• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Los Angeles California - 5000 Angelenos For Kelly Thomas Protest

Texmex said:
Legal doesn't always mean just or right. Sometimes, adjustments need to be made to balance the scales.
Click to expand...

The right, wrongs, moral, immoral, getting emotional, etc means squat

It's the legal part that counts.....that's what matters
 
Excon said:
You can all fall for the bs if you choose.

Such a gentile soul who ...
"Between 1990 and 2011, Thomas had 92 encounters with the police. These encounters ranged from minor infractions such as trespassing to assault with a deadly weapon."
Death of Kelly Thomas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​
Click to expand...

Like with Trayvon Martin, what matters is what happened that day. No one can go back and retroactively apply the death penalty because of a police record, be that some random guy or the cops. I don't care what his record is.

What a gentile soul indeed! :doh
Click to expand...

Are you saying he was Jewish?
 
Excon said:
And what are they then to do when confronted with violent and resisting suspects? Call on a different Police force? :doh

If we did what you suggest, we would just have more crime.
Click to expand...

So a police state, then? You know, one where they can bust down your door because they want to, rule by fear, and apply the death penalty to anyone with a record?
 
rocket88 said:
So a police state, then? You know, one where they can bust down your door because they want to, rule by fear, and apply the death penalty to anyone with a record?
Click to expand...
I do not believe anybody said that, did they?
 
rocket88 said:
Like with Trayvon Martin, what matters is what happened that day. No one can go back and retroactively apply the death penalty because of a police record, be that some random guy or the cops. I don't care what his record is.
Click to expand...
:doh
It shows he wasn't a gentle soul as claimed.
Do you really not understand that?

Apparently not, as you want to bring up some ridiculous absurdity of retroactive application of the death penalty. Which clearly is no the case.
 
Summerwind said:
Actually the feds are still looking into it and there is the ongoing litigation regarding the re-hiring of the officers (the CoP says no, the officers are suing to regain their positions). So all the outcries may not be for naught.

Edited to ad links to claims:
Kelly Thomas verdict: FBI to examine trial evidence, testimony - latimes.com
Kelly Thomas case: Chief to fight three ex-cop's efforts to win back job - latimes.com
Click to expand...

You see now, I hate that. Someone is tried, found not guilty, double jeopardy should attach. But no, the feds believe they deserve another bite at the apple without showing ANY failure of process. That just wrong, but I'm not surprised to hear folks endorse it when it suits their bias.
 
clownboy said:
You see now, I hate that. Someone is tried, found not guilty, double jeopardy should attach. But no, the feds believe they deserve another bite at the apple without showing ANY failure of process. That just wrong, but I'm not surprised to hear folks endorse it when it suits their bias.
Click to expand...

Yeah it sucks. But there are looking for a different type of law violation. Civil rights. Highly unlikely they will find any.
 
clownboy said:
You see now, I hate that. Someone is tried, found not guilty, double jeopardy should attach. But no, the feds believe they deserve another bite at the apple without showing ANY failure of process. That just wrong, but I'm not surprised to hear folks endorse it when it suits their bias.
Click to expand...
Oh well, fortunately the world doesn't revolve around what you think.
 
rocket88 said:
So a police state, then? You know, one where they can bust down your door because they want to, rule by fear, and apply the death penalty to anyone with a record?
Click to expand...

Wait, did they invade this guy's home, bust down his door? Or are you straying into hyperbole?
 
Summerwind said:
Oh well, fortunately the world doesn't revolve around what you think.
Click to expand...

The fact of the matter is...The feds are very politically driven; their agendas vary with the party/view in power.

Basically, I would not trust anyone from, the FBI or US Attorney's Office
 
clownboy said:
Wait, did they invade this guy's home, bust down his door? Or are you straying into hyperbole?
Click to expand...

I replied to a particular post that particularly stated that the police need to be well armed, and what their job should be.
 
ric27 said:
The fact of the matter is...The feds are very politically driven; their agendas vary with the party/view in power.

Basically, I would not trust anyone from, the FBI or US Attorney's Office
Click to expand...
Sucks to be you, both because of your apparent belief in misinformation as well as the paranoia is seems to cause.
 
Excon said:
:doh
It shows he wasn't a gentle soul as claimed.
Do you really not understand that?

Apparently not, as you want to bring up some ridiculous absurdity of retroactive application of the death penalty. Which clearly is no the case.
Click to expand...

I don't care if he was the meanest mother****er on the planet Earth. His previous record is not an issue, because no matter what it was, what matters is his actions that night that justified the force used by the police.
 
rocket88 said:
I don't care if he was the meanest mother****er on the planet Earth. His previous record is not an issue, because no matter what it was, what matters is his actions that night that justified the force used by the police.
Click to expand...

And again, The claim that he was gentle soul is revealed to be false by his record.

That is what it goes to, and why it was provided. And is relevant to the claim that he was a gentle soul when obviously he wasn't.
And you want to sit there and pretend like you do not know that?
Absurdity at it's best.

Just like bringing up the absurdity of retroactive death penalty when that isn't even what happened.


Try to focus.
His violent past goes directly to the claim of his being a gentle soul. He wasn't.
He was a violent person.
It was stated that was it was provided for. Not in reference to anything that happened that night that he caused by resisting.



.
 
Summerwind said:
Sucks to be you, both because of your apparent belief in misinformation as well as the paranoia is seems to cause.
Click to expand...

and keep living in some fantasy world.....

If ever, you are privy of some behind the scenes stuff of what really goes on with these people in regards to many local Law enforcement use of force stuff, you would change your tune
 
ric27 said:
and keep living in some fantasy world.....

If ever, you are privy of some behind the scenes stuff of what really goes on with these people in regards to many local Law enforcement use of force stuff, you would change your tune
Click to expand...
Oh I agree that local law enforcement is out of control. They are not who you mentioned, nor who I was responding about.
 
Summerwind said:
Oh I agree that local law enforcement is out of control. They are not who you mentioned, nor who I was responding about.
Click to expand...

It's, the FBI or US Attorney's Office not local LE that you should be wary about
 
Excon said:
And again, The claim that he was gentle soul is revealed to be false by his record.

That is what it goes to, and why it was provided. And is relevant to the claim that he was a gentle soul when obviously he wasn't.
And you want to sit there and pretend like you do not know that?
Absurdity at it's best.

Just like bringing up the absurdity of retroactive death penalty when that isn't even what happened.


Try to focus.
His violent past goes directly to the claim of his being a gentle soul. He wasn't.
He was a violent person.
It was stated that was it was provided for. Not in reference to anything that happened that night that he caused by resisting.



.
Click to expand...

His being a gentle soul or not is not what the case is about. It's about whether or not the police were justified in their actions. So bringing it up would seem to be saying "this is why they were justified."

Why do you think they were justified? Were they justified because he wasn't a "gentle soul?" That's ludicrous.
 
rocket88 said:
His being a gentle soul or not is not what the case is about. It's about whether or not the police were justified in their actions. So bringing it up would seem to be saying "this is why they were justified."

Why do you think they were justified? Were they justified because he wasn't a "gentle soul?" That's ludicrous.
Click to expand...
Wow. You seem not to understand what the topic is.
It is about a rally for a supposedly "gentle soul", who, as I showed, wasn't a gentle soul as claimed in the OP.
So, what you do not understand about that, or why you oppose my showing the provided information was false, is irrelevant.
It was applicable to what was stated in the OP.


As for the discussing the specific case. There are other threads for that.
And the evidence is in the Officers' favor, and they were justified in their actions. Kelly was resiting with great force. Multiple tasering had no effect. And it took many Officers to get him subdued.
In the process Kelly's chest was inadvertently crushed, which lead to asphyxiation.

Nothing criminal happened, as determined by a Jury who saw more evidence than you or I have.


If you are interested in what the Defense presented to the Jury, as well as the evidence they pointed out in the video and the contradictions from the examiner. Then feel free to read what is at the following link.
You just might come to understand why the jury found them not guilty.

Kelly Thomas Trial Update: Defense tells jury to analyze case 'without the emotion' | 89.3 KPCC
 
Excon said:
Wow. You seem not to understand what the topic is.
It is about a rally for a supposedly "gentle soul", who, as I showed, wasn't a gentle soul as claimed in the OP.
So, what you do not understand about that, or why you oppose my showing the provided information was false, is irrelevant.
It was applicable to what was stated in the OP.


As for the discussing the specific case. There are other threads for that.
And the evidence is in the Officers' favor, and they were justified in their actions. Kelly was resiting with great force. Multiple tasering had no effect. And it took many Officers to get him subdued.
In the process Kelly's chest was inadvertently crushed, which lead to asphyxiation.

Nothing criminal happened, as determined by a Jury who saw more evidence than you or I have.


If you are interested in what the Defense presented to the Jury, as well as the evidence they pointed out in the video and the contradictions from the examiner. Then feel free to read what is at the following link.
You just might come to understand why the jury found them not guilty.

Kelly Thomas Trial Update: Defense tells jury to analyze case 'without the emotion' | 89.3 KPCC
Click to expand...

He was on the ground before they tazed him. Did you watch the video, or not? At one point the officers comment on how much blood there is, but continue. I don't see why it took 6 officers to bring him in. It only took 3 officers to do that to me when they hauled me to the loony bin, had me on the floor of my house, cuffed me up and that was that. He said many times, "I can't breathe," and "Okay, okay,," That's resisting arrest? :lamo You have no idea what you saw if you watched it. Here, I'll link it so you can finally inform yourself a little.

 
rocket88 said:
He was on the ground before they tazed him. Did you watch the video, or not? At one point the officers comment on how much blood there is, but continue. I don't see why it took 6 officers to bring him in. It only took 3 officers to do that to me when they hauled me to the loony bin, had me on the floor of my house, cuffed me up and that was that. He said many times, "I can't breathe," and "Okay, okay,," That's resisting arrest? :lamo You have no idea what you saw if you watched it. Here, I'll link it so you can finally inform yourself a little.

Click to expand...


You can continue to make the attempt to retry the case with the little evidence you have at hand or you can accept that a jury of folks who didn't know either the defendents or the dead fellow, who saw all the evidence and heard all the testimony, already made it's verdict.
 
clownboy said:
You can continue to make the attempt to retry the case with the little evidence you have at hand or you can accept that a jury of folks who didn't know either the defendents or the dead fellow, who saw all the evidence and heard all the testimony, already made it's verdict.
Click to expand...

That's fine, they came to their verdict. I'm wanting Excon to tell me why the police were justified. I'm watching the video, and I don't really see him resisting arrest. In fact, he wasn't being arrested as they never mirandized him, so it was probably a trip to the psych ward. 6 officers had to come and taze him? A mental case, not even a criminal?

The guy was clearly not right in the head, and Excon's trying to paint him as a dangerous criminal? Seriously, we don't even know why the police were talking to him in the first place, but it's obvious that the dude was nuts.

I can accept the verdict. My beef is with Excon's characterization of the guy, which has absolutely no bearing on what happened that night.
 
Excon said:
No they were not.
Their actions were legal.


That is not called justice but vengeance. Which is illegal.


Right! :doh
Folks should suffer for acting legally? That is just nuts to suggest such.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure which is more disturbing: That this incident happened at all, or that it has been adjudged "legal."
 
clownboy said:
You can continue to make the attempt to retry the case with the little evidence you have at hand or you can accept that a jury of folks who didn't know either the defendents or the dead fellow, who saw all the evidence and heard all the testimony, already made it's verdict.
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean much. Juries are found to have been in the wrong quite regularly.
 
Hatuey said:
Doesn't mean much. Juries are found to have been in the wrong quite regularly.
Click to expand...

In California, police are routinely acquitted even in the most egregious cases. I honestly cannot recall a single police officer in the decades I've lived here who was found guilty of abusing a citizen... or a spouse, for that matter. In most of California, and definitely in Southern California, a badge is really a license to beat, abuse, batter and kill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom