tvc184

    We have been there locally also. Having been working during an officer involved shoot/fatality and seen the outright lies told, it is not always a sure thing to push the issue. If someone wants to riot with practically no information because they don't get the results they want, what happens when you go after the people that lied when testifying against an officer?    We all saw Michael Brown's father incite a riot during a fit of rage but is there no wonder that charges have not been filed? He is likely to get away with it out of sympathy for the family or out of fear of more riots, even when the crime is on video.    Let's say that you have a witness that swears under oath and signs a document that claims a guy was shot three times in the back. After he signs it, he is told that there are no shots in the back per the autopsy and he changes his story in another sworn document saying that he did not see the shots in the back. By doing that he has admitted to perjury or obstruction of justice in two signed statements.     There is supposedly a white female witness (#40) that claimed that Michael Brown charged at Wilson.... but later changed her story to say that it was just what she "heard" or something to that effect. I say prosecute her.... but at the same time prosecute the ones that changed their story the other way.   Of course that will not happen. The DA is ready to move on and that might be the best course of action at this point. The fact that he knows that some people lied but is not pushing it any farther is not really shocking and like I said, I have seen the same locally. 

What percentage of the public is actually "mentally deranged"?    How many spree killings do we have every year? Maybe 10 perpetrators out of 300+ million people.

I have four thoughts/questions about Trump and his opinion on Bush.   1. When is Trump ever happy?   2. Why is he so worried about a guy that only has said that he is studying about getting an exploratory committee?   3. Who cares what Trump thinks?   4. I don't particularly like Bush either but would Trump rather another term of Obama or perhaps Hillary if it came down to another Bush vs. Clinton?

Hillary Clinton - SMH   Joe Biden - Really SMH   Howard Dean - LMAO while really SMH

Oh yeah, about the laughing (and it was more like smiling and an outright laugh). I have been to many very sad funerals and seen people smile or make some comments while about to speak. It is a defense mechanism that most of have built it. 

I think the only hoax is the hoax theories themselves. Not because someone could not fake something but the scope. How do you get hundreds or thousands of people to go along with it, no one has proven it with all of those involved and no one has come forward.    People cannot keep secrets, period. Let's say you get 100 people in a room that say you can trust them and tell them that they have to keep a secret.  Then let them in on some "big news" but it is mandatory to keep quiet. See how long it takes before someone talks.    That is why I know that the OJ Simpson trial got the wrong verdict. Much of the defense was based a police conspiracy and planted evidence. Now more than 20 years later, no one has come forward with a blockbuster book that would be made into a multi-million dollar movie about the inside police corruption where several people got together on the fly to come up with a scheme to disregard a brutal murder and blame it on a former athlete. I sure wish I had such information because you could bet that I would be coming forward and laughing all the way to the bank.    Now we need to know how to get hundreds of parents that actually had children at Sandy Hook to keep quiet since those killed were their children's friends and neighbors? It is not like bodies found in a desert and we don't know where they lived or who their friends were. It would be easy to make up untraceable names. Maybe the conspiracy theorists claim that Sandy Hook never existed as a school and the entire town was built as part of the conspiracy. How about the couple of non-fatal wounded people? Did they volunteer to be shot as part of the deal because they are still alive...... or maybe they never existed and the police, EMS units and hospital staff was also part of the conspiracy. It had to be pretty far reaching because it was investigated by the Connecticut AG's office and I am sure that was reviewed by elected state congressmen. I guess the locals across the state (like your local congressman) are now involved in the cover up. But wait...............   I just can't see it. A single death or two or some remote incident? Sure, that would be possible and even then it might unravel over time. To do it involved so many people from so many walks of life from so many opposing viewpoints and jobs seems way over the top and in my opinion impossible. Now I could believe in a mini-conspiracy like covering up some of the results. Let's say the incident really happened and Lanza did shoot up the school but some cops or other officials covered up certain elements for their own personal gain or beliefs. To think the Boston bombing or Sandy Hook never happened is almost unbelievable. And what would be gained from them? If it was merely to be anti-gun or something like that, you would not need such an elaborate scheme to sway public sympathy. Hey, maybe that's the key. It would be so elaborate that no one could ever suspect a faked event..............

  I am assuming that (geez... yet again) your are ignoring that the police in this case never saw a guy with a gun in the case you cited and it took two weeks to investigate and find who it was. It was a two week incident, not a 5 second incident.   Also, although the person that reported the kid with the gun said that it might be (not confirmed) a BB gun, it was never relayed to the responding officers.    That sounds more like a dispatcher problem than an officer problem. But... I know details get in the way of reality. Carry on.

  After reading three different websites including Wikipedia I only see two arrests for Barkely and none for resisting arrest. One was for assault after he was hit with a glass and responded and another for DUI.    In fact after his last arrest and according to the police officers from the Wikipedia article......, "Gilbert police noted Barkley was cooperative and respectful during the entire incident, adding that he was treated no differently than anyone arrested on DUI charges".    Then he pleaded guilty to DUI and was sentenced to three days in jail and a $2,000 fine.    But (yet again), those are just facts.    Feel free to make up yet more of your own............. 

    Really? Did you actually read the article or did you (typically) stop at the headlines.   Let me paraphrase the case for you as it was reported. Officers heard what they thought was a BB gun. They did not see someone firing on them so there was nobody to return fire at. The suspect was located inside of an apartment, not on the street attacking an officer.    In fact (you'll love this one), the arrest was made two weeks after the incident. That's right, it took two weeks to get enough evidence to find out for sure who was shooting in the direction of the officers. I guess you think they should have kicked the door down and shot him because he was white?    Reading is FUNdamental. You should try it out. 

Not only is there no proof, in some of the cases even proof won't do it because of the statute of limitations. Each state sets its own limitations on prosecutions and they may have long been expired. 

I watched Obama's press secretary yesterday. He was asked about claims of war crimes for enhanced interrogation. The follow up was that Obama's big claim to fame militarily is drone strikes but they have killed 600-900 innocent children. How did that stack up to scaring people and keeping them awake.   He babbled about how bad the enemy was and that they "try" to get good intel to limit innocent people getting killed but he never could answer the questions posed.    I find it interesting in light of recent protests where the cries were of, "black lives matter too". Well apparently innocent Muslim children do not matter and/or scaring people is a war crime but killing innocent children is not.    Things that make you go hmmm........   I personally support the strikes but it is interesting the claims of war crimes for one president where no one was killed but apparently that does not count for innocents being killed by the next president. 

  Hey, it works in the movies. 

Coroners, JP's and pathologists don't rule in criminal matters. They rule in the manner of death. Being killed by the actions of another person is a homicide. There is also suicide, natural causes, accident and undetermined. There is no disputing this was a homicide. The only other question is if it has any criminal responsibility attached.

True but the guilty parties were soon arrested and two of three were given the death sentence. That is not the same as Orange where there was no indictment. Again, apples and oranges.

It was horrible but Fox News censored it.

  Wrong. I was then and still defend him. 

I think there is a difference from negotiating from a position of strength and from kowtowing to every demand from our adversaries or drawing red lines in the sand and then changing them when the other side calls your hand. 

  Better?

Both in Texas law and in federal law, excessive force is the culpable mental state of "intentional" (although I think the federal civil rights criminal law says "willfully").    Accidentally causing a result in most states is a crime in many cases including merely damaging property but can include other crimes like homicide. In unlawful use of force or civil rights violations, it takes an act of intent or willfulness on the part of the officer to prove the crime.    Under TX law as an example, Official Oppression has to show that an officer "intentionally" abused a person. If an officer hits a guy 5 times with a baton in an arrest and several months later a jury decides that 3-4 likely would have been enough, that is not an automatic unlawful act. The proving the crime in court takes proving that the officer knew that 4 hits were enough and that the last one was just retaliation or abuse. Maybe a guy is down and handcuffed and an officer steps in to get a couple of extra whacks for good measure. That is excessive force. 

Anytime I see a sign like that from either side of an argument, I am thinking photoshop.

I do not like nor would I have done their tactic of driving straight into a person that I thought had a gun. The single reason is that I would rather have distance rather than get out of the passenger door on top of a guy with a gun. 

So the officers never knew that the caller might have had a fake gun as had been relayed to the dispatcher but not to the officers. The officers after they shot him said it was a 20 year old with a gun. The officers on arrival didn't look like they calmly shot a kid but ducked behind their car like you would expect from people that think they are about to be shot.   

No.

Numbers, autopsy results, witness statements and other evidence tends to get little or no notice when it goes against the diatribe.

Funny, I was going to suggest the same thing. Now it is apparent that your glasses need a new prescription.