Riots in California..

[SteamWake]

Wow what would they do if there had NOT been a conviction.

Oakland ... go figure.


The verdict prompted a peaceful protest by up to 1,000 people in downtown Oakland, which gave way after nightfall to some people looting stores, smashing car windows, throwing powerful fireworks at police and lighting fires in trash cans.


The police, numbering in the hundreds, made more than 50 arrests, but Oakland police expected that figure could double.


http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66763A20100709

[kiwi_2005]

:o...

[SteamWake]

Not to worry the Feds are on the case.. that will be sure to help!


LOS ANGELES -- The U.S. Department of Justice will conduct an independent review of the Johannes Mehserle case in order to determine whether or not the shooting merits federal prosecution, according the department.


http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news%2Flocal%2Feast_bay&id=7545102

[Molon Labe]

Time for the lawyer to bitch.

The conviction is for involuntary manslaughter. The mens rea for that crime is recklessness. Recklessness means the defendant didn't intend to cause the result, but was consciously aware of the risk (in this case, the risk of killing a person) and proceeded anyways.

Can anyone seriously believe that the officer did not intend to kill the victim, but was aware of the risk that he might and drew and fired his weapon regardless? The only way that could make sense is if he knew he had no idea where his gun/taser was and just guessed and didn't bother to look to make sure he had the right one.

No. He either intended to fire a bullet into that guys back, or he intended to fire a taser into his back and made a horrible mistake. There was no conscious disregarding of any risk, no recklessness. The jury had to make a choice, it was either murder or it was negligence (either an acquittal or maybe a lesser charge like criminally negligent homicide, if it exists in CA). And the jury was too chicken**** to make a decision, so it split the difference.

Verdicts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verdict) are supposed to be about truth, not compromise. This is sickening.

[Snestorm]

Verdicts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verdict) are supposed to be about truth, not compromise. This is sickening.

I agree.

[Ducimus]

Some of the elements of society in California don't need much of an excuse to riot. Personally i think that just under the seams of this states fabric, this place is probably as, if not more racially charged then the south ever was. I'll bet my bottom dollar, the riot was racially motivated. The news was very quick to point out the jury was white, and the punk who got waxed and his family was black. Bingo, instant race card! Time to start looting the stores.

Not the first riot (See Rodney King riots), and won't be the last.

[Molon Labe]

This is my favorite part of this fiasco:

Ben Franklin said Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Well, the LA jury apparently decided to trade Truth for Safety.

And ended up with neither.

[Weiss Pinguin]

This is my favorite part of this fiasco:

Ben Franklin said Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Well, the LA jury apparently decided to trade Truth for Safety.

And ended up with neither.

Well said. :yep:

[Snestorm]

Some of the elements of society in California don't need much of an excuse to riot. Personally i think that just under the seams of this states fabric, this place is probably as, if not more racially charged then the south ever was. I'll bet my bottom dollar, the riot was racially motivated. The news was very quick to point out the jury was white, and the punk who got waxed and his family was black. Bingo, instant race card! Time to start looting the stores.

Not the first riot (See Rodney King riots), and won't be the last.

Ja. Unfortunately, it's not just California, USA.

The cop isn't the only one who needs to be dealt with, much more sternly.

[August]

These Riots always seem to happen when it's hot outside. I think such racially charged trials ought to be postponed until the winter.

[thorn69]

Wonder why white people didn't riot in the streets after the OJ ruling? :hmmm:

[August]

Wonder why white people didn't riot in the streets after the OJ ruling? :hmmm:

No instead they picked a black man at random, chained him to the bumper of a truck, urinated on him, then dragged him for a few miles until his body came apart in pieces. Feel better?

[Weiss Pinguin]

These Riots always seem to happen when it's hot outside. I think such racially charged trials ought to be postponed until the winter.
Or conversely, held in Texas in the middle of August. (heh)

[thorn69]

Time for the lawyer to bitch.

The conviction is for involuntary manslaughter. The mens rea for that crime is recklessness. Recklessness means the defendant didn't intend to cause the result, but was consciously aware of the risk (in this case, the risk of killing a person) and proceeded anyways.

Can anyone seriously believe that the officer did not intend to kill the victim, but was aware of the risk that he might and drew and fired his weapon regardless? The only way that could make sense is if he knew he had no idea where his gun/taser was and just guessed and didn't bother to look to make sure he had the right one.

No. He either intended to fire a bullet into that guys back, or he intended to fire a taser into his back and made a horrible mistake. There was no conscious disregarding of any risk, no recklessness. The jury had to make a choice, it was either murder or it was negligence (either an acquittal or maybe a lesser charge like criminally negligent homicide, if it exists in CA). And the jury was too chicken**** to make a decision, so it split the difference.

Verdicts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verdict) are supposed to be about truth, not compromise. This is sickening.


As a cop myself, I have a hard time with this case. Most of us are very familiar with where our weapons and tools are located on our duty belts. This is not just so we know where to go when the time arises in an emergency, it's also a safety issue in case we're being pummeled on the ground and somebody tries to grab our weapon from the holster to use against us.

I can detect the feel of a foreign hand on my weapon and I have to know which self defense maneuver to perform on that individual to get out of that situation. If he's on my left, I've got a specific move for that, if he's on my right, I've got a specific move for that. Same thing for front and back. This cop was either a rookie and very unfamiliar with his own gear or he had a serious brain fart - which can and does happen under high stress situations.

If he was unfamiliar with his own gear then his employer needs to be held responsible. They should not have an officer out there with weapons and tools he's not familiar with. That makes him a liability to the city and you potentially end up with a problem just like this one.

But since none of us were there it's hard to say what exactly happened. It always amuses me though how society is so against law enforcement officers they want to see them burned at all costs! The ACLU, NAACP, and Hollywood sure have put a spin on who the real bad guys are and it's disturbing to see so many folks siding with the general thuggery crowd these days because of it. But when homeboy A shoots and kills homeboy B, who do these same folks call? The police of course! Where's your precious ACLU, NAACP, and Hollywood at THEN?! :stare:

[thorn69]

No instead they picked a black man at random, chained him to the bumper of a truck, urinated on him, then dragged him for a few miles until his body came apart in pieces. Feel better?

I don't remember hearing about this? :doh:

Are you talking about the white man that was beaten to death and dragged for miles over in Somalia?

[onelifecrisis]

Some of the elements of society in California don't need much of an excuse to riot. Personally i think that just under the seams of this states fabric, this place is probably as, if not more racially charged then the south ever was. I'll bet my bottom dollar, the riot was racially motivated. The news was very quick to point out the jury was white, and the punk who got waxed and his family was black. Bingo, instant race card! Time to start looting the stores.

Not the first riot (See Rodney King riots), and won't be the last.

The jury was white? All of it!? Jeezus, is that even legal in Cantaffordya?

This cop was either a rookie and very unfamiliar with his own gear or he had a serious brain fart.

You seem to have missed out the third possibility: that he's a murdering sh!thead.

[SteamWake]

The jury was white? All of it!? Jeezus, is that even legal in Cantaffordya?

Kind of puts the jury selection in question. To what end who knows. Sure it is legal but its really stupid and short sighted.

[thorn69]

The jury was white? All of it!? Jeezus, is that even legal in Cantaffordya?

You seem to have missed out the third possibility: that he's a murdering sh!thead.


For it to be murder he has to have an intent to want to kill somebody. He was found not guilty of that by a jury of his peers. Therefore, he's no more of a murderer than OJ was AFTER the ruling in his trial.

People tend to forget that victims don't get justice. Justice is only afforded to the living. The cop was entitled to a fair and speedy trial because he's still alive. The trial was for HIM, not the victim! Court is also not a perfect place. There's always a 50/50 chance of winning or losing in any case.

But I find these racist comments to be offending. Seems people have a problem when a man is awarded a jury of his own peers. What are we supposed to do? Set him up in front of a jury of non-peers? How would that be fair for him? Everybody who went to court would lose if that was the case. You can't call the 12 jurors racists and not expect to be called a racist yourself. For one thing, you don't know any of the jurors and what they were thinking when they decided on this man's fate. To call them a racist is to call them a racist for simply being white since you know nothing else about them. That's just ignorant!

If the jury was all black and they gave the white cop a harsher sentence then that would be just as racist. It would have been an unfair trial setup just to screw him over and NO, that's NOT justice!

Plus, the white cop was found guilty of something in this trial. It's not like they just let him walk! He's going to do some jail time and he'll never be a cop again. His life is pretty much ruined because of his conviction. He'll have to live with that the rest of his life. Sucks to be him!

[jumpy]

These Riots always seem to happen when it's hot outside. I think such racially charged trials ought to be postponed until the winter.

Related only indirectly to this are my thoughts (partially and with some humour) on why the middle east continues to have such trouble - it's just too damn hot over there for folk to assimilate stressfully charged situations. I know my fuse is shorter when I'm all hot and bothered.. :hmmm:

No instead they picked a black man at random, chained him to the bumper of a truck, urinated on him, then dragged him for a few miles until his body came apart in pieces. Feel better?

I remember that, nasty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Byrd,_Jr.
Google search shows at least one other incident, that is similar in nature, reported this year.

As a cop myself, I have a hard time with this case. Most of us are very familiar with where our weapons and tools are located on our duty belts. This is not just so we know where to go when the time arises in an emergency, it's also a safety issue in case we're being pummeled on the ground and somebody tries to grab our weapon from the holster to use against us.

I can detect the feel of a foreign hand on my weapon and I have to know which self defense maneuver to perform on that individual to get out of that situation. If he's on my left, I've got a specific move for that, if he's on my right, I've got a specific move for that. Same thing for front and back. This cop was either a rookie and very unfamiliar with his own gear or he had a serious brain fart - which can and does happen under high stress situations.

If he was unfamiliar with his own gear then his employer needs to be held responsible. They should not have an officer out there with weapons and tools he's not familiar with. That makes him a liability to the city and you potentially end up with a problem just like this one.


I think you raise some valid points here. Of particular note are the comments on training and who is responsible for that (probably repercussions of this will be felt within the force the officer came from?), and the issue of to what level is the perception of 'race' and 'fairness' applicable to the jurors (in your last post above) and how that public perception implicates opinion of the justice procedure.
A tricky one, with many variables to take into account, certainly. But this ought not to interfere with the facts, which is what the courts are supposed to be about determining.

Without knowing the facts of the case myself, and perhaps wrongly, my initial reaction to reading the article was drawn to highlight the following:
Video footage of Grant lying face down as Mehserle shot him in the back was taken by onlookers and shown over the Web and television. Mehserle was seen holstering his gun immediately afterward and putting his hands on his head as in disbelief.

We can all second guess the policeman's intent, but a rational mind would have to draw a deeply disturbing conclusion that the shooting be considered deliberate; for this to be so, we must assume that his reaction 'putting his hands on his head as in disbelief' was also a deliberate act, of concealment or consciously misleading his intent to those he knew were present and watching.

I find that hard to accept. At least on merit of the reporting in the article and my initial thought to the cop's reaction to what he had just done. I'm sure the court would have explored the evidence and facts of the case much more thoroughly than I.

It doesn't change the fact that one life is ended and one other is irrevocably changed. Under the circumstances, how far do you punish someone for what seems to be a tragic, if negligent, accident? I'm glad I don't have to make a decision on that.

[longam]

But since none of us were there it's hard to say what exactly happened.

Look pretty obvious to me, he Screwed up big time, you can see the expression on his face looking at the other officer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZTbJH6BNaU&feature=fvw

[onelifecrisis]

The jury was white? All of it!? Jeezus, is that even legal in Cantaffordya?



You seem to have missed out the third possibility: that he's a murdering sh!thead.For it to be murder he has to have an intent to want to kill somebody. He was found not guilty of that by a jury of his peers. Therefore, he's no more of a murderer than OJ was AFTER the ruling in his trial.

People tend to forget that victims don't get justice. Justice is only afforded to the living. The cop was entitled to a fair and speedy trial because he's still alive. The trial was for HIM, not the victim! Court is also not a perfect place. There's always a 50/50 chance of winning or losing in any case.

But I find these racist comments to be offending. Seems people have a problem when a man is awarded a jury of his own peers. What are we supposed to do? Set him up in front of a jury of non-peers? How would that be fair for him? Everybody who went to court would lose if that was the case. You can't call the 12 jurors racists and not expect to be called a racist yourself. For one thing, you don't know any of the jurors and what they were thinking when they decided on this man's fate. To call them a racist is to call them a racist for simply being white since you know nothing else about them. That's just ignorant!

If the jury was all black and they gave the white cop a harsher sentence then that would be just as racist. It would have been an unfair trial setup just to screw him over and NO, that's NOT justice!

Plus, the white cop was found guilty of something in this trial. It's not like they just let him walk! He's going to do some jail time and he'll never be a cop again. His life is pretty much ruined because of his conviction. He'll have to live with that the rest of his life. Sucks to be him!

Was that whole post directed at me? Because I don't remember calling anyone racist (though, for the record, American jurors are supposed to be racist (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/juryseminar/crosssectional.html)) or saying anything about justice. I expressed surprise that the jury was all-white, and questioned the legality of it, because I was under the impression that US juries are supposed to be cross-representative of society? I also pointed out that you were rather selective in your list of possible explanations for the killing; you don't seem to even consider the possibility of it being intentional, which strikes me as awfully narrow-minded of you.

And that's all I said.

[Ducimus]

The jury was white? All of it!?

That's what i read the other day. I remember that distinctly because my eyes rolled in the back of my head, and i was thinking, "Oh here we go again......"

Now if that is true or not, i don't know. It's just what i read. I honestly don't care enough to be research the details of this incident, nor the trial.

[thorn69]

Look pretty obvious to me, he Screwed up big time, you can see the expression on his face looking at the other officer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZTbJH6BNaU&feature=fvw


Looked like the man should not have resisted arrest to me! Perhaps he'd be alive today if he hadn't been so foolish?! Sure, the police officer screwed up but I'd say the suspect on the ground screwed up the most! Never play with your own life! I have very little respect for people that resist arrest. It's THE stupidest thing a person can do!

Oh and you just got to love the crowd that was there instigating the guy on the ground to resist the police. Some friends! :nope:

[thorn69]

Was that whole post directed at me? Because I don't remember calling anyone racist (though, for the record, American jurors are supposed to be racist (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/juryseminar/crosssectional.html)) or saying anything about justice. I expressed surprise that the jury was all-white, and questioned the legality of it, because I was under the impression that US juries are supposed to be cross-representative of society? I also pointed out that you were rather selective in your list of possible explanations for the killing; you don't seem to even consider the possibility of it being intentional, which strikes me as awfully narrow-minded of you.

And that's all I said.

Not aimed at you directly but just in general to everyone that keeps dancing around the idea that this incident was racially motivated. That's just nuts!

12 people with more facts about this case declared that the Officer didn't intentionally kill the suspect that was resisting arrest on the ground. Therefore, he's not a murderer. It was an unfortunate situation that I'd say the man on the ground provoked. Lesson to be learned - Never resist arrest!

[onelifecrisis]

Looked like the man should not have resisted arrest to me!

Okay, now you're treading awfully close to "he got what he deserved" territory.

Perhaps he'd be alive today if he hadn't been so foolish?!

Even closer...

Sure, the police officer screwed up but I'd say the suspect on the ground screwed up the most!

Yeah, he screwed up the most. He resisted arrest, the bastard! Whereas all the poor copper did was pull out a gun and shoot an unarmed man in the back. Obviously the former is a much bigger screwup than the latter.

[thorn69]

Okay, now you're treading awfully close to "he got what he deserved" territory.



Even closer...



Yeah, he screwed up the most. He resisted arrest, the bastard! Whereas all the poor copper did was pull out a gun and shoot an unarmed man in the back. Obviously the former is a much bigger screwup than the latter.

The man that resisted arrest was the bigger idiot. Sorry, that's just my bias opinion I suppose. Had he not resisted and gone peacefully, then he'd most likely be alive today. Sure the Officer screwed up but the man should not have resisted like that.

Officers have to make a very quick decisions in those situations and it's usually a thought of "him or me". I'm a police officer myself and my line of thought is "I want to go home at the end of my shift". I'm not taking chances with any knuckleheads that want to resist arrest. It's a good thing I know where my zapper is!

Besides, most smart people would rather be judged by 12 then carried by 6.

[Ducimus]

Not aimed at you directly but just in general to everyone that keeps dancing around the idea that this incident was racially motivated. That's just nuts!


No the incident wasn't. But people turned it into one.

What bugs me is how when people are robbed, or somehow wronged, they like to yell, "Where were the cops?!" and chastize them for not doing their job. But if they get stopped for speeding, or see someone else getting "jacked", then quickly do a 180.

I've honestly thought about getting into LE many times, but i cannot escape the fact that i have a VERY low opinion of the general public. How can you serve and protect something you think poorly of? Are these hypocritical self absorbed, self important, people worth the sacrifice and dedication?

[thorn69]

No the incident wasn't. But people turned it into one.

What bugs me is how when people are robbed, or somehow wronged, they like to yell, "Where were the cops?!" and chastize them for not doing their job. But if they get stopped for speeding, or see someone else getting "jacked", then quickly do a 180.

I've honestly thought about getting into LE many times, but i cannot escape the fact that i have a VERY low opinion of the general public. How can you serve and protect something you think poorly of? Are these hypocritical self absorbed, self important, people worth the sacrifice and dedication?

I'll admit that it's a very thankless profession and not for everyone. I'm sure you care more about the public then you tend to realize.

