tvc184

  True and that was tragic.    This isn't the same world as it was 40 years ago. It isn't perfect by a long stretch but if you think that things are same now as back then, you are mistaken. I highly doubt that you think that. In fact it is not even close.    I don't want to nor should I have to take the blame for what happened back then any more than you should take the blame for the homicide rate in the black communities.    I will leave you with this, I was working a burglary one time many years ago and trying to find fingerprints of the person that broke into a black woman's home. I was working my butt off trying to get prints and she decided to tell me not to waste my time. Her statement was that she knew I didn't care about her and she then decided that she didn't even know why she bothered calling. I asked her what she was talking about. She told me that her uncle was beaten up by the police. When I asked when, she told me 1962. I had to ask further, so you think that I am not doing my job now (which she was watching me do) because of something that happened to a relative almost 30 years earlier?   Yep, that is exactly what she thought.    So what comes first, the chicken or the egg?

  History doesn't offend me.    Out of curiosity, when was this that you got to eat at Kress in downtown PA? 

  The defense rests your honor.............

In the end, the favorite is likely to win. As they said on Fox News, it has been almost 100 years since it has ever gone to a second ballot. 

    Hmmmm.... how long ago was it? I wonder what shift I was working at that time..........    But thanks for proving the point that I have been saying. You did nothing wrong, ran into some rude officers that you claim had no lawful reason to stop you and your friends, put you on the car like criminals......and after doing what they asked, you walked away unharmed. I am not making any excuses if you were treated unfairly but that seems to show the point even more. Assuming the officers were looking to harass someone and maybe put them in jail without any cause and not actually looking for real crime, you still walked away. Running or resisting simply puts the ball in the officer's court whether they had a good reason for a detention or not.    Several times in my career I have stopped someone that claimed at the scene that I had no reason to stop him. On every such occasion if it was from a citizen calling in a crime or possible crime, I had the dispatcher read the call back to me on the radio so the person that was detained could hear it.    On one occasion I and other officers took a guy down at gun point on a felony traffic stop. I spotted the "suspect" vehicle after a caller claimed a possible kidnapping in progress and at the least, an aggravated (armed) assault with a sawed off shotgun. The caller gave the name of the suspect which we had dealt with many times for violent crimes and although I knew his name, I did not know what he looked like. The description of the suspect pickup truck was an old red Ford stepside with a white camper on the bed. I in the area when the call was dispatched and the old red Ford stepside pickup with the white camper drove in front of me within a couple of blocks of the call. So we got him out of the his pickup and face down on the ground. When I got to him to handcuff him he claimed that he had no clue why we were doing that. I told him to be calm and if it was not him he would soon be on his way. Well it wasn't him. Fortunately he wasn't yelled at, spoken to rudely or injured. I then asked the dispatcher to read back the description of the suspect that was maybe holding a hostage with a shotgun and on the radio they again broadcast an old red Ford stepside with a white camper. I apologized for the incident but wanted him to hear why he was being stopped. He wasn't angry with us or at least he didn't seem so when he left. I just wanted him to know that we were not targeting him and why we thought that we might be killed. He complied in a very serious situation and walked away unscathed and was allowed to hear why he was stopped. Now what would have happened if the guy got scared and fled in the vehicle that at the time we still thought was armed with a fairly high power weapon?    We can argue the point later. The side of the road is not the place to contest a detention, especially physically.   

  You stated and the implication (not just here) is that even with evidence an officer is never indicted.    In this case the DA indicted him for murder which is the most serious charge available. What more can the state do?   The officer got a lawyer and fought it and convinced a jury that he intended to shoot the guy with a Taser and grabbed the wrong weapon. It is still a homicide and the jury found him guilty. He was sentenced to two years, not 7 months.    Really, what else can the state do, remove the officer's right to a trial by jury? Again, this officer was indicted for the highest criminal charge available and was facing life in prison and was prosecuted for that charge. I have seen plenty of jury verdicts that I don't agree with. 

..... and if I was the officer doing that, I would make sure that I saw an actual violation before and had it on video I pulled someone over.    What happens if an officer stops someone at random with no traffic charge or reasonable suspicion of a crime (unlawful detention) and on walking up to the car sees something that he shouldn't see like a kilo of cocaine, a body in the back seat, etc. Those might be stretching it (but maybe not) but what if it is a DWI?    If you see someone not signaling a turn, not stopping behind the white line at a stop sign or something else minor and the traffic stop goes to crap, it is still a legal stop. 

Let me get this straight, the cops are getting a bad deal in the press so an anonymous citizen gives a few drivers $50 each and it is supposed to make the cops look good? 

  This is what you said:    "It's many cases with clear video of abuse from a officer that leads to nothing at all. "   As an example you show a video of an officer that made a mistake and got prison time.    In fact the officer in that case was charged with murder. Nothing at all?    In fact the officer was found guilty by a jury for involuntary manslaughter. Nothing at all?   I am still waiting for the example that you cite as "many cases" where an officer has "clear video" evidence against him and he is not charged.    A jury will do what a jury will do. If an officer is brought up on charges and a jury looking at the evidence acquits him, that is not because the system covered it up. Officers have constitutional rights also.    The reason for my long winded post above was to show that sometimes what people this is clear evidence does not fit within the laws. In the Supreme Court case from this year (Plumhoff) I cited a unanimous court held that officers did not act improperly when an innocent passenger was killed by the police. While some might cite that as clear evidence of wrongdoing, the law does not say that.    It has to be seen through the eyes of the officer that is in an authority and duty to act. 

    Yes and I have watched many videos of officer deaths caught on camera from officers not wanting to shoot someone. Most officer hesitate and it sometimes cost their lives. 

  The police only review the police internally to see if policy is violated. The police don't decide who to take charges on even for normal non-police criminal cases. Those decisions are reserved for the District Attorney, US Attorney, City Prosecutor, etc.    In civil cases, a jury does that. You can sue anytime you wish.    As far as the criminal charges that "clearly shows" the officers went to far, which cases? Name a case that is clear cut that everyone knows the officer is guilty and yet no charges were brought? Even in cases where charges are taken against an officer, the officers are often found not guilty by a jury when the facts of the case come out and the jury is read the law by the judge.    In the US Supreme Court under Graham v. Connor, they said that to view if an officer is wrong you have to view it from "objective reasonableness" as seen through the eyes of the officer that has to make (in the SC's own words) "split second" decisions. The Graham case is significant in my opinion because Graham had not committed any crime however he suffered injuries at the hands of officers during a detention for a crime that never happened. An officer saw a guy run into a store and run out, jumped into a passenger's side of a car and left in a hurry. The officer thought that he had witnessed an armed robbery and stop the car and called for backup. In truth Graham was having a diabetic crisis and needed some sugar and when he saw a long line at the checkout counter, he ran out of the store to head to the next one. When stopped Graham was acting irrationally and did not cooperate with the officers and he was put in handcuffs and pretty much thrashed. The officers did not know that it was not a robbery and thought that Graham was resisting them after a felony. Looking at the facts after the incident, the officers were completely wrong however there was no intent or wilful misconduct. It was a mistake for sure. This is part of the synopsis of that case from the Supreme Court: All claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force -- deadly or not -- in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard, rather than under a substantive due process standard.   By the way, the Supreme Court ruling was unanimous.    From this year alone, the Supreme Court in Plumhoff v. Rickard upheld Graham. In that case officers fired a dozen rounds into a car that had fled from them and presented a danger to them and the public. Not only was the driver killed but so was the passenger that was likely not a willing participant in the fleeing and had not committed any crime. Again, the SC upheld the officers acting in a tense situation under a split second decision to use deadly force even when an innocent party in the car was killed. And yet again, the ruling was unanimous.    So as far saying there was more force than was necessary, under both state and federal law that is not enough alone to prove a crime. In the heat of battle in I hit a guy 6 times and a video later shows that 4 hits may have been enough, it does not prove any illegal act.    Under Texas law for Official Oppression, the required culpable mental state is "intentionally" violating someone's rights. That means the officer was fully aware that he was going too far and did it anyway. It other words he had to have the "intent" to violate someone's rights, not have made a mistake.    Sec. 39.03. OFFICIAL OPPRESSION (a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he: (1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful; (2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful; or (3) intentionally subjects another to sexual harassment.     Under federal law and a USC 1983 civil rights violation, they state that the officer had to act "wilfully" to violate someone's rights. Merely making a mistake is not such a violation. I copied this from one of the probably hundreds of websites on civil rights violations. "In fact, police are immune from suit for the performance of their jobs unless willful, unreasonable conduct is demonstrated. Mere negligence, the failure to exercise due care, is not enough to create liability. Immunity therefore means that in the typical police-suspect interaction, the suspect cannot sue the police. Civil rights remedies come into play for willful police conduct that violates an individual's constitutional rights."  This section is about lawsuits which requires a lesser degree of proof than a criminal charge. A lawsuit only requires a preponderance of evidence when criminal requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You can see that the police are immune from misconduct charges unless it is a wilful violation. Things simply move too fast that someone else can look at months later to decide if the officer did something wrong. That is the basis of Graham v. Connor.    In fact the same website that talks about civil rights starts of with this statement: "Police officers generally have broad powers to carry out their duties." I think those "broad powers" is what irks a lot of people and causes a lot of people to resist thinking that if they don't agree with an officer, they can contest it on the side of the street.    [Hidden Content]   Uses of force are never pretty. I have seen what I think is clearly unlawful force such as a recent case in CA where an officer beat a women several times in the face when she was offering no resistance. We don't know what preceded the video and I can see that if she came at him he might have knocked her down but this was excessive in my opinion past the point of a split second decision.   [Hidden Content]     Even then, ponder this. When a doctor is accused of using a wrong procedure or not following protocol, who reviews the case, a plumber? 

    Oops!!   Don't bring that up again!!

