• 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

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 you think the current shooting gallery using unarmed citizens as targets is satisfactory, I can only think you are a cop.
 
DaveFagan said:
So you think the current shooting gallery using unarmed citizens as targets is satisfactory, I can only think you are a cop.
Click to expand...
:doh
You are speaking exaggerated nonsense.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I'm not sure which is more disturbing: That this incident happened at all, or that it has been adjudged "legal."
Click to expand...

What is disturbing is you emotive take on it.
 
Hatuey said:
Doesn't mean much. Juries are found to have been in the wrong quite regularly.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it pretty much does.
Sans making a decision outside of the law and evidence. Their verdict stands as what is.

Juries are only found to be wrong if they decided outside of the law and the evidence.
That did not happen here.


And new evidence coming to light (which, over all cases, is a rarity) doesn't mean their verdict was wrong based on what they had. As it is new evidence.
Which isn't going to happen here.
 
Excon said:
new evidence coming to light (which, over all cases, is a rarity) doesn't mean their verdict was wrong
Click to expand...

Uh, yes it does.
 
Hatuey said:
Uh, yes it does.
Click to expand...
What an absolute absurd thing to say.
No it doesn't .
Their verdict was based on the evidence they had. That verdict is complete within that evidence.
 
Excon said:
What an absolute absurd thing to say.
No it doesn't .
Their verdict was based on the evidence they had. That verdict is complete within that evidence.
Click to expand...

And yet, an old ruling is wrong if it gets overturned/made void based on new evidence. :shrug: Don't like it? Deal with legal standards on this one.
 
So much disinformation about this incident...

1-There was a call to police made by the manager reporting that Kelly Thomas was seen attempting to break. into cars in the parking lot. That is 'known'. There is an allegation by a bouncer that was fired from the bar and grill and that has a 4 million dollar lawsuit against the bar and grill claiming that the manager lied. That is all.

2-The police responded to a call. The responding officer did a dismal job of handling the interaction with the alleged suspect at the time. A second officer was able to communicate easily and effectively with Kelly Thomas. He was not demonstrating any symptoms that would be associated with a mental illness at the time. He refused to cooperate with Officer Ramos but cooperated fully with the second responding officer.

3-Officer Ramos got pissed and lost his cool. 15:27 into their interaction he made a fist and threatened to beat the **** out of Kelly Thomas. Thomas responded by trying to get away. Yet another of his bad decisions that night.

4-He was not beaten to death but he certainly died as a result of bad policing and a probably criminal act by Ramos.

Dood died for one reason. Officer Ramos failed to do his job as a law enforcement officer and then exacerbated the problem by making both a physical and verbal threat. Should he have cooperated? Yes...no doubt. Does that justify Ramos' actions? No. Not even a little bit.
 
Hatuey said:
And yet, an old ruling is wrong if it gets overturned/made void based on new evidence. :shrug: Don't like it? Deal with legal standards on this one.
Click to expand...
More absurdity.
No it does not mean it was wrong. It can not be wrong if the decision was within the known evidence and the law. That is what you are not getting.
The Jury weighs the evidence, and are the trier of fact. Their decision cannot be wrong if it was within the known evidence and the law.

What you present only means that the verdict can not stand because of new evidence.
Not that it was wrong.

If the evidence is overwhelming that it is clear the person did not commit the the crime, they may not be recharged. A Prosecutors decision.
But they may be recharged regardless, and a new jury will consider this new evidence as well to reach a new verdict.

But it does not mean the verdict reached previously was wrong, as that verdict was based on what was known at the time.
 
VanceMack said:
So much disinformation about this incident...
Click to expand...
I agree with that, but not the rest, as it wasn't correct.

He failed to cooperate.
A hollow threat was made in an attempt to get the non-cooperative lying game playing Kelly to comply, and in return Kelly verbally showed he was not fearful of that hollow threat and actually enticed the Officer to strike him.

Instead of following through with the hollow threat (you know, because it being hollow means it wasn't really a threat) Officer Ramos again tried to get Kelly to comply to his verbal instruction. Kelly still wouldn't, and while attempting to do so, Officer Ramos pushed Kelly's arm it the direction he want him to put it. Kelly then tries to lay hands on the Officer, of which the Officer swipes it away. Kelly then becomes belligerent by standing up to confront the Officer. He is ordered to get on the ground but refuses to comply and attempts to flee. At which time both Officers begin swinging their batons and striking Kelly. He is brought down out of camera and the rest ensues.

Kelly failed to cooperate after the non-threat and became belligerent.
As testified to, besides the foul language, nothing the Officers did was outside of their training. It was not criminal.
Kelly was resisting so greatly that multiple tasering had no affect him.
His resistance was so great that it took multiple Officers beyond the tasering to subdue him, and in the struggle his chest was inadvertently crushed.

What happened was not negligent or criminal in any way shape or form.
 
Excon said:
I agree with that, but not the rest, as it wasn't correct.

He failed to cooperate.
A hollow threat was made in an attempt to get the non-cooperative lying game playing Kelly to comply, and in return Kelly verbally showed he was not fearful of that hollow threat and actually enticed the Officer to strike him.

Instead of following through with the hollow threat (you know, because it being hollow means it wasn't really a threat) Officer Ramos again tried to get Kelly to comply to his verbal instruction. Kelly still wouldn't, and while attempting to do so, Officer Ramos pushed Kelly's arm it the direction he want him to put it. Kelly then tries to lay hands on the Officer, of which the Officer swipes it away. Kelly then becomes belligerent by standing up to confront the Officer. He is ordered to get on the ground but refuses to comply and attempts to flee. At which time both Officers begin swinging their batons and striking Kelly. He is brought down out of camera and the rest ensues.

Kelly failed to cooperate after the non-threat and became belligerent.
As testified to, besides the foul language, nothing the Officers did was outside of their training. It was not criminal.
Kelly was resisting so greatly that multiple tasering had no affect him.
His resistance was so great that it took multiple Officers beyond the tasering to subdue him, and in the struggle his chest was inadvertently crushed.

What happened was not negligent or criminal in any way shape or form.
Click to expand...
To start with, he spent 15:27 fighting and arguing with the guy. Thats just not bright. Its bad policing. Then he physically and verbally threatened assault.
 
VanceMack said:
To start with, he spent 15:27 fighting and arguing with the guy. Thats just not bright. Its bad policing.
Click to expand...
Because Kelly wouldn't cooperate. And?
Not illegal.

VanceMack said:
Then he physically and verbally threatened assault.
Click to expand...
A hollow threat as an attempt to gain compliance.
A hollow threat, is a hollow threat and was not acted upon.
Pretty obvious too, especially has he was putting on latex to conduct a pat-down.

And, as testified to, but for the foul language, within training. So not illegal. :shrug:
 
Excon said:
More absurdity.
No it does not mean it was wrong. It can not be wrong if the decision was within the known evidence and the law. That is what you are not getting.
The Jury weighs the evidence, and are the trier of fact. Their decision cannot be wrong if it was within the known evidence and the law.

What you present only means that the verdict can not stand because of new evidence.
Not that it was wrong.

If the evidence is overwhelming that it is clear the person did not commit the the crime, they may not be recharged. A Prosecutors decision.
But they may be recharged regardless, and a new jury will consider this new evidence as well to reach a new verdict.

But it does not mean the verdict reached previously was wrong, as that verdict was based on what was known at the time.
Click to expand...

Of course it can be wrong even with the evidence at hand. Which is why it gets over turned. :) :shrug:
 
Hatuey said:
Of course it can be wrong even with the evidence at hand. Which is why it gets over turned. :) :shrug:
Click to expand...

Completely absurd...

Good luck...in overturning a Not guilty verdict

lol
 
Excon said:
Because Kelly wouldn't cooperate. And?
Not illegal.

A hollow threat as an attempt to gain compliance.
A hollow threat, is a hollow threat and was not acted upon.
Pretty obvious too, especially has he was putting on latex to conduct a pat-down.

And, as testified to, but for the foul language, within training. So not illegal. :shrug:
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a "hollow threat" from an armed individual. You are simply wrong, swallow the turd and move along.
 
Hatuey said:
Of course it can be wrong even with the evidence at hand. Which is why it gets over turned. :) :shrug:
Click to expand...

What gets overturned? You can't overturn an innocent verdict.
 
Excon said:
Because Kelly wouldn't cooperate. And?
Not illegal.

A hollow threat as an attempt to gain compliance.
A hollow threat, is a hollow threat and was not acted upon.
Pretty obvious too, especially has he was putting on latex to conduct a pat-down.

And, as testified to, but for the foul language, within training. So not illegal. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Threatening to beat someone is assault. It is a criminal action, even if no battery takes place after the assault.
 
Excon said:
Because Kelly wouldn't cooperate. And?
Not illegal.

A hollow threat as an attempt to gain compliance.
A hollow threat, is a hollow threat and was not acted upon.
Pretty obvious too, especially has he was putting on latex to conduct a pat-down.

And, as testified to, but for the foul language, within training. So not illegal. :shrug:
Click to expand...
Try an experiment. GO stand in front of a cop somewhere...then attempt to tell a passing citizen to get out of your way or you are going to (ball up your fist and put it in his face first) beat the **** out of him. See how well that goes over. Hey...heres one. Go to work and threaten a subordinate that if they dont clean out that fry trap you are going to (ball up your fist and put it in his face first) beat the **** out of him. Then...in front of a cop tell your kid if he doesnt mow the yard you are going to (ball up your fist and put it in his face first) beat the **** out of him.

The exchange with the individual should have lasted about a minute. Hi...how are you doing. We have reports you were seen trying to break into these cars. Can you tell me your name? Do you have ID? OK sir...well..very sorry about this but we are going to have to take you in to the station. Would you mind standing up? Thanks for cooperating...Im sure we can get this squared away right away. Im sorry...no? OK then...this is what we call a pressure point....and...cuffs...and please mind your head sir...

Dispatch, this is Officer Ramos...we are 10-19...back at station in 15.

Done in under 5 minutes. No need for anyone to get a beat down.
 
Excon said:
Because Kelly wouldn't cooperate. And?
Not illegal.

A hollow threat as an attempt to gain compliance.
A hollow threat, is a hollow threat and was not acted upon.
Pretty obvious too, especially has he was putting on latex to conduct a pat-down.

And, as testified to, but for the foul language, within training. So not illegal. :shrug:
Click to expand...


Apparently it wasn't hollow...they gave him a pretty good going over.
 
These cops need to realize they go home at night. Someday, this will happen to someone who's family decides enough is enough....and they'll follow these cops home. Can't say I'll feel bad.
 
Hatuey said:
Of course it can be wrong even with the evidence at hand. Which is why it gets over turned. :) :shrug:
Click to expand...
Wrong.




DaveFagan said:
There is no such thing as a "hollow threat" from an armed individual. You are simply wrong, swallow the turd and move along.
Click to expand...
:lamo Any turd swallowing needs to be done by you because you are wrong.
There is to such a thing as a hollow threat.
In this case it was an attempt to gain compliance and was not acted upon.




Dittohead not! said:
Threatening to beat someone is assault. It is a criminal action, even if no battery takes place after the assault.
Click to expand...
What an absurd thing to say. An attempt to gain compliance is not an assault, or criminal.
As testified to, but for the foul language, the Officers actions were within their training. You seem not to understand that fact.
 
VanceMack said:
Try an experiment. GO stand in front of a cop somewhere...then attempt to tell a passing citizen to get out of your way or you are going to (ball up your fist and put it in his face first) beat the **** out of him. See how well that goes over. Hey...heres one. Go to work and threaten a subordinate that if they dont clean out that fry trap you are going to (ball up your fist and put it in his face first) beat the **** out of him. Then...in front of a cop tell your kid if he doesnt mow the yard you are going to (ball up your fist and put it in his face first) beat the **** out of him.

The exchange with the individual should have lasted about a minute. Hi...how are you doing. We have reports you were seen trying to break into these cars. Can you tell me your name? Do you have ID? OK sir...well..very sorry about this but we are going to have to take you in to the station. Would you mind standing up? Thanks for cooperating...Im sure we can get this squared away right away. Im sorry...no? OK then...this is what we call a pressure point....and...cuffs...and please mind your head sir...

Dispatch, this is Officer Ramos...we are 10-19...back at station in 15.

Done in under 5 minutes. No need for anyone to get a beat down.
Click to expand...
Nothing you have said changes the fact that, as testified to, but for the foul language, the Officer's actions were within their training.


Every encounter is different. Your idea of how things should go is ideal. Not how things go all the time. And definitely not how they went this time.

And in this case Kelly was the wrong, in his failure to comply and resistance.




rocket88 said:
Apparently it wasn't hollow...they gave him a pretty good going over.
Click to expand...
:doh
As already addressed.
Iwas a hoillow threat and was not acted upon.
The attempt to get him to comply was separated by other events which cause the Officers to react to Kelly's action.
 
Excon said:
Nothing you have said changes the fact that, as testified to, but for the foul language, the Officer's actions were within their training.


Every encounter is different. Your idea of how things should go is ideal. Not how things go all the time. And definitely not how they went this time.

And in this case Kelly was the wrong, in his failure to comply and resistance.




:doh
As already addressed.
Iwas a hoillow threat and was not acted upon.
The attempt to get him to comply was separated by other events which cause the Officers to react to Kelly's action.
Click to expand...
Regardless of Kelly's 'wrong' actions, the police officer should have better handled the situation. His actions were criminal. Kellys actions were stupid. Citizens shouldnt ought to be killed by Law Enforcement officials for the crime of being stupid.
 
VanceMack said:
Regardless of Kelly's 'wrong' actions, the police officer should have better handled the situation. His actions were criminal. Kellys actions were stupid. Citizens shouldnt ought to be killed by Law Enforcement officials for the crime of being stupid.
Click to expand...
Woulda, shoulda, coulda.

You are again speaking of an ideal situation which this was not.

And since it wasn't, it is absurd to expect such.

And ideally when a person is tasered it has an effect, but not here.
And then it took 6 Officers to subdue Kelly. 6, not 2, 3, 4, or even 5, but six. And that was after multiple taserings.
And you want to speak of ideal situations? :doh
Sorry, that doesn't fly.

And no it wasn't criminal.
Besides the Jury 's verdict, you seem to have missed the part that their actions fell within their training, which makes them non-criminal.
 
Excon said:
And no it wasn't criminal.
Besides the Jury 's verdict, you seem to have missed the part that their actions fell within their training, which makes them non-criminal.
Click to expand...

100%, this is the problem. This sort of action is the standard procedure.

Someday, I'm telling you, they are going to do this to someone that isn't resisting...and they will be surrounded...and the angry mob will have their way. I don't know how that notion isn't sitting in the back of their head. Maybe that will change the procedure across the country. People aren't going to put up with this much longer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom