tvc184

Actions have consequences.

​Some of the biggest hogwash that I have read. Kind of like, "We only wanted information". That is too funny. The people disregarded any information that was pro-police and as the DOJ later found out, was almost entirely correct.

Basically the "unarmed man" doesn't apply so much to an escapee.

​Each state has their own laws however I will quote TX law as a comparison. The mere fact that a person is escaping is almost deemed as justification for deadly force. I work with several officers that that worked for the TX prison system (TDCJ) and they were told that if they see a person going over the wire or already out, to fire one warning shot (not required by law) and then the second shots puts the person down for good. Escape from prison in itself is a deadly force potential. That is why they have guns on the guard towers... it is not just for show. In this case we have a guy that is still trying to escape and in fact is in prison for life for killing a police officer. I am going to guess that by NY law (like similar to TX), unless the guy immediately gets on the ground when ordered by a guard or police officer, deadly force is usually authorized. The officers can't just murder them but can use deadly force to prevent escape by law. Sec. 9.52. PREVENTION OF ESCAPE FROM CUSTODY. The use of force to prevent the escape of an arrested person from custody is justifiable when the force could have been employed to effect the arrest under which the person is in custody, except that a guard employed by a correctional facility or a peace officer is justified in using any force, including deadly force, that he reasonably believes to be immediately necessary to prevent the escape of a person from the correctional facility.

NBC has shown that lying is not a problem. They are only mad that Williams made it public. Trump did not use any racial slurs or say anything strange or derogatory. He told the truth which is that Mexico's best citizens are not coming across the border...... and that simply will not work, especially to a network that panders to liberals. I am sure they are afraid that if they did not try to get rid of Trump, it would somehow translate into bad ratings in their upcoming presidential election slanted coverage both on NBC and MSNBC.

​He doesn't talk about them. He fans the flames.

That article is some of the biggest hogwash that I have ever read. It ends up by saying something like, "Well, Congress can't really change it but cut off the money and we can do anything against Supreme Court rulings". Really? Obama hasn't signed a budget since he has been the president. We have seen how well shutting down the government works. People that are in fear of losing their welfare checks will again blame the Republicans and with an election looming. Returning the Democrats to control over Congress would then do what for this idea? The entire premise is gibberish. I don't agree with the ruling but the threat of shutting down the government indefinitely is laughable.

On a side note, solicitation of murder in TX carries up to life in prison. Simply asking about murder for hire is equal to an actual murder even if the murder is never even attempted.

That is correct.... mostly. If you pay someone to kill another person, it is not just Murder but Capital Murder and death sentence eligible. If a woman pays someone to kill her husband and it happens, her minimum penalty is life without parole.

​The money is okay (pretty good actually, according to where you work) but any officer that works for the money is in the wrong business anyway. I won't reject any pay raise but we aren't being mistreated. Police in this country probably make about 50 million public contacts a month. The amount of people abused or have their rights violated is exceedingly small. If you count just arrests, the FBI reports a bit over 12 million a year. That is 250,00 arrests per week on average or about 33,000 per day. That is just arrests so the officer is using some kind of force even if it is the minimal force of simply handcuffing someone. Considering the shear volume, actual improper uses of force is minuscule. Even many that are shown on video or the ones in the national news are actually lawful uses of force. Examples are Ferguson, MO and NY, NY. Looking into the accusations, we find that the amount of force was within the law and sometimes (such as NY) the use of force is lawful but against the departments own restrictions put in place such as no choke holds (correctly called lateral vascular neck restraint which does not choke). As the NY example, the hold is a viable use of force option and is still taught in many schools. It is politically incorrect however because "it doesn't look good". Ride-alongs help and in fact many officer candidates and eventual officers started by riding with a friend or just going to an agency that allows it without knowing any officers. It is much different than is what is portrayed in movies and the evening news. I encourage people to ride with officers. I also encourage them if possible to go through live action use of force and deadly force training like we have seen lately by community leaders that have protested police actions but then when put through the training, often change their mind. Some such videos are on the internet.

I have no clue in the current incident. Being friendly to bad people is a common police interview technique. It is not used in every case and it does not always work. Most of it depends on the suspect and their mentality. Whether it is fear, deals, good cop/bad cop and other techniques, there are many ways to get cooperation from suspects. What will almost never work is trying to play hard ball with them on the way to jail. If an officer starts screaming at a guy after an arrest and tells him that he is going to do everything in his power to put him away for life or get the death sentence, the guy is likely going to clam up and that part of the investigation is over. Again, if a patrol officer reads a guy Miranda and the guy invokes his right to an attorney or remain silent (or even without Miranda), a detective can no longer legally undo that. If a guy tells an arresting patrol officer that he wants his attorney, it is illegal for a detective to see the guy later and tell him that the street cop is a jerk and an idiot and then ask the suspect if he wants to change his mind and talk.

If you count being shot at (watching the shots fired at me, not just hearing shots nearby), my partner shooting and killing a guy about 10 feet in front of me and me shooting at someone (that was holding a gun to my head trying to pull the trigger), I have been involved in five shooting incidents.

A few years ago when I was in detectives we were called out to a brutal murder. A guy broke into a home and then raped and murdered a young woman. In the terms of the street, he “lawyered up” and demanded his right to remain silent. So he sat there while we booked him and completed some of the paperwork. He was complaining of being hungry so my partner and I, without telling him, went and got him a Quarter Pounder with cheese meal deal. After he ate it and after he finished, he started crying. He started saying how nice we were to him after what he was accused of. He then recanted his request to remain silent. We had to record him saying that it was he that re-initiated conversation because once a person invokes a right, the police cannot even ask him again to reconsider. After a guy says that he wants to remain silent or a lawyer we cannot go back in an hour later and ask if he has changed his mind. Once invoked, the right stands unless “he” changes his mind without prompting. So he then made a voluntary statement of the entire murder or basically a full confession. What if we had social media 20 years ago or 24 hour media that is running out of stories and the headlines screamed, "LOCAL OFFICERS BUY BRUTAL KILLER A HAMBURGER". Would the family be mad that we treated this killer nicely in our custody after he very brutally killed a relative? Maybe. Looking at the results, would they be mad that without any abuse or violating any person’s rights that we were able to get a full confession? It is easy for those on the outside of an investigation to point fingers when in reality they have absolutely no knowledge is what is being done or why. Just like the ongoing investigation of the two escapees in NY, I am sure the woman co-conspirator is cooperating and not because the cops are being mean and abusive toward her. The old saying goes that you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar and sometimes that applies to very serious police investigations. It is like taking a confession from a child molester (what I did for two years) and telling him/her that you understand where he/she is coming from. So while it is easy to yell, “OH MY GOD the police bought this despicable person a hamburger!!!”… is it because they felt sorry for him or were simply trying to solve a despicable crime with that honey?My partner and I were able to help solve a fairly heinous crime doing just what you accuse these officers of not being very bright for doing.

​Why?

​Somewhere in NY. I don't recall any firefighters being murdered in Newton or the area.

​So if one says that we should have guns and one says that we shouldn't, are they both wrong?

​Tragic but old news. Wasn't a couple of years or so ago that a guy set his house on fire and shot at firefighters and police as they arrived?

My first shooting incident was a suicidal subject that called in on himself and opened fire on me when I arrived. This is not a new deal but fortunately only happens no more than a couple of times a year.

​ From your article.... "Detroit police believe two weapons were involved and that one man may have been the intended target. The semi-automatic guns have not been recovered and the assistant chief is fuming that no one is talking." Sounds like a routine investigation to me. Welcome to my world.

Also since the topic of insanity will come up, the SC law is almost identical to TX. The burden of proof is on the defendant. That differs from some laws where the burden is on the government to prove that a person is not insane. To be insane you have to not know the difference between right or wrong. Blaming other people as this guy did and fleeing to get away by itself (in my opinion) proves that he knew the difference between right and wrong. Also almost exactly like TX, the SC statute says that merely being antisocial or just a mean criminal is not proof of insanity. Just because the guy is a jerk (in lieu of profanity that seems to fit but against the rules) does not mean that he is insane. (C) Evidence of a mental disease or defect that is manifested only by repeated criminal or other antisocial conduct is not sufficient to establish the defense of insanity.

​I just looked up the South Carolina law on murder. For just the typical murder like two guys get in a bar fight or you argue with your neighbor, it is a minimum of 30 years with life as a maximum. If there are "aggravating circumstances" and the jury does not issue the death sentence, the mandatory sentence is life without parole or as they put it, "until the death of the defendant without the possibility of parole". As far as the "aggravating circumstances", any of these listed will give life without parole or death. It appears to me that he violated at least these three circumstances and only proving one of them will result in death or life. (3) The offender by his act of murder knowingly created a great risk of death to more than one person in a public place by means of a weapon or device which normally would be hazardous to the lives of more than one person. 9) Two or more persons were murdered by the defendant by one act or pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct. (11) The murder of a witness or potential witness committed at any time during the criminal process for the purpose of impeding or deterring prosecution of any crime. It appears to me that this guy will get at least 9 life sentences without parole as a minimum. The governor has already called for this to be a death penalty case and I am sure that is what they will go for. Either would be good for me. Death seems very fitting but a 21 year old sentenced to an 8 foot by 8 foot cell 23 hours a day for the next 60 years seems fitting also.

I think everyone is making fun of him.

Racism.

Really, 52 years ago? Why not go back 8 more years to the Montgomery bus boycott or better yet, the Civil War?

Feel free to name all the instances where a multiple murder suspect got off with light sentences. I hate to tell you but the jury will come from the same pool of people whether in state or federal court. How come the feds did not step in and allowed the east Texas good ol' boys in the James Byrd case to try it instead of in federal court? since you appear to be so sure of a weak outcome of the state trial, how much do you want to bet that he either gets life or death?