tvc184

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.

A lawful arrest should meet resistance?

The idea of tying the use of force to the original offense is a bogus argument. Officers have been killed for trying to issue speeding tickets or trying to make an arrest for a non-violent crime. Use resistance starts, the original reason for the detention or arrest is usually no longer an issue. Try searching youtube for the shooting involving a Trooper Vetter in TX. He was murdered by a man that did not want to pay a seat belt ticket. Officers do not use force because of the crime committed but because of the amount of resistance received. I have arrested people for murder with absolutely no resistance.

I suppose that you ignored the autopsy results also. How convenient.

More of the autopsy released. Cause of death aggravated by weight, asthma and the struggle itself. Just like with most claimed Taser deaths, it is not the Taser but the strain that a person cannot handle due to a physical condition.    Now, who or what exactly killed him?   If we are going to lay blame, why not on the guy illegally resisting arrest? 

  How do you know that he didn't?    What if he did and it was the guy's position that caused the positional asphyxiation that was the primary cause of death?   The problem with all of these cases is wanting to convict or clear with almost no information. It is like in the Zimmerman trial, I saw claims on various forums and I think this one also, that said if the bullet traveled up into his torso then it was a self defense case but if the bullet went down toward his waist them it proved homicide. That is nonsense because the bullet could have gone either way in either self defense or murder.    I see no problem with questioning and asking... Did he? ....Did they? .... What was?.... How did? .... etc.   When you come out and say something like, "He should have loosened his hold!"..... you are drawing a conclusion by guessing.