Page 16 of 21 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 208

Thread: Los Angeles California - 5000 Angelenos For Kelly Thomas Protest

  1. #151
    Sage
    ric27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,539

    Re: Los Angeles California - 5000 Angelenos For Kelly Thomas Protest

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Good lord. Thats just sad.

    He spent 15:27 getting punked and getting angry (meanwhile the other officer was able to communicate and cooperate just fine). Then your boy lost his temper, committed a crime by threatening to beat the **** out of the suspect (hey...did you bother to "read up" on the actual LAW?) and as a result of his ****ty police work, got a guy killed. And you would still be buying him beers. Well...yep...I guess that about does it.
    The use of force continuum is clearly spelled out and if police stay within those guidelines they are good to go.The officers stayed within those guidelines

    This is straightforward....in the *real world*

    The police's authority is to enforce the law and nothing more. Once he/she tells you you're under arrest and you don't comply/you resist/, bar the door because, the cop will use whatever force necessary up to and including killing you if that is what's called for.

    A cop tells you you're under arrest and you say "**** you, cop...I ain't going and walk away..... you will get tased/OC/punched

    Ignoring the police is the first step to not getting along with them. They only way LE have efficacy is if people hear, understand, and obey their commands. When failure to comply becomes the issue, it is extremely important to regain that compliance with......fill in the blanks

    It's up to you whether you choose to accept

  2. #152
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,662

    Re: Los Angeles California - 5000 Angelenos For Kelly Thomas Protest

    422. (a) Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which
    will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with
    the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or
    by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a
    threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out,
    which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made,
    is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to
    convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an
    immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes
    that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own
    safety or for his or her immediate family's safety, shall be punished
    by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by
    imprisonment in the state prison.
    (b) For purposes of this section, "immediate family" means any
    spouse, whether by marriage or not, parent, child, any person related
    by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree, or any other
    person who regularly resides in the household, or who, within the
    prior six months, regularly resided in the household.
    (c) "Electronic communication device" includes, but is not limited
    to, telephones, cellular telephones, computers, video recorders, fax
    machines, or pagers. "Electronic communication" has the same meaning
    as the term defined in Subsection 12 of Section 2510 of Title 18 of
    the United States Code.

    CA Codes (pen:422-422.4)

    Using your 'source'

    Would you like varying legal opinions on verbal threats as a violation of law as well? Would it matter?

  3. #153
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Los Angeles California - 5000 Angelenos For Kelly Thomas Protest

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    I posted 2 states rather than all 50 but as a random measure of sampling. I posted BOTH Texas AND California law. The BOLD was already emphasized. You selectively missed that.
    Random sampling?
    iLOL
    None of what you posted was relevant.



    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Texas Penal Code 22.07(a)(2) states that a "person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to ... place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury."

    California Penal Code 422 PC defines the crime of "criminal threats" (formerly known as terrorist threats).

    A "criminal threat" is when you threaten to kill or physically harm someone and

    that person is thereby placed in a state of reasonably sustained fear for his/her safety or for the safety of his/her immediate family,
    the threat is specific and unequivocal and
    you communicate the threat verbally, in writing, or via an electronically transmitted device.1

    Criminal threats can be charged whether or not you have the ability to carry out the threat...and even if you don't actually intend to execute the threat.
    Repeating your dishonesty doesn't change the facts.
    His actions were legal. And you did not provide California Penal Code. I did.
    He was within his training. What he did was not illegal.
    Nor does the following apply.

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    240. An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present
    ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.

    CA Codes (pen:240-248)

    There was no unlawful attempt to commit a violent injury.

    On to 422.
    Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime [...]
    There was no threat to commit a crime.



    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    So to recap...you and a select few like minded...ummmmm...people...celebrate a clown cop that spent 15:27 modelling his own incompetence, got angry, committed a criminal act by threatening to beat the **** out of a suspect, then proceeded to beat the **** out of causing the death of a suspect. Buy him another round. You sound like you would all get along great.


    Apparently your emotions cause you to babel. I would suggest you learn the facts, as your narrative is off.
    Way off.
    Last edited by Excon; 01-31-14 at 03:52 PM.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  4. #154
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,662

    Re: Los Angeles California - 5000 Angelenos For Kelly Thomas Protest

    Quote Originally Posted by ric27 View Post
    The use of force continuum is clearly spelled out and if police stay within those guidelines they are good to go.The officers stayed within those guidelines

    This is straightforward....in the *real world*

    The police's authority is to enforce the law and nothing more. Once he/she tells you you're under arrest and you don't comply/you resist/, bar the door because, the cop will use whatever force necessary up to and including killing you if that is what's called for.

    A cop tells you you're under arrest and you say "**** you, cop...I ain't going and walk away..... you will get tased/OC/punched

    Ignoring the police is the first step to not getting along with them. They only way LE have efficacy is if people hear, understand, and obey their commands. When failure to comply becomes the issue, it is extremely important to regain that compliance with......fill in the blanks

    It's up to you whether you choose to accept
    The cop didnt say "Im placing you under arrest"...he got angry, put on gloves, balled up his fist, and said "I'm going to beat the **** out of you." I very clearly committed a criminal act.

    Ive worked with cops for years. Ive responded to thousands of crisis calls with far more difficult suspects. That you find his actions for the 15:27 prior to the assault and his entire course of behavior acceptable is just...sad.

  5. #155
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,662

    Re: Los Angeles California - 5000 Angelenos For Kelly Thomas Protest

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    Random sampling?
    iLOL
    None of what you posted was relevant.


    Repeating your dishonesty doesn't change the facts.
    His actions were legal. And you did not provide California Penal Code. I did.








    Apparently your emotions cause you to babel. I would suggest you learn the facts, as your narrative is off.
    Way off.
    Try it again. I used YOUR source...and I posted the California Penal Code. It mirrors the source from the previous post. Both my original source AND your source very clearly show that a verbal threat is classified as a criminal act.

  6. #156
    Sage
    ric27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,539

    Re: Los Angeles California - 5000 Angelenos For Kelly Thomas Protest

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    The cop didnt say "Im placing you under arrest"...he got angry, put on gloves, balled up his fist, and said "I'm going to beat the **** out of you." I very clearly committed a criminal act.

    Ive worked with cops for years. Ive responded to thousands of crisis calls with far more difficult suspects. That you find his actions for the 15:27 prior to the assault and his entire course of behavior acceptable is just...sad.
    Whether you *think*, the officer's actions were wrong or immoral... The fact is, the officer's actions were legal

    Your emotions are not making you see, the final LEGAL aspect of this incident

  7. #157
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Los Angeles California - 5000 Angelenos For Kelly Thomas Protest

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Try it again. I used YOUR source...and I posted the California Penal Code. It mirrors the source from the previous post. Both my original source AND your source very clearly show that a verbal threat is classified as a criminal act.

    Figures you would reply before editing was complete.

    You try again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    On to 422.
    Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime [...]
    There was no threat to commit a crime.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  8. #158
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,662

    Re: Los Angeles California - 5000 Angelenos For Kelly Thomas Protest

    Quote Originally Posted by ric27 View Post
    Whether you *think*, the officer's actions were wrong or immoral... The fact is, the officer's actions were legal

    Your emotions are not making you see, the final LEGAL aspect of this incident
    Its not about 'emotions'. The FACTS are that the cop is an embarrasing slug that engaged in a power play for 15:27, got angry, and broke the law by threatening to beat the **** out of a suspect and demonstrating the intent to do so. Your continued defense of his behavior is sad.

  9. #159
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,662

    Re: Los Angeles California - 5000 Angelenos For Kelly Thomas Protest

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post

    Figures you would reply before editing was complete.

    You try again.
    Your posts are laughable. I have cited the applicable penal code. Both are identical. One of the two sources is the source YOU provided, just in case you wanted to keep posting your lies about the actual penal code.
    422. (a) Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which
    will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with
    the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or
    by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a
    threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out,
    which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made,
    is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to
    convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an
    immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes
    that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own
    safety or for his or her immediate family's safety, shall be punished
    by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by
    imprisonment in the state prison.
    (b) For purposes of this section, "immediate family" means any
    spouse, whether by marriage or not, parent, child, any person related
    by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree, or any other
    person who regularly resides in the household, or who, within the
    prior six months, regularly resided in the household.
    (c) "Electronic communication device" includes, but is not limited
    to, telephones, cellular telephones, computers, video recorders, fax
    machines, or pagers. "Electronic communication" has the same meaning
    as the term defined in Subsection 12 of Section 2510 of Title 18 of
    the United States Code.

  10. #160
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Los Angeles California - 5000 Angelenos For Kelly Thomas Protest

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    422. (a) Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which
    will result in death or great bodily injury to another person
    , with
    the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or
    by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a
    threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out,
    which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made,
    is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to
    convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an
    immediate prospect of execution of the threat
    , and thereby causes
    that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own
    safety or for his or her immediate family's safety, shall be punished
    by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by
    imprisonment in the state prison.

    (b) For purposes of this section, "immediate family" means any
    spouse, whether by marriage or not, parent, child, any person related
    by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree, or any other
    person who regularly resides in the household, or who, within the
    prior six months, regularly resided in the household.
    (c) "Electronic communication device" includes, but is not limited
    to, telephones, cellular telephones, computers, video recorders, fax
    machines, or pagers. "Electronic communication" has the same meaning
    as the term defined in Subsection 12 of Section 2510 of Title 18 of
    the United States Code.

    California Penal Code Section 422 - California Attorney Resources - California Laws
    I see you chose to ignore the wording of the law and the evidence again.
    Figures.

    Evidence ~ His actions were within his training.
    Law ~ Threatens to commit a crime ...

    His actions being within his training, says that he made no threat to commit a crime.
    You can't change that no matter how much you try.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

Page 16 of 21 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •