Baltimore Update

[stevenash]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[baddog]

Kingsford charcoal starter and Bic lighter sales are about to increase.

[stevenash]

Big Girl- any thoughts on this situation?

[team first]

No riots. Freddie's family got their millions. They ok with it. 

[Big girl]

3 hours ago, stevenash said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

I am mot suprised. What happened to the Ferguson Police Dept?

[Big girl]

They guys who beat that black kid, because he whistled at a white woman were acquitted as well.

[stevenash]

11 minutes ago, Big girl said:

They guys who beat that black kid, because he whistled at a white woman were acquitted as well.

Does that mean you think the justice system is rigged and is not treating all parties equally?

[Big girl]

Yep

[bullets13]

9 hours ago, Big girl said:

I am mot suprised. What happened to the Ferguson Police Dept?

The Ferguson shooting was 100% justified.  The fact that you still think it wasn't after evidence proved it was is not surprising.  Just curious, what do you think should've happened to the officer after he shot the man who tried to take his gun and then charged at him again?

[Big girl]

What happened to the Ferguson Police department after the shooting? What did the Dept of Justice Do? What did they find?

[Big girl]

10 hours ago, bullets13 said:

The Ferguson shooting was 100% justified.  The fact that you still think it wasn't after evidence proved it was is not surprising.  Just curious, what do you think should've happened to the officer after he shot the man who tried to take his gun and then charged at him again?

He tried to take his gun then charged at him. How can you charge at someone after being close enough to them to attempt to take their gun?

[Big girl]

I didn't really follow the Ferguson case. My boys get really upset so I didn't focus on any details of his death. If The cop was guilty, I am not surprised that he was found not guilty. I know that that police department, according to the justice department was accused of racist practices thus the justice department "cleaned house"

www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/03/04/the-12-key-highlights-from-the-dojs-scathing-ferguson-report/?utm_term=.e7f84207d75c

[TxHoops]

20 hours ago, stevenash said:

Does that mean you think the justice system is rigged and is not treating all parties equally?

Anyone who doesn't know this hasn't been around it much or is the epitome of naïveté.  But it's not just race; socioeconomic factors are just as relevant if not more so.  

[thetragichippy]

54 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

Anyone who doesn't know this hasn't been around it much or is the epitome of naïveté.  But it's not just race; socioeconomic factors are just as relevant if not more so.  

Help me understand.

What specific laws would you change to make it "fair"?

[Big girl]

I don't think a cop should execute someone for resisting arrest. Once the person is down and you can see their hands, don't shoot them, cuff them when you have numerous cops at the scene. 

[thetragichippy]

6 minutes ago, Big girl said:

I don't think a cop should execute someone for resisting arrest. Once the person is down and you can see their hands, don't shoot them, cuff them when you have numerous cops at the scene. 

The law will have to change for that to be acceptable. Would it not be easier if the person being arrested would just comply?

 

[baddog]

11 minutes ago, Big girl said:

I don't think a cop should execute someone for resisting arrest. Once the person is down and you can see their hands, don't shoot them, cuff them when you have numerous cops at the scene. 

Who was executed for resisting arrest?

[thetragichippy]

1 minute ago, baddog said:

Who was executed for resisting arrest?

My guess she will say Alton Sterling. 

[baddog]

12 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

My guess she will say Alton Sterling. 

Then she must be a mental midget.

[tvc184]

42 minutes ago, Big girl said:

I don't think a cop should execute someone for resisting arrest. Once the person is down and you can see their hands, don't shoot them, cuff them when you have numerous cops at the scene. 

Seeing their hands means don't shoot? 

Until their hands are under control, they are a danger. Seeing the hands means that you can see them reaching for a weapon. Until their hands are actually in handcuffs, people are a danger and even sometimes afterwards. 

[tvc184]

40 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

The law will have to change for that to be acceptable. Would it not be easier if the person being arrested would just comply?

 

And there will never be such a change in the law. Even politicians aren't that stupid and all the way up to the Supreme Court judges almost always side with officers when it comes to safety. 

The officers claim almost certainly is that the guy was reaching toward a weapon after being told to stop. A video from many feet away showing very little of anything except the suspect struggling is the evidence that some people need to prove the officers had no reasonable fear. 

I know that you are aware of that but your post is convenient to answer it. 

Some such cases that I am speaking of from the US Supreme Court are:

There is Terry v. Ohio where officers can detain and frisk people not for probable cause but merely for reasonable suspicion.

Graham v. Connor where officers caused injury to a man having a diabetic crisis who was completely innocent but officers had to make a "split second" decision to use force. Even though it was a medical issue causing the officers to believe that they guy was resisting arrest, the officers had a reasonable belief of resistance and the force was lawful.

Pennsylvania v. Mimms where officers can get the driver out of a car.

Maryland v. Wilson where and officer can get the passengers out of a car. 

Scott v. Harris where officers in a high speed chased rammed a guy and ran him off of the roadway, rendering him a quadriplegic and the Court ruled it was a lawful use of deadly force.

Plumhoff v. Rickard where officers fired into a stopped vehicle after a chase and killed not only the driver but the innocent passenger.  The Court ruled that was a lawful use of deadly force giving the officers qualified immunity.

In a very recent Supreme Court case (Mullenix v. Luna) from November 2015 which was from Texas, they ruled 8-1 that a DPS trooper that shot a man from an overpass with a high power rifle, killing him during a high speed chase was lawful.  

And so on...............

When it is not secure and the police have to make split second decisions, the courts and laws are usually on their side. The best single answer is to stop fleeing or resisting arrest but that has been said many times and is ignored because it places the responsibility on the person violating the law.

Officer's use of force needs to be reviewed and especially when deadly force is used. The laws necessarily give the officers who are bound by law to take offenders into custody the authority to use reasonable force in the eyes of the officer and not a family member of the person the force was used on. 

[stevenash]

2 hours ago, TxHoops said:

Anyone who doesn't know this hasn't been around it much or is the epitome of naïveté.  But it's not just race; socioeconomic factors are just as relevant if not more so.  

TxHoops- am I hearing an inference from you that the outcome of the case was predicated on factors other than the law?

[Englebert]

2 hours ago, TxHoops said:

Anyone who doesn't know this hasn't been around it much or is the epitome of naïveté.  But it's not just race; socioeconomic factors are just as relevant if not more so.  

And sometimes socioeconomic factors combined with political affiliation..a la Hillary, Hillary's staff, Lois Lerner...

[bullets13]

3 hours ago, Big girl said:

He tried to take his gun then charged at him. How can you charge at someone after being close enough to them to attempt to take their gun?

There was a scuffle inside the car as he struggled with the officer for his gun and was shot in the hand.  He then started to run off, and the officer ordered him to stop, with his gun drawn, at which point he turned around and charged the officer. This was the officer's story, and blood evidence at the scene corroborated it.  The witness who originally stated that brown had his hands up saying don't shoot also changed his story when he realized that he was facing jail time for perjury when the evidence didn't match his lie.  The DOJ wanted very badly to prosecute the officer, but were unable to do so because the evidence showed that he had done nothing wrong.

[thetragichippy]

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

And there will never be such a change in the law. Even politicians aren't that stupid and all the way up to the Supreme Court judges almost always side with officers when it comes to safety. 

The officers claim almost certainly is that the guy was reaching toward a weapon after being told to stop. A video from many feet away showing very little of anything except the suspect struggling is the evidence that some people need to prove the officers had no reasonable fear. 

I know that you are aware of that but your post is convenient to answer it. 

Some such cases that I am speaking of from the US Supreme Court are:

There is Terry v. Ohio where officers can detain and frisk people not for probable cause but merely for reasonable suspicion.

Graham v. Connor where officers caused injury to a man having a diabetic crisis who was completely innocent but officers had to make a "split second" decision to use force. Even though it was a medical issue causing the officers to believe that they guy was resisting arrest, the officers had a reasonable belief of resistance and the force was lawful.

Pennsylvania v. Mimms where officers can get the driver out of a car.

Maryland v. Wilson where and officer can get the passengers out of a car. 

Scott v. Harris where officers in a high speed chased rammed a guy and ran him off of the roadway, rendering him a quadriplegic and the Court ruled it was a lawful use of deadly force.

Plumhoff v. Rickard where officers fired into a stopped vehicle after a chase and killed not only the driver but the innocent passenger.  The Court ruled that was a lawful use of deadly force giving the officers qualified immunity.

In a very recent Supreme Court case (Mullenix v. Luna) from November 2015 which was from Texas, they ruled 8-1 that a DPS trooper that shot a man from an overpass with a high power rifle, killing him during a high speed chase was lawful.  

And so on...............

When it is not secure and the police have to make split second decisions, the courts and laws are usually on their side. The best single answer is to stop fleeing or resisting arrest but that has been said many times and is ignored because it places the responsibility on the person violating the law.

Officer's use of force needs to be reviewed and especially when deadly force is used. The laws necessarily give the officers who are bound by law to take offenders into custody the authority to use reasonable force in the eyes of the officer and not a family member of the person the force was used on. 

That is what sooo many people do not see. They think BLM movement will somehow make a difference. BLM should focus on teaching the law (and the CORRECT LAW) to their followers.

TVC you really do a service when you make your law and legal comments concerning what police officers are burdened with. I hope folks in this forum are paying attention. You have taught me so much over the years......Thanks

and I have passed all that information to my Son.....he will be driving in a very short 6.5 months