• 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:
The tap dancing has been all yours, as shown.


No you didn't.
As shown, you offered someone else defining a code, not the actual code itself.


You have shown no such thing.



No you didn't.
As shown, you offered someone else defining a code, not the actual code itself.


You only cited the actual law after you were checked for not providing it in the first place.
And as we saw, it required a threat to commit a crime, of which there was none, as his actions were within his training.


As shown, no they do not.
None of them do.
He made no threat to commit a crime as his actions were within his training.


:lamo Yes, yes, we know. Your emotional thoughts lead you to demean and be derogatory towards the person. You keep displaying the same emotional behavior over and over again.
But it does not change the fact that Officer Ramos was acting within his training and were therefore legal.


And as for terminations. Matter not. As individuals are fired over none illegal acts all the time.
And as at least one of them is seeking to be reinstated. So you got nothing other than emotive tripe.





It is a waste of time presenting the evidence to those motivated by emotion.

See, emotive nonsense.



A judgement made before the Jury verdict and brought about from uninformed public outcry in an attempt to assuage the masses. :doh iLOL
It really means nothing to the legality of their actions. But a Jury verdict does.
Click to expand...
Not in the least about 'emotions'. There is a fair amount of blind and mindless defense of a fired law enforcement officer that couldnt manage a simple contact with a homeless suspect and that allowed himself to get so 'emotional' that he broke the law and threatened to beat the **** out of the suspect, then proceeded to do so. And it has absolutely been shown by code which law he broke. Your continued defense of him is just...sad.
 
Excon said:
And there was no assault.
That is what you are not getting.
An Officer acting in a an Official Capacity and within training. is one acting within the law.
Do you really not know that?
Click to expand...

Let's see now. A dude with multiple unconcealed weapons menaces another dude verbally, but that is not a threat. Batcrap. The dude then assaults the dude that was threatened, but that's not assault. More batcrap. The assaulted dude dies and that's still not a crime because you say so. Ultimate batcrap. An Officer trained to kill, kills that guy and that's OK, because that's within training. Batcrap overload. You're not the devil's advocate, so what does that leave?
 
VanceMack said:
Its not about emotions its about reality. No law enforcement officer has the right to threaten to beat the **** out of someone Ever. Officer Ramos was a pathetic cop. He handled the first 15:27 in a pathetic manner. He lost his temper and committed a crime threatening to assault a suspect. He was fired by the Fullerton PD because of his actions. Your continued blind defense of his actions is equally pathetic.
Click to expand...

The goal of law enforcement is to gain voluntary compliance.

If that means by a cop presence *magnifico/great*...if not, then LE goes up on the use of force continuum and if *said suspect* has enough of a commitment to fight a cop, the individual will continue to resist until LE can physically *whatever it takes* change his/her mind.

The end result to police use of force, is always to take the suspect into custody with the least likelihood injury or death to, the officer FIRST..that's right, the LEO's safety comes first and the suspect, last. *Said* policies usually assign a range of tools for a range of suspect resistance. Within a range of resistance, any of the specified tools or skills may be used and are considered equally appropriate.

All depart's use of force policy must be compliant with existing case law. If an officer acts within policy and case law, the officer is good to go thus, the NOT GUILTY verdict in this riveting case
 
VanceMack said:
Not in the least about 'emotions'. There is a fair amount of blind and mindless defense of a fired law enforcement officer that couldnt manage a simple contact with a homeless suspect and that allowed himself to get so 'emotional' that he broke the law and threatened to beat the **** out of the suspect, then proceeded to do so. And it has absolutely been shown by code which law he broke. Your continued defense of him is just...sad.
Click to expand...
Your absurdly ridiculous spin, which is rooted in emotion, is noted.




DaveFagan said:
Let's see now. A dude with multiple unconcealed weapons menaces another dude verbally, but that is not a threat. Batcrap. The dude then assaults the dude that was threatened, but that's not assault. More batcrap. The assaulted dude dies and that's still not a crime because you say so. Ultimate batcrap. An Officer trained to kill, kills that guy and that's OK, because that's within training. Batcrap overload. You're not the devil's advocate, so what does that leave?
Click to expand...
:doh
Hmmm? Let's see.
Law Enforcement Officers acting legally in the performance of their duties is not assault. Period.
An individual dying as a result of his resistance was inadvertent. Not intentional.

Your spin is crap, as noted.
 
Excon said:
Your absurdly ridiculous spin, which is rooted in emotion, is noted.




:doh
Hmmm? Let's see.
Law Enforcement Officers acting legally in the performance of their duties is not assault. Period.
An individual dying as a result of his resistance was inadvertent. Not intentional.

Your spin is crap, as noted.
Click to expand...
I dont know which is more laughable...that you continue to defend the actions of a piss poor cop that allowed himself to get into a 15:27 second power play and lost and then threatened to beat the **** out of a suspect (and then did) in violation of clearly cited California law, or your continued assertion that the absolute obvious and factual reality is somehow clouded by 'emotion'. Its a hilariously bad debate 'tactic' and one which obviously only you and your sidekick in failure seem to embrace. But hey...considering your options...I guess its all you have.
 
ric27 said:
The goal of law enforcement is to gain voluntary compliance.

If that means by a cop presence *magnifico/great*...if not, then LE goes up on the use of force continuum and if *said suspect* has enough of a commitment to fight a cop, the individual will continue to resist until LE can physically *whatever it takes* change his/her mind.

The end result to police use of force, is always to take the suspect into custody with the least likelihood injury or death to, the officer FIRST..that's right, the LEO's safety comes first and the suspect, last. *Said* policies usually assign a range of tools for a range of suspect resistance. Within a range of resistance, any of the specified tools or skills may be used and are considered equally appropriate.

All depart's use of force policy must be compliant with existing case law. If an officer acts within policy and case law, the officer is good to go thus, the NOT GUILTY verdict in this riveting case
Click to expand...
If you can look at that video and watch that clown of a cop spend 15:27 getting more and more angry to the point that he violated the law in order to try to get the suspect to comply...I can only hope you are not only NOT a cop but not remotely related to ANYONE in the LE field.

I work with cops daily. Ive been on thousands of crisis calls with actual dangerous felons. The clown you continue to defend is an embarrassment to LE...thats probably why he got fired, huh? Oh...wait...you actually think its OK that cops do whatever they want to gain compliance...
 
VanceMack said:
that you continue to defend the actions of a piss poor
Click to expand...
I am not defending you.


VanceMack said:
that allowed himself to get into a 15:27 second power play and lost and then threatened to beat the **** out of a suspect (and then did) in violation of clearly cited California law,
Click to expand...
Your spin is again noted. An Officer acting within the law is not doing anything illegal, no matter how much you want it to be.


VanceMack said:
or your continued assertion that the absolute obvious and factual reality is somehow clouded by 'emotion'.
Click to expand...
And it is your emotion that was speaking.
As there was no obvious violation of the law. They were not even charged with it. :lamo


VanceMack said:
Its a hilariously bad debate 'tactic' and one which obviously only you and your sidekick in failure seem to embrace. But hey...considering your options...I guess its all you have.
Click to expand...
What is a hilariously bad debate tactic is letting your emotions make allegations that the facts don't support, like you have done. :doh
 
VanceMack said:
If you can look at that video and watch that clown of a cop spend 15:27 getting more and more angry to the point that he violated the law in order to try to get the suspect to comply...I can only hope you are not only NOT a cop but not remotely related to ANYONE in the LE field.

I work with cops daily. Ive been on thousands of crisis calls with actual dangerous felons. The clown you continue to defend is an embarrassment to LE...thats probably why he got fired, huh? Oh...wait...you actually think its OK that cops do whatever they want to gain compliance...
Click to expand...

Still parroting the delusional bs you've been sold

Not knowing the state's laws or the policies and procedures of that depart, you have no basis for stating your continued ignorance on this matter

Use of Force Matrix (a guide that leads a LEOs response to a suspect's actions) does not differentiate between age, sex or physical/mental defects.

Cops don't go mano a mano/hand to hand with an idividual if they can t help it. In LE work you should always try to meet their level of force with one plus level higher. Suspect says "no I ain't going to the tank", you put them in an escort position and cuff them up.

Dumbass swings to hit you, you use a baton/pepper/flashlight/taser/whatever. They use a baton/flashlight/pipe/knife/taser, you use a gun

End of story
 
Use of force continuum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Examples.

1810320409001.png



UOF.jpg
 
ric27 said:
Still parroting the delusional bs you've been sold

Not knowing the state's laws or the policies and procedures of that depart, you have no basis for stating your continued ignorance on this matter

Use of Force Matrix (a guide that leads a LEOs response to a suspect's actions) does not differentiate between age, sex or physical/mental defects.

Cops don't go mano a mano/hand to hand with an idividual if they can t help it. In LE work you should always try to meet their level of force with one plus level higher. Suspect says "no I ain't going to the tank", you put them in an escort position and cuff them up.

Dumbass swings to hit you, you use a baton/pepper/flashlight/taser/whatever. They use a baton/flashlight/pipe/knife/taser, you use a gun

End of story
Click to expand...
I'm still speaking truth and you are still defending a scumbag clown of a cop that couldnt handle a routine call.
 
Excon said:
I am not defending you.


Your spin is again noted. An Officer acting within the law is not doing anything illegal, no matter how much you want it to be.


And it is your emotion that was speaking.
As there was no obvious violation of the law. They were not even charged with it. :lamo


What is a hilariously bad debate tactic is letting your emotions make allegations that the facts don't support, like you have done. :doh
Click to expand...
You continue to defend the criminal act of a cop that couldnt handle a routine call, that committed a criminal act, and then 'beat the ****' out of the guy.

You go, boy...
 
VanceMack said:
You continue to defend the criminal act of a cop that couldnt handle a routine call, that committed a criminal act, and then 'beat the ****' out of the guy.

You go, boy...
Click to expand...
More absurdity. Figures.
You are just ignoring the evidence and speaking emotive drivel as usual.
There was no criminal act, and he did not beat the **** out of Kelly.
 
ric27 said:
Ah, you left out *sue*like in $$$$$

Again, your emotions impede rational thought regarding, the law and yes, you will be seeing in the future....a huge settlement for, the officers for wrongful termination/serious libel and slander.

This is just the beginning
Click to expand...

It shouldn't be too difficult for a family member to get their hands on a deer rifle, sighted in at 300 yards or so. That would be the only way for justice to be served.
 
Texmex said:
It shouldn't be too difficult for a family member to get their hands on a deer rifle, sighted in at 300 yards or so. That would be the only way for justice to be served.
Click to expand...

Let me add: Although this would be justice, if this situation actually happened to me I would want to administer justice to this officer, but I would end up living with his action. It would not do my wife or children any good for me to end up in prison or worse thus adding one injustice onto another. Although I would desire revenge, I would defer my anger and trust God to work it out in the end.
 
Excon said:
More absurdity. Figures.
You are just ignoring the evidence and speaking emotive drivel as usual.
There was no criminal act, and he did not beat the **** out of Kelly.
Click to expand...
There is no emotional response. The "evidence" is clear. The piss poor excuse of a cop arrived on scene, didnt get wha he wanted, engaged in a 15:27 power play which he lost all the while getting more and more angry, then balled up his fist, put it in the suspects face and told him he was going to "beat the **** out of him" violating California law, and then proceeded to do just that.
 
ric27 said:
Still parroting the delusional bs you've been sold

Not knowing the state's laws or the policies and procedures of that depart, you have no basis for stating your continued ignorance on this matter

Use of Force Matrix (a guide that leads a LEOs response to a suspect's actions) does not differentiate between age, sex or physical/mental defects.

Cops don't go mano a mano/hand to hand with an idividual if they can t help it. In LE work you should always try to meet their level of force with one plus level higher. Suspect says "no I ain't going to the tank", you put them in an escort position and cuff them up.

Dumbass swings to hit you, you use a baton/pepper/flashlight/taser/whatever. They use a baton/flashlight/pipe/knife/taser, you use a gun

End of story
Click to expand...

You need to stop watching COPS on tv.
 
VanceMack said:
There is no emotional response. The "evidence" is clear. The piss poor excuse of a cop arrived on scene, didnt get wha he wanted, engaged in a 15:27 power play which he lost all the while getting more and more angry, then balled up his fist, put it in the suspects face and told him he was going to "beat the **** out of him" violating California law, and then proceeded to do just that.
Click to expand...
Still with the same absurd emotive drivel. Figures.

You are just ignoring the evidence.
There was no criminal act, and he did not beat the **** out of Kelly.
 
Last edited:
Texmex said:
It shouldn't be too difficult for a family member to get their hands on a deer rifle, sighted in at 300 yards or so. That would be the only way for justice to be served.
Click to expand...

Texmex said:
Let me add: Although this would be justice, if this situation actually happened to me I would want to administer justice to this officer, but I would end up living with his action. It would not do my wife or children any good for me to end up in prison or worse thus adding one injustice onto another. Although I would desire revenge, I would defer my anger and trust God to work it out in the end.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you *added*. It's always good to re-think things out

It's policy and what LE does. Kelly being given orders and and showing aggression. That much is fact.

LE's job is to seek/weed out and snatch/cuff up BGs. LE has to overcome anti-socials offense/defense/resistance and take them into custody. It is always to obtain and maintain control.... gaining control and compliance

Deal with it
 
Crosscheck said:
You need to stop watching COPS on tv.
Click to expand...

I wish that were true.....

The fact is in, the army (with my buddies) we would dominate, destroy and kill, then go home for a few beers and do it all again later on

LE is a complete different story...is to try to resolve each incident without pissing off good citizens, admins or the media,.
 
Excon said:
Still with the same absurd emotive drivel. Figures.

You are just ignoring the evidence.
There was no criminal act, and he did not beat the **** out of Kelly.
Click to expand...
Still the same undeniable facts. The piss poor cop got in a 15:27 power play, lost his tempt, broke the law and threatened to beat the **** out of a suspect, and then did so. AND got fired because of the piss poor job he did.
 
VanceMack said:
Still the same undeniable facts.
Click to expand...
Still wrong as ever.
You do not have the facts but only an emotionally driven opinion.
The facts are that, no crime was committed.


VanceMack said:
The piss poor cop got in a 15:27 power play, lost his tempt, broke the law and threatened to beat the **** out of a suspect, and then did so.
Click to expand...
:doh
Still wrong. The facts haven't changed. :lamo


VanceMack said:
AND got fired because of the piss poor job he did.
Click to expand...
:doh
Termination driven by the emotional non-factual outcry of the public.
Wait and see if they get their jobs back. iLOL
 
ric27 said:
Yeah, you *added*. It's always good to re-think things out

It's policy and what LE does. Kelly being given orders and and showing aggression. That much is fact.

LE's job is to seek/weed out and snatch/cuff up BGs. LE has to overcome anti-socials offense/defense/resistance and take them into custody. It is always to obtain and maintain control.... gaining control and compliance

Deal with it
Click to expand...

It is still murder by cop regardless of how you view it.
 
Texmex said:
It is still murder by cop regardless of how you view it.
Click to expand...
:screwy

What an absurd thing to say.

It was not murder, period.
 
Last edited:
Excon said:
:screwy

What an absurd thing to say.

It was not murder, period.
Click to expand...

Not only is it murder, it is murder by someone who was trusted to protect the public, not kill them. This cop should be sentenced to death. He better watch out, karma can be a bitch.
 
Texmex said:
Not only is it murder, it is murder by someone who was trusted to protect the public, not kill them. This cop should be sentenced to death. He better watch out, karma can be a bitch.
Click to expand...
:screwy
:lamo

You are being ridiculously absurd, and untruthful to boot.
There was no murder.
The Officer's actions in trying to subdue the resisting Kelly, were lawful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom