released. So we have a guy that is guilty of nothing. He was in a medical crisis and the police detained and injured him. A very rare unanimous USSC ruled that the officers' actions were lawful because under the circumstances, through their eyes it appeared reasonable. It is always so simple. Comply with the officer's commands and about 99.99% of the time nothing more will happen. Run, resist arrest, fight, refuse to comply with lawful orders and it goes downhill from there. That is why officers, making almost 250,000 per week and we rarely hear of them.

Obviously it is Congress' fault. After all they are the commander in chief over the US military and they control the State Department. Being uneducated as you are, you probably believed that the president was the commander-in-chief of the US military forces and the secretary of state was the head of the State Department. Consider yourself educated now.

I fear that this nation of lions that is led by a sheep is slowly turning into a nation of sheep.

From the video..... Minor traffic offense Assault on a Public Servant Resisting Arrest Interference With Public Duties