  Let's look at resisting arrest or fleeing. From my experience about 1 in 15 arrests requires the officer(s) to chase or fight with a suspect.    The FBI reports about 14 million arrests a year. That means that officers have to chase and/or fight with a suspect close to a million times a year. Like I said previously, the officer involved fatalities is between 400-600 times a year. That comes out to 1 officer involved shooting for every 1,500 people that resist arrest.    That isn't the people that submit to an arrest which is about 13 million taken into custody without incident. That is from the people actively resisting trying to be taken into custody.    And no matter how people spin it, most of the cases of officer involved shootings is fairly clear cut with a person firing at officers or coming at them with a knife, club or other weapon. The ones that people claim as questionable (not counting the family who always questions it), it probably is somewhere in the area of 1 in 10,000 arrests resisting cases.   Where is the claimed epidemic (not from you but the national media)?  

  .......... depending on how they are resisting. 

    It is all wrong. The one difference I see is whether it is on a national scale or a single person and/or local station.    In the Zimmerman case (which big girl seems fixated with) CNN admitted that they put out false information about a racial slur that was claimed to be made by Zimmerman, NBC altered the 911 tapes to make it sound like he was calling because Martin was black and ABC altered the video and photos of his head to make it look like there were no injuries when he was brought to the police station. CNN came out and admitted their mistake, NBC fired the person that put out the false 911 recording and ABC only claimed that they had accidentally adjusted the lighting in the photo and video wrongly.    This was claimed to be Fox News when in fact it was nothing but a local station. The person responsible should be terminated as untrustworthy in reporting news. 

  Let's see, he has the internet, global warming, the hanging chad...... he might soon be up there with Thomas Edison. 

  Out of the approximately 14 million arrests each year, neither were millions of blacks.    The odds of being killed by the police in an arrest is about 20,000+ to 1. If people would quit fighting and comply with arrest, it would go down to almost zero.    I have no clue what George Zimmerman has to do with the millions of other arrests that year that didn't end in a fatal incident but apparently it makes some sense to you. 

    Let's see, in the video John Crawford appears to be carrying an AR15 or similar rifle. A person calls 911 and tells the dispatcher that a man is in the store with a rifle and waving it around. The police then arrive thinking that they may be walking into an active shooter situation.    They spot a guy with a rifle just as the caller said. The police naturally point their weapons at the person and challenge him. What comments or questions should they make or ask?   A. DROP THE WEAPON!   B. Time out sir. Sir, is that a real weapon? If it is in fact a real weapon, do you intend to use it or are you simply scaring people? Please let us know and can you please not do move or we will have to challenge you louder.    All the while the officers know that it takes about one second for the person to bring the rifle up and fire at them. I am assuming that the responding officers should have simply waited to see if one of them got shot first. If the guy did actually kill an officer, it would then be acceptable for the other officers to return fire.    In fact this guy on the video appeared to be acting strange. He was seen pointing the rifle and ducking around the corner of an aisle. Sometimes he looked like he was shouldering the weapon and going to attention like he was in the military. No one will ever know why he was doing that but in fact he was acting strangely. After the police entered, he fled around the corner and then came back and appeared to lunge at the rifle.    It is easy to look back on it and see it as a tragedy although Crawford acted in a manner that brought attention to himself. The officers are faced with making a decision that may cost their lives if they hesitate. It is an unfortunate problem of the world we live in today. In this year alone officers murdered in the line of duty are up 50% from the previous year. Officers seriously injured are at an all time high and the only reason that more officers are not killed is from modern life saving techniques and responding officers saving their partner's lives with tourniquets and other things that were not done or taught in the past.    Yet again, there is a way to stop the violent encounters..... stop resisting and fleeing.   

  "I heard"? There is ironclad innuendo and speculation.    No matter, that guy had a gun that looked real. Your silly "if it would have been a black guy" doesn't seem to bear out that millions of blacks are arrested each year and not shot. How did they manage to go to jail without being shot and without needing to be treated at the hospital for a violent arrest?   Oh, I know. They complied when told that they were under arrest. Amazing how that works. 

No.

  I know that facts and reality have no basis in your opinions and rants but look at this.   From wikipedia:   Police arrived within 90 seconds and found at least three .40-caliber handgun magazines, a shotgun and a large drum magazine on the floor of the theater.   police apprehended Holmes behind the cinema, next to his car, without resistance.   He left his guns in the theater and the police found him behind the theater. He was not running away and was not charging them. According to the article they did not even know that he was the actor at first (since he wasn't acting crazy) and he did not resist.     I have said it before and I will stick with it. All of these claimed police abuses are the result of the suspect resisting or attacking officers. There is a very easy way to stop them. Quit resisting.    If you want to contest your case, the lawful way is in court, not at the roadside where the laws and Supreme Court decisions clearly are in favor of the police using force to protect themselves and others from what the officers "reasonably believe". 

I read it. It was not Fox News but a local Fox affiliate in Somewhere, USA. 

  Why change spots now?

LOL is right. WOW, the UN doesn't like something that the US does.    I'm glad I read this thread, I would have never known any of this............  :D

The Ice Age is upon us.