tvc184

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. 

Looking at what the autopsy report, it said that Garner died from compression of the neck and of the chest and of his positioning on the ground. That is called positional asphyxiation. A person can die from just being in certain positions and the heavier you are, the more likely it happens and positional asphyxia is in the autopsy report.    So if the autopsy shows that Garner's position and his chest being compressed by the weight of all the cops added to the cause of death, how do you indict the one cop that was in front of the grand jury? 

 ... and the way to stop all of this nonsense? Simply comply when the police tell you to stop or surrender when you are told that you are under arrest. Every single one of these incidents comes from one reason, a person resisting an arrest that he has no lawful right or authority to resist. Going just by TX Penal Code, this is a quote of what it says under the crime of Resisting Arrest..... "It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the arrest or search was unlawful".   To put it plainly, you have no legal option other than to submit to an officer's authority even if you don't agree with him.

    I know that it wasn't murder. I am shocked that in NY, especially after Ferguson that they didn't at least come out with negligent homicide.   I kind of figured there might be no indictment however one would not have shocked me.    I think no criminal charges as no intent to kill. There is reckless forms of homicide but if the officer was running a red light and kills someone it might be more appropriate. The difference is that this very large guy was resisting.    Officers need to stop that resisting as quick as possible or something like this below will happen. These officers were lucky that the guy wasn't armed or got a hold of one of them or they might have been in real trouble. I think it shows a couple of Taser hits that doesn't take him down.   So one officer used a choke hold which is a taught maneuver or was taught as a legitimate use of force. If done correctly it should not cause any injuries other than maybe a bruise. My main question would be, could they show exactly what killed him? Was it the officer with the lateral vascular neck restraint (fancy name for a choke hold) or the other officers on him or was he having severe breathing difficulties due to his weight and the intensity of the struggle?    Here is what happens when you try to baby them. These officers might not have been hurt but they could have been killed.      [Hidden Content]  

    Why?   I don't know MO law but inciting is a disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace type of crime. In TX law standing in public and shouting threats or profanity that tends to cause a disturbance or standing in a crowded theater and yelling fire, you don't have to prove who reacted or if anyone reacted. In the law you see the phrase "tends to incite", not "causes another person to act".    At the very least, now many people had to see him even if what you say was a requirement? Let's say 300 people saw his tirade and 15 of them went out to loot and burn. Is there some legal requirement to show how many people acted on his behalf? I highly doubt it. 

I think they got them off of that shrimp boat in the background.

Dead link for me.

[Hidden Content]   Care to look at the grand jury documents including all witness statements with names redacted?   Well here they are. 

He might be a good chief and he might be a bad chief but he just spoke a mouthful of the truth.    I see that the union just took a vote of no confidence in him because he fired an officer for shooting and killing a guy when he did not follow department policy. 

I was going to post that yesterday but held back.

  They are making maximum profits now. My premiums went up and my copay for generic meds went from $15 to $35. Where are all the saving? Yes I know the slugs that could not afford insurance are now paying less but the actual middle class working stiffs and getting slammed. My wife just got her generic pills filled and I looked at the total printed out and the drug company is charging the same amount as before. The difference is that the insurance company has upped their rates but dropped their coverage.    I keep waiting for this big Obamacare lessening but I think it is all a scam. I sure would like to be wrong and my insurance started dropping and my coverage back to where it was but I am not going to take a deep breath and hold it while I wait for this claimed benefit to come around.

And I see that Chuck Schumer who is one of the leading Democrat senators, today came out and said the Dems made a mistake pushing Obamacare and ignoring the middle class.   Hmm............ 

Well, when the new congress takes over in January and the bills start hitting the desk, we will see which party says "no". 

      Even Dr. Michael Baden that testified for the family and did the second autopsy made a statement on Fox News after the grand jury decision was announced. What he said was technically the truth. There were three options from the way the bullets struck Brown. He could have been surrendering, he could have been lunging at the officer or he could have been shot and falling forward. From only the bullet wounds, it is impossible to tell what happened but it was from the front no matter which one of the three happened. I agree with the famous doctor and said that in the beginning that the wounds did not mean that he was surrendering.    What was more enlightening was after Baden was on, another pathologists came on and without naming names, basically said that Baden was full of crap when he said that there was no way to tell if the officer's story was true. Of course Baden did not say the officer was lying and only that it could have been either way. Looking at only bullet wounds Baden would be correct but I think a nationally known pathologist that was called in would reference the entire crime scene and not just wounds on a body. The second pathologist called nonsense not because of the three options that Baden gave but because of the crime scene.    Now IF the scene was as that second pathologist described, Officer Wilson's story is entirely correct, period. I saw something similar at a pretty bad cutting/aggravated assault earlier this year. The key is the blood trail. In the one that I worked the victim had his left arm cut. We found a couple of credible witnesses (people that did not know either side and didn't care which side "won") that described the assault and the physical evidence exactly matched the witnesses' description. The victim walked to his car after being cut, held his arm out the window (he was bleeding like a stuck pig) and drove to the next driveway in the apartment complex. He walked to a gate to try and get some help but the gate was locked. He walked back to the car, got in and drove away but only a block or two where he flagged down an officer. All of this from the witnesses except the flagging down the officer a short distance away.    What corroborated the witnesses was the blood trail. It went from the sidewalk where the cutting happened to the car parked on the road. There was a big puddle of blood where the car was originally parked. The victim then drove to the next driveway, got out and a larger pool of blood was there where he was hanging his arm out the window. There was also a trail of trickles of blood down the street where he drove with his arm hanging out plus blood down the side of the car.    At the driveway there was a blood trail on one side of the sidewalk in a line, it turned and came back to the where the car had been parked. We knew his left arms was cut because we could see it. We then retraced his steps up the sidewalk from the car and there was the blood trail on the left side of the sidewalk to the gate. The blood was on the other side of the sidewalk as he walked back. The only way it could have been any different since we knew which arm was cut would have been for him to walk all the way to the gate backwards and then return to his car, also backwards.    The second pathologist that described the crime scene and not just an autopsy described the different blood trails at the crime scene and starting with Brown's hand being wounded from the shot in the car and it dripping as he turned to flee. That blood trail did a circle and showed that Brown was coming back toward the officer, much like the cutting that I was at where the guy did the U-turn when the gate was locked. Then there was a lot of blood when Brown started taking rounds and it led away from where Brown turned around and advanced back toward Wilson. That heavier blood trail tracked for about 20 feet (if I remember correctly) meaning that Brown could not have been surrendering when he took rounds because if he had only gone straight to the ground, the blood would have been puddled there and not leading back toward Wilson. Also if he had been running away from Wilson, the heavier blood trail would have been leading away from Wilson and the direction of the patrol unit, not toward it.    Of course all of that is assuming that the pathologist did not get on national television and lie about what he observed. If his description was correct, in my opinion case closed including all the speculations.   ​    

I did watch a lot of MSNBC and CNN since the grand jury no bill was returned and I must say that it is entertaining.    They whining and outright lies are a hoot.