[Sailor Steve]

12 people with more facts about this case declared that the Officer didn't intentionally kill the suspect that was resisting arrest on the ground. Therefore, he's not a murderer. It was an unfortunate situation that I'd say the man on the ground provoked. Lesson to be learned - Never resist arrest!
Exactly what I said after the OJ acquittal, when I heard a lot of "Of course he's guilty!" and a little less but still some "Of course he's innocent!" My answer then was there is no "of course" about it. The jury heard the evidence and the jury made their decision. The accused may or may not be guilty of anything from stupidity to willful murder, but only the accused knows that for sure. The jury may be honest, or they may be biased, or they may even be bought, but until there is evidence to prove one or the other, we the outsiders have no way of knowing the truth.

And while speculation is always fun, we have no business second-guessing the jury either.

[SteamWake]

And while speculation is always fun, we have no business second-guessing the jury either.

Wait.. isnt that what this whole thread is about :03:

[thorn69]

Wait.. isnt that what this whole thread is about :03:

He's exactly right! We really shouldn't be wishing evil thoughts on people and speculating whether they're guilty or not. It's easy to allow our emotions to get the better of us at times. The jury reviewed the facts and did their job in this case. Their verdict may not have been what a lot of folks wanted to hear but that's just how the system works. Rioting over it just shows how childish some folks can be when they don't get their way.

[Sailor Steve]

Rioting over it just shows how childish some folks can be when they don't get their way.
Or when they do. Ask any football fan, American or European. :D

[Moeceefus]

By the looks of the video, there were more than enough cops there to be able to get the situation under control through just man power. Even if the taser excuse was valid, what reason would there be to use a taser in that situation? The man was face down on the ground with a bunch of cops on top of him. Come on. Any cop who cant tell/feel the difference between a taser and a gun should have a desk job anyways. As to the taser thing, cops have became way to taser happy over the years I've noticed, using them often when the situation does not even call for it. If a doctor screws up he/she can be charged with negligent homicide among other things, despite his/her good intentions. The cops should be held to the same accountability as everyone else.

[thorn69]

By the looks of the video, there were more than enough cops there to be able to get the situation under control through just man power. Even if the taser excuse was valid, what reason would there be to use a taser in that situation? Any cop who cant tell/feel the difference between a taser and a gun should have a desk job. As to the taser thing, cops have became way to taser happy over the years I've noticed, using them often when the situation does not even call for it. If a doctor screws up he can be charged with negligent homicide among other things. The cops should be held to the same accountability as everyone else.


Cops are resorting more to the taser for two simple reasons...

1) No long term damage to the victim. Sprays take days for people to recover from. Trust me, I've been sprayed a zillion times and being zapped is so much better because once it stops - it stops! The burn from spray takes days to recover from. Less people die from tasers than sprays as well. Many people have had allergic reactions to sprays and have died as a result. Tasers have a very small chance of killing people with bad hearts but it's very uncommon.

2) Many people are immune to sprays. Many gangs are spraying themselves daily to build up their immunity to the sprays. When your life is potentially on the line and when seconds count you want a tool that will put a suspect down on the ground - not something that might, or might not, work. The pain of 100,000 volts running through your body is very hard to overcome. I've seen some videos of some very large men attempting to fight it off, but it seriously slowed them down and gave the Officer the upper hand.


Officers have to elevate the situation when the suspect elevates the situation. If a bad guy comes at me with bare fists, I'm going for a spray or my taser. If he comes at me with a bat or a knife, I'm drawing my gun. Always stay one step ABOVE the bad guy so that you have the edge over him. Otherwise you're going to get beat down or killed.

You can't say that there were plenty of Officers there to restrain the guy. I've worked in prison systems too and sometimes it's taken 5 to 6 of us to subdue 1 guy. When you throw drugs into the mix it can take even more to subdue someone.

[Moeceefus]

Cops are resorting more to the taser for two simple reasons...

1) No long term damage to the victim. Sprays take days for people to recover from. Trust me, I've been sprayed a zillion times and being zapped is so much better because once it stops - it stops! The burn from spray takes days to recover from. Less people die from tasers than sprays as well. Many people have had allergic reactions to sprays and have died as a result. Tasers have a very small chance of killing people with bad hearts but it's very uncommon.

2) Many people are immune to sprays. Many gangs are spraying themselves daily to build up their immunity to the sprays. When your life is potentially on the line and when seconds count you want a tool that will put a suspect down on the ground - not something that might, or might not, work. The pain of 100,000 volts running through your body is very hard to overcome. I've seen some videos of some very large men attempting to fight it off, but it seriously slowed them down and gave the Officer the upper hand.


Officers have to elevate the situation when the suspect elevates the situation. If a bad guy comes at me with bare fists, I'm going for a spray or my taser. If he comes at me with a bat or a knife, I'm drawing my gun. Always stay one step ABOVE the bad guy so that you have the edge over him. Otherwise you're going to get beat down or killed.

You can't say that there were plenty of Officers there to restrain the guy. I've worked in prison systems too and sometimes it's taken 5 to 6 of us to subdue 1 guy. When you throw drugs into the mix it can take even more to subdue someone.


Tasers have killed before themselves, but I'm not arguing against thier use or benefits to the police. I'm just saying there are times to use them and a time to not. This man was unarmed and face down on the ground with cops pilled on him and other cops off camera. He wasn't on his feet coming at them with a bat or a knife, he wasn't built like the incredible Hulk, and they had him half cuffed. It would not have taken much more effort on thier part to subdue him. And where was the warning to desist or you're going to get tased? Cops used to drop thier knee into your kidney to bring your arm back, its not like they dont do that anymore.

[Gorpet]

You folks make me laugh. You dont have any idea of what that fellow might have facing at that time.By hiself This thug Prabably had a bunch of his BUDDYS with him. That the media forgot to tell you about . They could have shot this guy today. And the Aferican Americans would still burn something, City, Cars, Buildings. Whatever Its what They do. Have You Listened to the new Black Panther President ? He wants to Kill my race babes and all. What am i to do ? These folks are the rascist and the haters. They have been brought up with vengence .If you cant see this then you really are blind or you just have enough money to live above it.
And are you with the We LOVE EVERYBODY CROWD . Point is if it had been a white man shot by a black officer it would not have made any news. No cities would burn ,no rampaging crowds,no nothing he would have been dead. And life goes on.:salute:

[Moeceefus]

You folks make me laugh. You dont have any idea of what that fellow might have facing at that time.By hiself This thug Prabably had a bunch of his BUDDYS with him. That the media forgot to tell you about . They could have shot this guy today. And the Aferican Americans would still burn something, City, Cars, Buildings. Whatever Its what They do. Have You Listened to the new Black Panther President ? He wants to Kill my race babes and all. What am i to do ? These folks are the rascist and the haters. They have been brought up with vengence .If you cant see this then you really are blind or you just have enough money to live above it.
And are you with the We LOVE EVERYBODY CROWD . Point is if it had been a white man shot by a black officer it would not have made any news. No cities would burn ,no rampaging crowds,no nothing he would have been dead. And life goes on.:salute:


......:06::nope: Dude, what the hell are you talking about?!

[Zachstar]

You folks make me laugh. You dont have any idea of what that fellow might have facing at that time.By hiself This thug Prabably had a bunch of his BUDDYS with him. That the media forgot to tell you about . They could have shot this guy today. And the Aferican Americans would still burn something, City, Cars, Buildings. Whatever Its what They do. Have You Listened to the new Black Panther President ? He wants to Kill my race babes and all. What am i to do ? These folks are the rascist and the haters. They have been brought up with vengence .If you cant see this then you really are blind or you just have enough money to live above it.
And are you with the We LOVE EVERYBODY CROWD . Point is if it had been a white man shot by a black officer it would not have made any news. No cities would burn ,no rampaging crowds,no nothing he would have been dead. And life goes on.:salute:

Um this is a joke post right? Right?

[Zachstar]

As for the officer involved. Most agree he will get max sentence. Also by the time the civil lawsuit is done with him he will be bone poor.

His life is over anyway. He gets to live with no serious employer wanting to employ him after years in California prison.

[onelifecrisis]

Um this is a joke post right? Right?

He broke a five-year-long lurkmode just to post it. :doh: :06:

[SteamWake]

......:06::nope: Dude, what the hell are you talking about?!

Look at the post count, look at the content, draw your own conclusions.

[Platapus]

......:06::nope: Dude, what the hell are you talking about?!


Inflammatory post and first post? Sock Puppet. :yep:

We could play a game and guess who it is! :yeah:

[SteamWake]

Inflammatory post and first post? Sock Puppet. :yep:

We could play a game and guess who it is! :yeah:

Wouldent it be better to just let it pass and remain on topic?

[onelifecrisis]

Look at the post count, look at the content, draw your own conclusions.

But look at the join date! June 2005. :o

[krashkart]

I agree with SteamWake. It's better to proceed with the topic. We already have a zombie thread anyway. :salute:

[thorn69]

Have You Listened to the new Black Panther President ? He wants to Kill my race babes and all.


Yeah, this video kinda ticked me off! Sure wish I worked for their PD. That would be one black man I'd be happy to slap some cuffs on!

[/URL][URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN67KJdd6Mw&feature=player_embedded (http://www.thehotjoints.com/2010/07/07/video-eric-holders-black-panthers-want-to-kill-crackers-and-their-babies/)

[Zachstar]

Yeah, this video kinda ticked me off! Sure wish I worked for their PD. That would be one black man I'd be happy to slap some cuffs on!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN67KJdd6Mw&feature=player_embedded

Man you really ought to make your statements with more thought.

Also if you were somehow a real police officer you would know it is not about who makes the arrest it is that the arrest was made and justice starts. My grandfather was an officer and knew that very well. I doubt that has changed today.

[thorn69]

Man you really ought to make your statements with more thought.

Also if you were somehow a real police officer you would know it is not about who makes the arrest it is that the arrest was made and justice starts. Of course it would take a real police officer to know that.

Yeah, but I like to make arrests. That's what I do for a living.

Justice starts as soon as the cuffs get slapped onto lowlifes like that and their rights are read to them. I can usually find several other violations to charge them for as well. Play nice and I'll be nice. Act like douche bag and I'll treat you as such! :yep: Irregardless, it's always nice to get lowlifes like that off the streets and toss them in a cell with other lowlifes that have a differing opinion than their own! Makes for some excellent diversity training! Don't drop the soap! :rotfl2:

[Moeceefus]

Yeah, this video kinda ticked me off! Sure wish I worked for their PD. That would be one black man I'd be happy to slap some cuffs on!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN67KJdd6Mw&feature=player_embedded

I doubt thats thier leader, and regardless, there are no shortage of hate groups of every color to compete for douchebags of the year. Thier speech is protected as is yours. I dont know what time period people think they're living in, but some need a reality check. Nobody is superior to another, and people are people.

[thorn69]

Thats not thier leader, and regardless, there are no shortage of hate groups of every color to compete for douchebags of the year. Thier speech is protected as is yours. I dont know what time period people think they're living in, but some need a reality check. Nobody is superior to another, and people are people.

Laws are laws. All it takes is a phone call from a concerned citizen and the police can and will shut down such activity. You really want to make an argument for his freedom of speech when he's in a public area mouthing off racial slurs at people and advocating violence against white people and their babies? :doh:

You MUST be one desperate lawyer! :rotfl2:

[Zachstar]

Yeah, but I like to make arrests. That's what I do for a living.

Justice starts as soon as the cuffs get slapped onto lowlifes like that and their rights are read to them. I can usually find several other violations to charge them for as well. Play nice and I'll be nice. Act like douche bag and I'll treat you as such! :yep: Irregardless, it's always nice to get lowlifes like that off the streets and toss them in a cell with other lowlifes that have a differing opinion than their own! Makes for some excellent diversity training! Don't drop the soap! :rotfl2:

Ya... Right on the first point

As for your second you are saying you will deliberately "Punish" offenders with charges that you normally have a duty to charge unless they treat you real nice. And don't act like you mean resisting arrest its obvious from your post you mean otherwise in my opinion. But then again anyone can pretend to be a police officer on the internets. I wonder how many fake officers inhabit free republic. Or democratic underground or other political forums.

No serious officer makes light of prison rape either. Why? Because prison rape isn't justice. It also causes taxpayer money to be spent giving offenders who have been harmed medical care that many outside of prison get denied.

Is whoever race hating ******* that is wrong and dangerous? Yes but justice needs to be served for laws that were broken and people harmed. Not "Hey lookie here I arrested the angry man and he gets to be raped in prison now! YAY!" That is barbaric at best.

[Zachstar]

Laws are laws. All it takes is a phone call from a concerned citizen and the police can and will shut down such activity. You really want to make an argument for his freedom of speech when he's in a public area mouthing off racial slurs at people and advocating violence against white people and their babies? :doh:

You MUST be one desperate lawyer! :rotfl2:

Doubtful. One idiot on the street is the same as those idiots running around saying soldiers deaths are due to homosexuality or some other idiocy. A person can be racist on the street all he wants just the same as Rush Limbaugh being racist on his show. The advocating murder part might land him in jail but that depends.

[Moeceefus]

Laws are laws. All it takes is a phone call from a concerned citizen and the police can and will shut down such activity. You really want to make an argument for his freedom of speech when he's in a public area mouthing off racial slurs at people and advocating violence against white people and their babies? :doh:

You MUST be one desperate lawyer! :rotfl2:


I dont condone any sort of hate speech. I just hope before people go crying race war, that they realize there is more than one element to it. If you feel you or your race is endanger because of this and want vengeance, then I suppose the black man should feel the same whenever there is some kkk rally, or any random bigot for that matter. It just seems a silly thing to fear or start trouble over in this country these days. Times are changing, thats a fact. Its time for all peoples to grow up a bit. By the way, if they could have arrested him, they would have arrested him.

[thorn69]

Ya... Right on the first point

As for your second you are saying you will deliberately "Punish" offenders with charges that you normally have a duty to charge unless they treat you real nice. And don't act like you mean resisting arrest its obvious from your post you mean otherwise in my opinion. But then again anyone can pretend to be a police officer on the internets. I wonder how many fake officers inhabit free republic. Or democratic underground or other political forums.

No serious officer makes light of prison rape either. Why? Because prison rape isn't justice. It also causes taxpayer money to be spent giving offenders who have been harmed medical care that many outside of prison get denied.

Is whoever race hating ******* that is wrong and dangerous? Yes but justice needs to be served for laws that were broken and people harmed. Not "Hey lookie here I arrested the angry man and he gets to be raped in prison now! YAY!" That is barbaric at best.

Nobody said I couldn't be an a-hole as a Police Officer! It's almost encouraged actually! It's my official right and duty to charge people with whatever I feel they should be charged with. For instance, I don't have to pull over a speeder even though I've just seen them violate the law. I don't even have to write them a ticket if I pull them over. I do it when I feel they need to be pulled over and I write out tickets when I feel they need one...or even 10. :D

Dude, you have no concept of reality do you!? You act as though Police Officer's are supposed to have a heart for the criminals in this country or something! Sorry, but I'm not that kind of cop. If an inmate gets raped in prison or jail - not my problem. Maybe they should have thought about the consequences of their actions BEFORE they committed their crime?! :doh:

How do you know nobody was harmed by the "hate speech" the man was mouthing off? It offended me so I'm sure it offended others. All it takes is a call from a concerned citizen and the police can make that guy shut up. If he persists then they take him to a place where he can scream and yell his hate all he wants. It's as simple as that.

My job is to make arrests. I tack on as many charges as I can to buy people the longest jail time possible. That's what I get paid to do. Once I make a charge on somebody, THEY have to prove that my charge is invalid. That's work for them! So the more charges I tack on, the greater the chance the judge is going to make at least one of the charges I filed stick! It's like Silent Hunter in a way. The more torps you fire, the better your chances are of getting a direct hit.

Man, nobody I work with likes a "Hug-a-Thug"!

[thorn69]

I dont condone any sort of hate speech. I just hope before people go crying race war, that they realize there is more than one element to it. If you feel you or your race is endanger because of this and want vengeance, then I suppose the black man should feel the same whenever there is some kkk rally, or any random bigot for that matter. It just seems a silly thing to fear or start trouble over in this country these days. Times are changing, thats a fact. Its time for all peoples to grow up a bit. By the way, if they could have arrested him, they would have arrested him.


They did arrest him. The DOJ freed him before sentencing him! Why? Because they were threatened that blacks would riot around the country and kill white people if they jailed him. So he has been given a pass to act like a complete douche bag. He's untouchable at this point. That's your liberal justice system at it's finest.

[Moeceefus]

Nobody said I couldn't be an a-hole as a Police Officer! It's almost encouraged actually! It's my official right and duty to charge people with whatever I feel they should be charged with. For instance, I don't have to pull over a speeder even though I've just seen them violate the law. I don't even have to write them a ticket if I pull them over. I do it when I feel they need to be pulled over and I write out tickets when I feel they need one...or even 10. :D

Dude, you have no concept of reality do you!? You act as though Police Officer's are supposed to have a heart for the criminals in this country or something! Sorry, but I'm not that kind of cop. If an inmate gets raped in prison or jail - not my problem. Maybe they should have thought about the consequences of their actions BEFORE they committed their crime?! :doh:

How do you know nobody was harmed by the "hate speech" the man was mouthing off? It offended me so I'm sure it offended others. All it takes is a call from a concerned citizen and the police can make that guy shut up. If he persists then they take him to a place where he can scream and yell his hate all he wants. It's as simple as that.

My job is to make arrests. I tack on as many charges as I can to buy people the longest jail time possible. That's what I get paid to do. Once I make a charge on somebody, THEY have to prove that my charge is invalid. That's work for them! So the more charges I tack on, the greater the chance the judge is going to make at least one of the charges I filed stick! It's like Silent Hunter in a way. The more torps you fire, the better your chances are of getting a direct hit.

Man, nobody I work with likes a "Hug-a-Thug"!

They did arrest him. The DOJ freed him before sentencing him! Why? Because they were threatened that blacks would riot around the country and kill white people if they jailed him. So he has been given a pass to act like a complete douche bag. He's untouchable at this point. That's your liberal justice system at it's finest.


Wow, whatever you say, though the more you say the less credible you sound. You may want to do some more research in the reality department.

[Onkel Neal]

Time for the lawyer to bitch.

The conviction is for involuntary manslaughter. The mens rea for that crime is recklessness. Recklessness means the defendant didn't intend to cause the result, but was consciously aware of the risk (in this case, the risk of killing a person) and proceeded anyways.

Can anyone seriously believe that the officer did not intend to kill the victim, but was aware of the risk that he might and drew and fired his weapon regardless? The only way that could make sense is if he knew he had no idea where his gun/taser was and just guessed and didn't bother to look to make sure he had the right one.

No. He either intended to fire a bullet into that guys back, or he intended to fire a taser into his back and made a horrible mistake. There was no conscious disregarding of any risk, no recklessness. The jury had to make a choice, it was either murder or it was negligence (either an acquittal or maybe a lesser charge like criminally negligent homicide, if it exists in CA). And the jury was too chicken**** to make a decision, so it split the difference.

Verdicts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verdict) are supposed to be about truth, not compromise. This is sickening.


Agreed. I have not been keeping up with this case but I find it very hard to believe this was an accident.

But what I cannot understand is all the loudmouths standing around shouting stupidly. WTH is wrong with them, they sound like idiots.

[Onkel Neal]

You folks make me laugh. You dont have any idea of what that fellow might have facing at that time.By hiself This thug Prabably had a bunch of his BUDDYS with him. That the media forgot to tell you about . They could have shot this guy today. And the Aferican Americans would still burn something, City, Cars, Buildings. Whatever Its what They do. Have You Listened to the new Black Panther President ? He wants to Kill my race babes and all. What am i to do ? These folks are the rascist and the haters. They have been brought up with vengence .If you cant see this then you really are blind or you just have enough money to live above it.
And are you with the We LOVE EVERYBODY CROWD . Point is if it had been a white man shot by a black officer it would not have made any news. No cities would burn ,no rampaging crowds,no nothing he would have been dead. And life goes on.:salute:

5 years and this is your first post? :hmmm:

Nobody said I couldn't be an a-hole as a Police Officer! It's almost encouraged actually! It's my official right and duty to charge people with whatever I feel they should be charged with. For instance, I don't have to pull over a speeder even though I've just seen them violate the law. I don't even have to write them a ticket if I pull them over. I do it when I feel they need to be pulled over and I write out tickets when I feel they need one...or even 10. :D



Man, that's just the unprofessional attitude that hurts the public perception of law enforcement. I seriously doubt you are LE.

[Catfish]

" I seriously doubt you are LE "

But from his texts he would have been a good policeman in the Germany of 1933.
Harrassing "Lowlifes", and "arresting people for a living", there are some people who will find their job dead sure in any society :stare:

Greetings,
Catfish

[thorn69]

Man, that's just the unprofessional attitude that hurts the public perception of law enforcement. I seriously doubt you are LE.

Oh, thanks for proving my point, Neal! I can't win in either case! Are U taking notes Dowly?!

You see, I'm an a-hole in either case because if I arrest the guy - I'm an a-hole in somebody's opinion! And if I don't arrest the guy, somebody else will call me an a-hole because they thought he should be!

Like I said before, it's a thankless job but somebody's got to do it! :yep:

And yes, I make arrests for a living, Catfish! That's what I get paid to do. Hence the words LAW ENFORCEMENT. My job is to ENFORCE the law. How can I do that without making arrests?! :doh:

Even a simple traffic ticket is a form of arrest. If you don't sign the ticket, the Officer will have no choice but to take you to jail.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Verdicts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verdict) are supposed to be about truth, not compromise. This is sickening.

I agree, but verdicts are also about criminal intent. Maybe the jury was stupid, or racially biased, who knows? Maybe the jury had cause to believe that this officer would not intentionally shoot a man he knew to be no threat. I'll have to look into it more.

@thorn69

If you are a law enforcement officer, you should rethink your conduct. You are not Judge Dredd, and the sanctity of the law is violated everytime you choose not to uphold it or uphold it excessively. Your statement here alone is enough to call your character into question in a trial, assuming we can prove that thorn69 is you.

I don't want to bash on you, as I've served alongside enough law-enforcement professionals to know that their job is made unnecessarily difficult and even hopeless, occassionally, but "consummate professionalism" should be your standing order at all times, even in matters of opinion. It isn't fair, but as long as you hold a position in which you are publicly accountable, it is your duty to uphold the integrity and character of your service. This isn't a legal argument, just personal advice.

[thorn69]

I agree, but verdicts are also about criminal intent. Maybe the jury was stupid, or racially biased, who knows? Maybe the jury had cause to believe that this officer would not intentionally shoot a man he knew to be no threat. I'll have to look into it more.

@thorn69

If you are a law enforcement officer, you should rethink your conduct. You are not Judge Dredd, and the sanctity of the law is violated everytime you choose not to uphold it or uphold it excessively. Your statement here alone is enough to call your character into question in a trial, assuming we can prove that thorn69 is you.

I don't want to bash on you, as I've served alongside enough law-enforcement professionals to know that their job is made unnecessarily difficult and even hopeless, occassionally, but "consummate professionalism" should be your standing order at all times, even in matters of opinion. It isn't fair, but as long as you hold a position in which you are publicly accountable, it is your duty to uphold the integrity and character of your service. This isn't a legal argument, just personal advice.

I do my job and I do my job quite well! But as I've already said, I get labeled an a-hole no matter which way I decide to go on a specific matter. Police work is always questioned one way or the other because it always intervenes between two differing viewpoints. So one side isn't going to be happy when an arrest is made and the other side is. That's just how it is!

I've never excessively done, or not done, anything unless you're talking about excessively tacking on more and more charges on a criminal violator? That's every police officer though. We all do that for the reason I mentioned in another post. We want arrests to stick and for criminals to go to jail for the longest duration possible and pay the heaviest fines. It makes the streets safer for people for a longer period of time.

Of course our very liberal justice system seems to have a big heart for these criminal lowlifes and consistently allows them to come back again and again to re-commit their crimes on our society. That's the part I've never really understood, especially when it's always the same old bozos out there doing the same old criminal thing. I've arrested some folks over 25 times for the same exact crime. You'd think they'd learn? :nope: But what it is - is they just don't care. The laws are too lax and it's all a joke to them. They know they will be out on the streets again to recommit their same old crime again. It's a way of life for them. I just wish we could suprise them and say, "That's strike 25 pal, time for you to get used to prison for the rest of your life!"


You know, I've noted there are quite a few bleeding heart liberals on this site with a "hug-a-thug" mentality. That's sad! :nope:

[GoldenRivet]

I've seen the video.

Hard to say if the shooting was accidental or not.

however, based on my observations of the video, he did quite abruptly blow this man away, but he also appeared to be surprised at what happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR_B38Vh6QE&feature=related

at 1:55 the officer clearly appears surprised by the discharge of the firearm.

It could have been either that he improperly handled the firearm or that he thought he had drawn his tazer (assuming he was so equipped) and in the adrenaline rush of the moment, fired expecting a "zzzzzzzzttttt" and instead getting a distinctive "POP".

If i were on the Jury in this particular case, after hearing the evidence of both sides and reviewing this video... i probably would have a hard time ruling this a "premeditated murder" however, when i first heard "involuntary manslaughter" i was suprised.

I know nothing about the case other than what i have seem on the above referenced video. so im not in a position - as the Jury would have been - to cast a verdict.

but upon my inspection of the video i would say that the transit cop appeared shocked or surprised by what had happened.

to me, that indicates an accident.

however, accident or not, a man is dead, his family now without him, and an officer's career and life ruined.

accidents kill people every day, the particularly troubling thing about this is that you expect a higher level of professionalism from a LEO than to accidentally discharge his weapon... least of all into the back of a disarmed and mostly subdued individual.

a sad situation.

Justice is a very funny thing... I'm 100% sure that if this officer had received any sentence other than the death penalty there would have been rioting.

[thorn69]

I've seen the video.

Hard to say if the shooting was accidental or not.

however, based on my observations of the video, he did quite abruptly blow this man away, but he also appeared to be surprised at what happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR_B38Vh6QE&feature=related

at 1:55 the officer clearly appears surprised by the discharge of the firearm.

It could have been either that he improperly handled the firearm or that he thought he had drawn his tazer (assuming he was so equipped) and in the adrenaline rush of the moment, fired expecting a "zzzzzzzzttttt" and instead getting a distinctive "POP".

If i were on the Jury in this particular case, after hearing the evidence of both sides and reviewing this video... i probably would have a hard time ruling this a "premeditated murder" however, when i first heard "involuntary manslaughter" i was suprised.

I know nothing about the case other than what i have seem on the above referenced video. so im not in a position - as the Jury would have been - to cast a verdict.

but upon my inspection of the video i would say that the transit cop appeared shocked or surprised by what had happened.

to me, that indicates an accident.

however, accident or not, a man is dead, his family now without him, and an officer's career and life ruined.

accidents kill people every day, the particularly troubling thing about this is that you expect a higher level of professionalism from a LEO than to accidentally discharge his weapon... least of all into the back of a disarmed and mostly subdued individual.

a sad situation.

Justice is a very funny thing... I'm 100% sure that if this officer had received any sentence other than the death penalty there would have been rioting.

The point of this video and topic is not about whether the Officer was wrong or right in his actions. It's clearly obvious that he screwed up and he's going to pay a heavy price for that. The point of this video and the OP was that blacks in society often feel a need to riot and protest violently when the justice they're seeking is not administered to their liking. A white man was supposed to apparently die in this case! :roll:

Somebody else eventually posted in here that there's rarely a case where white people openly riot and protest violently when the justice they're seeking isn't carried out. He's right to point out the double-standard that's present here. He finds that this form of rioting and protest is grossly unwarranted in today's society. Why? Because it's racism against whites and white authority plain and simple. It's true, if a black Officer shot and killed this black suspect then this wouldn't have even made the news.

People on here shouldn't be bashing on GORPET for his opinion. Heck, they should actually be siding with him for pointing out the double-standard. The fact that this guy came out and voiced his opinion after 5 years of silence and finally spoke up about this should speak volumes about how silenced the white voice has become in our society. Apparently blacks in society are the only ones that should have a voice! :roll:

[thorn69]

Verdicts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verdict) are supposed to be about truth, not compromise. This is sickening.

You don't know much about court system do you? Everything in court is about compromise. Truth is always nice but getting the truth to come out is next to impossible unless somebody is foolish enough to self incriminate themselves. It's not like bad guys turn into "tell all's" on the stand ya know! Not unless something is given to them beforehand!

Court is nothing more than a battleground for the prosecution and defense to battle out a compromise. That's why there are "plea bargains". Hence the word, "bargain". Bargains are "deals" and "deals" are "compromises". Nobody usually ever gets what they want in court. Judges are usually very liberal and play the "safe card" instead of making real judgments. They have the law to tell them what judgment they can make in specific case and those laws are usually very liberal. For instance, a judge could sentence somebody to 1 year in prison or 20 years for the same offense. That's a lot of years for them to play around with.

It's rare that a judge will award someone the full sentence unless there's undeniable evidence present that makes the judge think the defendant is somehow lying. And usually if there's "smoking gun" evidence like that present the defense will beg the prosecution for a plea deal and aim for a lesser sentence before getting out in front of the judge and jury. This makes it an instant win for the prosecution without having to take any risks of the "smoking gun" evidence not actually garnishing the results the prosecution would be hoping for.

I've seen judges turn "smoking gun" evidence into inadmissible evidence in a blink of an eye and watched the prosecution lose it's entire case by getting over zealous and trying to slam someone away for a life sentence and watched a murderer walk away!

If the prosecution can get the defendant to admit guilt then they have an instant win and don't have to worry about proving anything. Of course they usually have to give the defendant something in return for them to admit guilt - usually a much lesser sentence or some other "hook-up" that will benefit the defendant during his time in prison.

I trust you have a better understanding now about how it works and can see that court is nothing BUT compromises.

[Zachstar]

Stop acting like your are law enforcement. It is just offensive at this point. Offensive to me because of the men and women who risk their lives on the streets of Shreveport to make us just a bit safer and at the same time have a bright attitude so that I feel like a friend talking with them not some outsider.

Its offensive as my grandfather served and even helped establish a local union for officers and their families.

Stop acting like your LE or get off this forum.

[Moeceefus]

The point of this video and topic is not about whether the Officer was wrong or right in his actions. It's clearly obvious that he screwed up and he's going to pay a heavy price for that. The point of this video and the OP was that blacks in society often feel a need to riot and protest violently when the justice they're seeking is not administered to their liking. A white man was supposed to apparently die in this case! :roll:

Somebody else eventually posted in here that there's rarely a case where white people openly riot and protest violently when the justice they're seeking isn't carried out. He's right to point out the double-standard that's present here. He finds that this form of rioting and protest is grossly unwarranted in today's society. Why? Because it's racism against whites and white authority plain and simple. It's true, if a black Officer shot and killed this black suspect then this wouldn't have even made the news.

People on here shouldn't be bashing on GORPET for his opinion. Heck, they should actually be siding with him for pointing out the double-standard. The fact that this guy came out and voiced his opinion after 5 years of silence and finally spoke up about this should speak volumes about how silenced the white voice has become in our society. Apparently blacks in society are the only ones that should have a voice! :roll:


Wow. :roll::nope:

[thorn69]

Stop acting like your are law enforcement. It is just offensive at this point. Offensive to me because of the men and women who risk their lives on the streets of Shreveport to make us just a bit safer and at the same time have a bright attitude so that I feel like a friend talking with them not some outsider.

Its offensive as my grandfather served and even helped establish a local union for officers and their families.

Stop acting like your LE or get off this forum.

Sorry, but I am. Glad I don't work in Shreveport either. Way too backwoods French and I wouldn't want to upset your fragile sense of what a good Police Officer should be. :O:

[August]

No way is this guy a real cop. :dead:

[Takeda Shingen]

No way is this guy a real cop. :dead:

Agreed. He completely lacks the temperment required of any police officer. He would have been fired a dozen times over by now.

[Moeceefus]

No way is this guy a real cop. :dead:


He might be... in the same sense as Paul Blart. :woot:

[thorn69]

No way is this guy a real cop. :dead:

It doesn't matter what you think! I still earn a paycheck twice a month regardless. :D

Note to self: Never tell people on the net that you're a Police Officer because they're like "Na-uh" like you just told them you were an Astronaut or something. Oh well, I won't lose sleep over it! :03:

[Takeda Shingen]

It doesn't matter what you think! I still earn a paycheck twice a month regardless. :D

Note to self: Never tell people on the net that you're a Police Officer because they're like "Na-uh" like you just told them you were an Astronaut or something. Oh well, I won't lose sleep over it! :03:

No, we have several members who are in law enforcement. You can always tell the real ones because they don't post things like this:

It's my official right and duty to charge people with whatever I feel they should be charged with. For instance, I don't have to pull over a speeder even though I've just seen them violate the law. I don't even have to write them a ticket if I pull them over. I do it when I feel they need to be pulled over and I write out tickets when I feel they need one...or even 10.

Yeah, that's not how it works.

[Zachstar]

Sorry, but I am. Glad I don't work in Shreveport either. Way too backwoods French and I wouldn't want to upset your fragile sense of what a good Police Officer should be. :O:

Geez man. Insult an entire group of people while you are at it.

Just leave this forum. Before Neal Keelhauls your account.

[Zachstar]

It doesn't matter what you think! I still earn a paycheck twice a month regardless. :D

Note to self: Never tell people on the net that you're a Police Officer because they're like "Na-uh" like you just told them you were an Astronaut or something. Oh well, I won't lose sleep over it! :03:

This isnt a forum full of 12 years olds. Multiple veterans officers fire fighters and other civic protectors post on this forum and their credentials are almost never questioned unlike your supposed credentials why? Because while they may be of differing political parties ideologies and regions. They understand what their job is and do not use it as some kind of bargaining chip or 1up.

You sir in my opinion are no police officer.. Now leave

[thorn69]

Just how racist can you get?


Now what are you talking about Zachstar? OMG, it's the "race card" again! Everybody RUN for your lives!!! :har:


You know...

Somebody starts a thread about Twinkies and you pull out the race card because the cream filling is WHITE!!! :wah:

Somebody starts a thread about Rainbows and you pull out the race card because BLACK isn't one of the colors!!! :wah:

Somebody says they would hate working in the French backwoods of Shreveport and it's RACISM against trees!!! - French trees!!! :wah:

[Snestorm]

Yeah, but I like to make arrests. That's what I do for a living.

Justice starts as soon as the cuffs get slapped onto lowlifes like that and their rights are read to them. I can usually find several other violations to charge them for as well. Play nice and I'll be nice. Act like douche bag and I'll treat you as such! :yep: Irregardless, it's always nice to get lowlifes like that off the streets and toss them in a cell with other lowlifes that have a differing opinion than their own! Makes for some excellent diversity training! Don't drop the soap! :rotfl2:

Freedom Of Speech was not written into the US Constitution to protect popular speech.

[thorn69]

Freedom Of Speech was not written into the US Constitution to protect popular speech.

Agreed. But when it becomes a public disturbance and somebody else complains the police have no choice but to fix the situation. We can't allow a disturbance to continue on because other people's civil rights are being violated. If the man has reserved the spot with the city he's mouthing off in then he's safe to speak as he wishes. If he's just out inciting riots and murder in the streets, he's a public disturbance.

[Snestorm]

Agreed. But when it becomes a public disturbance and somebody else complains the police have no choice but to fix the situation. We can't allow a disturbance to continue on because other people's civil rights are being violated. If the man has reserved the spot with the city he's mouthing off in then he's safe to speak as he wishes. If he's just out inciting riots and murder in the streets, he's a public disturbance.

Freedom Of Speech does NOT require government permission.

Best that can be done is to monitor the situation, and see if he does in fact incite a riot.

If not, Constitution trumps Law.

[thorn69]

Freedom Of Speech does NOT require government permission.


It does when it envolves hate speech or if it's going to involve nudity.

[August]

Freedom Of Speech was not written into the US Constitution to protect popular speech.

Uhm yes it most certainly was written to protect popular speech. After all when has a Government or a King ever tried to ban unpopular speech? It's only the words and ideas which resonate with the people that must be protected.

As has been mentioned on this forum many times now, the Bill of Rights are limitations on what government can do, not on what the people can't do.

[krashkart]

Somebody starts a thread about Twinkies and you pull out the race card because the cream filling is WHITE!!! :wah:

Twinkies Exposed (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=171873)

;)

[Snestorm]

Uhm yes it most certainly was written to protect popular speech. After all when has a Government or a King ever tried to ban unpopular speech? It's only the words and ideas which resonate with the people that must be protected.

As has been mentioned on this forum many times now, the Bill of Rights are limitations on what government can do, not on what the people can't do.

Popular speech needs no protection.

The megaphone might be another matter.
If there is a noise ordanance, that could cost him a day in court plus.

This guy isn't wrapped too tight.
Eventualy he'll screw up. More likely sooner than later.
He's already made mistake number one.
He's brough attention to himself. Not smart.

[thorn69]

Twinkies Exposed (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=171873)

;)


Racist Twinkies! :rotfl2:

[UnderseaLcpl]

I do my job and I do my job quite well! But as I've already said, I get labeled an a-hole no matter which way I decide to go on a specific matter. Police work is always questioned one way or the other because it always intervenes between two differing viewpoints. So one side isn't going to be happy when an arrest is made and the other side is. That's just how it is!
That's how it is, is it? Is that as far as your dedication to duty goes?

I've never excessively done, or not done, anything unless you're talking about excessively tacking on more and more charges on a criminal violator? That's every police officer though. We all do that for the reason I mentioned in another post. We want arrests to stick and for criminals to go to jail for the longest duration possible and pay the heaviest fines. It makes the streets safer for people for a longer period of time.
This is what I am talking about. It is not your responsibility to make moral judgements about whether or not a person should be charged. Your job is enforcement. What you are doing is selectively enforcing laws, and that is a breach of professional integrity. I can't really blame you for that, though, as it is impossible to enforce all laws within a given area equally. There are just too many of them. I couldn't know them all and I'm expected to obey them. You don't know them all and you're expected to enforce them. The jury sure as hell doesn't know them all and they're expected to deliver a verdict based upon argument made by lawyers, of all people. :rotfl2:

Still, it should be a matter of personal pride to hold yourself to a higher standard. You're supposed to be a public officer, and it is not your responsibility or priviledge to decide who is and who is not worthy of punishment by omitting or tacking on charges as you see fit. People look up to police officers, except for when they demonstrate the kind of conduct you advocate, in which case they look down upon them.

Of course our very liberal justice system seems to have a big heart for these criminal lowlifes and consistently allows them to come back again and again to re-commit their crimes on our society. That's the part I've never really understood, especially when it's always the same old bozos out there doing the same old criminal thing. I've arrested some folks over 25 times for the same exact crime. You'd think they'd learn? :nope: But what it is - is they just don't care. The laws are too lax and it's all a joke to them. They know they will be out on the streets again to recommit their same old crime again. It's a way of life for them. I just wish we could suprise them and say, "That's strike 25 pal, time for you to get used to prison for the rest of your life!"

I have the same problem with the justice system that you have, though you may not realize it. Where you see criminals going unpunished, I see the wisdom behind the mentality of "criminal intent". I see that criminals can be rehabilitated and lead normal lives. I also see how our justice system allows far too many criminals to walk free because the jails simply cannot handle so many violators. I see how the excessive numbers of laws make it simply impossible to create an effective system of rehabilition or punishment.

It scares me that someone as apparently vindictive as yourself is allowed to enforce the law. If it were up to me, I'd put your contract up for bid to private LE suppliers, and you'd change your tune or be out of a job in short order.

You know, I've noted there are quite a few bleeding heart liberals on this site with a "hug-a-thug" mentality. That's sad!
I haven't noticed the same thing. Most people here are fairly keen on criminal prosecution. You should have seen the last thread on the death penalty! However, most are not as draconian as you and some others, including myself, fault the system rather than the people. There are even a few that bother to look at underlying societal issues.

[August]

Popular speech needs no protection.

Speech that is popular with those in power needs no protection you mean. It's speech that is popular with The People which needs to be protected from government infringement.

You're thinking of some nut with a megaphone spouting drivel. I'm thinking of Thomas Paine's "Common Sense". Now which one do you think a government would be more likely to want to ban?

[thorn69]

Speech that is popular with those in power needs no protection you mean. It's speech that is popular with The People which needs to be protected from government infringement.

You're thinking of some nut with a megaphone spouting drivel. I'm thinking of Thomas Paine's "Common Sense". Now which one do you think a government would be more likely to want to ban?

August is exactly right here.

[Snestorm]

Speech that is popular with those in power needs no protection you mean. It's speech that is popular with The People which needs to be protected from government infringement.

You're thinking of some nut with a megaphone spouting drivel. I'm thinking of Thomas Paine's "Common Sense". Now which one do you think a government would be more likely to want to ban?

Looking at your first paragraph, made it unneccesary (bu preferrable) to go on to the second.

Understood. Agreed.

[Ducimus]

But what I cannot understand is all the loudmouths standing around shouting stupidly. WTH is wrong with them, they sound like idiots.


Those loudmouths are typical Californian's. I know, I was born and raised here! Sad thing is, if you know the attitude people develop here, you can pick out the Californian in a public area pretty quickly. (There's a story attached to that. :haha: )

As to the black panther video. My gut feeling is it's not genuine, and something someone fabricated to take a stab at the current administration and garner public opinion against it. The video seemed like it was deliberatly grainy, jittery, and I got the impression the lip movement didn't quite match all the words being uttered.

[thorn69]

Those loudmouths are typical Californian's. I know, I was born and raised here! Sad thing is, if you know the attitude people develop here, you can pick out the Californian in a public area pretty quickly. (There's a story attached to that. :haha: )

As to the black panther video. My gut feeling is it's not genuine, and something someone fabricated to take a stab at the current administration and garner public opinion against it. The video seemed like it was deliberatly grainy, jittery, and I got the impression the lip movement didn't quite match all the words being uttered.

It's not just California. People everywhere do this when the Police get involved. They try to instigate matters and make them worse. They're drama whores! They like to provoke us and the suspects we attempt to take in. It's always the same old thing. That poor bad guy - You evil cop! :nope:

These are the same people that spill their drinks on the floor in front of a janitor who just mopped it. It's childish behavior. I like to think that many of them get a karma check sometime in their life.

[jumpy]

Interesting development of this topic... Some of the earlier comments were thoughtful and proper (or so I thought).

However, as things moved on a pace, I'm drawn to the ignore button and the desire to make a parting cheap shot about how there's a third possibility when you consider yourself damned if you do and damned if you don't - it's because you're just damned, not by virtue of what you do or don't do, but because you are.
Does that make sense? Well it seemed so to me. :-?

[Moeceefus]

It's not just California. People everywhere do this when the Police get involved. They try to instigate matters and make them worse. They're drama whores! They like to provoke us and the suspects we attempt to take in. It's always the same old thing. That poor bad guy - You evil cop! :nope:

These are the same people that spill their drinks on the floor in front of a janitor who just mopped it. It's childish behavior. I like to think that many of them get a karma check sometime in their life.


This isn't a case of people spouting off about matters they know nothing of. In this case we have a very clear video of the events and as they say, the camera never lies. Regardless of race involved, I can link hundreds of videos with cops engaging in any number of illegal activities they should be fired or prosecuted for. Cops are public servants and therefore it is the publics right to scrutinize them when they screw up and to keep them in check. Thier duty is to protect and serve. They have a lot of responsibility and should stand to the highest of standards and proffesionalism. Everyone has a camera these days. I hope certain cops realize this and use it as an oppurtunity to better themselves and act in occordance with how they were trained and the oath they took. Nobody is above the law.

[Ducimus]

Everyone has a camera these days. I hope certain cops realize this and

Yeah, and using that camera can land you in jail if your caught.

edit: and camera's can lie, or rather, the resulting film after its been edited.

[thorn69]

Yeah, and using that camera can land you in jail if your caught.

edit: and camera's can lie, or rather, the resulting film after its been edited.


Most of the time the judges won't even allow public film to be used. Our dash-cams in our patrol cars are locked in a black box mounted on the dashboard with seals on them. The seals can only be unlocked by a select few and can never be opened by just one person at any time. The video inside the box is also transmitted instantly to the station and is recorded to their servers. Both the video on the dash-cam and the server have to match exactly and have to be authenticated to be admitted into court. Even then, I've seen judges not even allow our own video to be admitted. Usually it takes a really good lawyer for the defense to get the judge to invalidate our video. It's ALWAYS allowed however when the Officer needs it for his/her own personal defense no matter what.

Judges know that video can easily be tampered with and NO, it's not a "tell all" deal like you seem to think. There's a lot of factors that you can't see in videos. You'd know this if you had ever taken a photography class or went through a basic Police course or academy.

When I went through the Police Academy they showed us a video of a typical traffic stop by a State Police Officer. The Police Officer dismounted from his patrol car and approached the car he had pulled over and made his approach from the back driver side of the car. The next thing we saw was the Police Officer go for his duty weapon and start shooting into the car like a wild maniac. We all thought he had just gone nuts for some reason! Then the car just zoomed away in a straight beeline for about 50 feet and slammed into a telephone poll with the Police Officer still aiming down his weapons sights on the car the whole time like he was Dirty Hairy.

What the video didn't show us, was what was going on inside the car. (Blind Spots)

You see, inside that car was 2 black males that had just robbed a convenience store earlier in the evening and had killed the clerk in cold blood. The driver and passenger in the car waited for the Officer to get to the window so they could kill him as well. As soon as the Officer got to the window he noticed that the man in the passenger seat had a sawed-off shotgun aimed at him, but due to the way the Officer had "sliced the pie" when he approached the car, the passenger couldn't get a clear shot at him with his weapon. He would have ended up blowing his own friend's head off at that angle. The Officer went for his own weapon and commanded for the man to drop the shotgun. We couldn't really see this in the video because the Officer had his back to the dash camera and we couldn't hear this because the Instructors had the sound to the video turned off - on purpose.

When the man didn't comply the Officer started firing away into the car attempting to just kill the man with the shotgun. But the driver attempted to flee and was shot through his head by a round the Officer had intended to put into the chest of the man with the shotgun. The car continued to accelerate down the road because the "now dead" driver's foot was still on the gas pedal. The car crashed into a telephone poll at 20mph and that was the end of it. The man in the passenger seat with the shotgun had been shot once by the Officer and the round severed his spine leaving him a cripple for the rest of his life. He's also serving a life sentence for his criminal actions that night.

Then they played the video with the sound on and we heard EVERYTHING that was being said. The Officer had done his job and done his job well.:up:

Of course the family of the driver tried to sue because they felt that the Officer had shot and killed an unarmed man in the head. But the lawsuit was eventually dropped once the family was shown the videos. First they watched the convenience store robbery where their precious "do-no-wrong" angle was the one that had blown the head off the store clerk - a defenseless 19 year old school boy who was just trying to pay his way through community college. The family tried to decline watching the video of their "do-no-wrong" angel getting his head blown off by the Police Officer but were forced to watch it by the Defense attorney representing the Officer involved.

I was told that the mother cried her eyes out after watching it but went up and hugged the Officer that had shot her son and thanked him for doing his job and said something like after 21 years, she never really knew who her son was!

[Moeceefus]

Judges know that video can easily be tampered with and NO, it's not a "tell all" deal like you seem to think. There's a lot of factors that you can't see in videos. You'd know this if you had ever taken a photography class or went through a basic Police course or academy.



Then they played the video with the sound on and we heard EVERYTHING that was being said. The Officer had done his job and done his job well.:up:

Of course the family of the driver tried to sue because they felt that the Officer had shot and killed an unarmed man in the head. But the lawsuit was eventually dropped once the family was shown the videos. First they watched the convenience store robbery where their precious "do-no-wrong" angle was the one that had blown the head off the store clerk - a defenseless 19 year old school boy who was just trying to pay his way through community college. The family tried to decline watching the video of their "do-no-wrong" angel getting his head blown off by the Police Officer but were forced to watch it by the Defense attorney representing the Officer involved.

I was told that the mother cried her eyes out after watching it but went up and hugged the Officer that had shot her son and thanked him for doing his job and said something like after 21 years, she never really knew who her son was!



If you'd ever taken a photography class you'd know it is easy to tell when photos/video have been tampered with. Also if you'd ever actually been to a police course or academy, you'd know that cameras are your most powerful weapon for your defense or downfall. Cameras do not lie. Raw footage is not edited and it is easy for the experts to tell. When trying to argue against the power of the camera, why post about an event in which the camera saved the day?

[thorn69]

If you'd ever taken a photography class you'd know it is easy to tell when photos/video have been tampered with. Also if you'd ever actually been to a police course or academy, you'd know that cameras are your most powerful weapon for your defense or downfall. Cameras do not lie. Raw footage is not edited and it is easy for the experts to tell. When trying to argue against the power of the camera, why post about an event in which the camera saved the day?


Sure, they can be of help but they are not the "end all, be all" of self protection nor are they the "end all, be all" downfall of anybody either. Like I said, there are "blind spots" in film that the viewer can't see. Just like you're not supposed to see the camera crew or the microphones used in making a movie. Those are hidden blind spots that the film crew takes advantage of to make their film. Videos don't catch everything that's going on - EVER! They only catch what the cameraman wants to catch.

And you're wrong again - There are several ways to tamper with film that experts can't identify anything being wrong. For one, a person can simply cut the beginning of a video out so that the video benefits their elaborated "story" or even the ending can be cut out for the same purpose. Therefore there's no way for an expert to know what happened at the beginning or the end of the video. They will only be able to see where the video starts and where it ends. So basically only the middle and still, they can't see what's going on in the blind spots. There's also indirect tampering where a person knowingly only films what they want to film. In other words, they don't videotape everything. They only video what they want their story to say. The film won't look tampered with, but then again, it's indirect tampering so there wouldn't be any physical tampering at all.


And from here on out, I'm just going to stop wasting my time with your insulting claim of what I am and what I am not. I've told you what I do for a living and now you're just beginning to act childish about it. I can not for the life of me understand what your personal problem is with this other than a personal hatred for Police or some form of childish jealousy that perhaps I have a more adventurous and interesting job than you?! Yeah, that's probably it!

[Moeceefus]

Sure, they can be of help but they are not the "end all, be all" of self protection nor are they the "end all, be all" downfall of anybody either. Like I said, there are "blind spots" in film that the viewer can't see. Just like you're not supposed to see the camera crew or the microphones used in making a movie. Those are hidden blind spots that the film crew takes advantage of to make their film. Videos don't catch everything that's going on - EVER! They only catch what the cameraman wants to catch.

And you're wrong again - There are several ways to tamper with film that experts can't identify anything being wrong. For one, a person can simply cut the beginning of a video out so that the video benefits their elaborated "story" or even the ending can be cut out for the same purpose. Therefore there's no way for an expert to know what happened at the beginning or the end of the video. They will only be able to see where the video starts and where it ends. So basically only the middle and still, they can't see what's going on in the blind spots. There's also indirect tampering where a person knowingly only films what they want to film. In other words, they don't videotape everything. They only video what they want their story to say. The film won't look tampered with, but then again, it's indirect tampering so there wouldn't be any physical tampering at all.


And from here on out, I'm just going to stop wasting my time with your insulting claim of what I am and what I am not. I've told you what I do for a living and now you're just beginning to act childish about it. I can not for the life of me understand what your personal problem is with this other than a personal hatred for Police or some form of childish jealousy that perhaps I have a more adventurous and interesting job than you?! Yeah, that's probably it!


Every technique you just mentioned to tamper with film is easily detectable and such tampering, direct or indirect would be taken seriously and thrown out by any court. And thanks for the laugh on that last paragraph. :haha:

[thorn69]

Every technique you just mentioned to tamper with film is easily detectable and such tampering, direct or indirect would be taken seriously and thrown out by any court. And thanks for the laugh on that last paragraph. :haha:

Um yeah, whatever you say there buddy! :nope: