• 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!

Police not guilty in Kelly Thomas death; DA won't try 3rd officer[W:173:381]

Re: Police not guilty in Kelly Thomas death; DA won't try 3rd officer

You have been thoroughly defeated. You're now dismissed.
Yes you have been from the very start.
You just are unable to realize that.
AS for dismissing?
iLOL
All of your illogical rantings where dismissed by factual information.
Kelly was resisting. You even tacitly admit it by saying it was reflexive. Something which you know not.
 
Last edited:
Re: Police not guilty in Kelly Thomas death; DA won't try 3rd officer

Yeah right, going by rogue cops' words as if they were gold. Of course they had to say that into the mic they were wearing in order to justify beating the crap out of a person who were merely reacting reflexively to being beaten and crushed to death. Just take a look at the video and then look at your self into the mirror. That's all you have to do.
See there you go again. No answer and making false statements. There were no rouge cops.

You dismiss yourself with these illogical claims you make.

He was resiting.
Most folks are smart enough to know when to stop, even if reflexive. Apparently Kelly and you both don't know that though.

Btw, you apparently missed it, the Officers didn't testify.
That was the lawyer using the video evidence to point out what was happening.

Again - Using the video evidence to point out what happened.
That is what the Jury used to make their decision. The video evidence.

Next.
 
Last edited:
Re: Police not guilty in Kelly Thomas death; DA won't try 3rd officer

See there you go again, No answer and making false statements. There were no rouge cops.

You dismiss yourself with these illogical claims you make.

He was resiting.
Most folks are smart enough to know when to stop, even if reflexive. Apparently Kelly and you both don't know that though

Yadi yadi yada ...
 
Re: Police not guilty in Kelly Thomas death; DA won't try 3rd officer

Yes you have been from the very start.
You just are unable to realize that.
AS for dismissing?
iLOL
All of your illogical rantings where dismissed by factual information.
Kelly was resisting. You even tacitly admit it by saying it was reflexive. Something which you know not.
You 're dismissed, don't you know that?
 
I'm done babysitting you, Excon. You can now go to the corner and play with yourself.

:mrgreen: :lamo
 
Re: Police not guilty in Kelly Thomas death; DA won't try 3rd officer

You 're dismissed, don't you know that?

Your arguments have been dismissed. We know that. Yet here you are still replying. Figures.

So again.

You dismiss yourself with the illogical claims you make.

He was resiting.
Most folks are smart enough to know when to stop, even if reflexive. Apparently Kelly and you both don't know that though.

Btw, you apparently missed it, the Officers didn't testify.
That was the lawyer using the video evidence to point out what was happening.

Again - Using the video evidence to point out what happened.
That is what the Jury used to make their decision. The video evidence.

Next.
 
Re: Police not guilty in Kelly Thomas death; DA won't try 3rd officer

Your arguments have been dismissed. We know that. Yet here you are still replying. Figures.

So again.

You dismiss yourself with the illogical claims you make.

He was resiting.
Most folks are smart enough to know when to stop, even if reflexive. Apparently Kelly and you both don't know that though.

Btw, you apparently missed it, the Officers didn't testify.
That was the lawyer using the video evidence to point out what was happening.

Again - Using the video evidence to point out what happened.
That is what the Jury used to make their decision. The video evidence.

Next.
Did I ever say the officers testified? You can't even comprehend what you're reading and you want to participate in a debate? Like I said, go play with yourself and stop whining like a five year old throwing a tantrum.

Yes, I'm done with your nonsense. Just stopping by to change your diapers.
 
Re: Police not guilty in Kelly Thomas death; DA won't try 3rd officer

You have been thoroughly defeated. You're now dismissed.

He HAS been MORE THAN thoroughly defeated. Anybody who ignores the facts of audio-visual evidence, and keeps parroting the same lies over and over regardless of how articulate you are in explaining why his view is not conducive to reality, is displaying shill-like behavior. I had him pegged after just 2 posts, so why feed into it? Should never have wasted another minute on it.
 
Re: Police not guilty in Kelly Thomas death; DA won't try 3rd officer

Did I ever say the officers testified?
Did I say you did?
Again just showing that you fail to understand what has been said.
Figures. :doh

This is what you said.
Yeah right, going by rogue cops' words as if they were gold.
Which isn't the truth.
The lawyer was pointing out to the jury the actual evidence in the video. (of which you fail to understand the significance)
But I am sure you want to ignore that fact and pretend anyways that you somehow destroyed or defeated another poster with your illogical delusions.
iLOL
:lamo


Like I said, go play with yourself and stop whining like a five year old throwing a tantrum.
Said the only one acting in such a fashion.
Figures. :lamo





He HAS been MORE THAN thoroughly defeated. Anybody who ignores the facts of audio-visual evidence, and keeps parroting the same lies over and over regardless of how articulate you are in explaining why his view is not conducive to reality, is displaying shill-like behavior. I had him pegged after just 2 posts, so why feed into it? Should never have wasted another minute on it.
The evidence says you are wrong on all counts. Go figure.
:lamo
It also says that you are purposely telling untruths, not me, as you falsely claim.
Not once could you point out any lie said by me, especially as the facts do not lie. And those facts defeat what you assert.

And for articulating a position? Convoluted twisted logic, is convoluted twisted logic.
Nothing either of you two have presented changes the facts. Kelly was resisting.
 
Last edited:
Re: Police not guilty in Kelly Thomas death; DA won't try 3rd officer

Being polite and not resisting helps a lot in avoiding an ass whippin'

An old and true educational video

I do not disagree. I was just wondering what you might suggest as a response if you start getting your ass beat anyway.
 
Re: Police not guilty in Kelly Thomas death; DA won't try 3rd officer

.
Not once could you point out any lie said by me, especially as the facts do not lie. And those facts defeat what you assert.

Kelly was resisting.

That's one lie you keep spouting over and over and over and over again as if you expect us to suddenly believe you and not what our own eyes and ears tell us. You have eyes and ears too, and assuming you're not too blind to see that this 135 lb. weakling is pinned down by 5 cops being beaten, tasered, bludgeoned, and crushed - and assuming also that you're not too deaf to hear him pleading stop I'm not resisting, you're a liar and you are fooling NOBODY. I'd like to hear from somebody with a valid argument who is not in the fantasy world you appear to be in, mindlessly regurgitating your erroneous opinion that is in direct contradiction to what is shown in the video. Please go away or get a clue. YOU"RE FOOLING NO ONE.
 
Re: Police not guilty in Kelly Thomas death; DA won't try 3rd officer

That's one lie you keep spouting over and over and over and over again as if you expect us to suddenly believe you and not what our own eyes and ears tell us. You have eyes and ears too, and assuming you're not too blind to see that this 135 lb. weakling is pinned down by 5 cops being beaten, tasered, bludgeoned, and crushed - and assuming also that you're not too deaf to hear him pleading stop I'm not resisting, you're a liar and you are fooling NOBODY. I'd like to hear from somebody with a valid argument who is not in the fantasy world you appear to be in, mindlessly regurgitating your erroneous opinion that is in direct contradiction to what is shown in the video. Please go away or get a clue. YOU"RE FOOLING NO ONE.
You are fooling no one with that bs.
He was resisting.
It is in the video to see.
The Officers can be heard telling him to stop resisting, and one stating that he was fighting.

So stop with telling lies.
Kelly was clearly resisting.

His refusal to comply with the order to gut on the ground coupled with his then attempting to flee, is resistance as well.
An yet here you are dishonestly saying he wasn't resiting.
:doh
 
Re: Police not guilty in Kelly Thomas death; DA won't try 3rd officer

You are fooling no one with that bs.
He was resisting.
It is in the video to see.
The Officers can be heard telling him to stop resisting, and one stating that he was fighting.

So stop with telling lies.

Kelly was clearly resisting.

His refusal to comply with the order to gut on the ground coupled with his then attempting to flee, is resistance as well.
An yet here you are dishonestly saying he wasn't resiting.
:doh

You are annoying, deceitful, displaying the characteristics of a shill, and have no respect for basic rules of debate. I'm putting you on ignore now. Go take your meds. Goodbye. Loser.
 
Re: Police not guilty in Kelly Thomas death; DA won't try 3rd officer

You are annoying, deceitful, displaying the characteristics of a shill, and have no respect for basic rules of debate. I'm putting you on ignore now.
You are again speaking about yourself. Figures.

He was resisting.
That is known.
And evidenced by the video.

A shill would assert that which isn't true, like perhaps saying he wasn't resisting when the video clearly shows him to be doing just that.
Which is exactly what you are doing. Go figure.


Go take your meds. Goodbye. Loser.
WTF? :doh
Someone named sKiTzo, defending the indefensible actions of a schizophrenic is talking about meds?
Figures.
:lamo:lamo:lamo
 
Re: Police not guilty in Kelly Thomas death; DA won't try 3rd officer

I do not disagree. I was just wondering what you might suggest as a response if you start getting your ass beat anyway.

For every action...there's a reaction

Mark, the general public really have no idea what the continuum of force is and isn't acceptable use of force. Pretty much any use of force is decried as police brutality at some point.

On PD's....each develop their own use of force continuum....like a ladder (escalating steps) that LE employs to determine when and how much force should be deployed against *said* suspect.
 
Re: Police not guilty in Kelly Thomas death; DA won't try 3rd officer

That's one lie you keep spouting over and over and over and over again as if you expect us to suddenly believe you and not what our own eyes and ears tell us. You have eyes and ears too, and assuming you're not too blind to see that this 135 lb. weakling is pinned down by 5 cops being beaten, tasered, bludgeoned, and crushed - and assuming also that you're not too deaf to hear him pleading stop I'm not resisting, you're a liar and you are fooling NOBODY. I'd like to hear from somebody with a valid argument who is not in the fantasy world you appear to be in, mindlessly regurgitating your erroneous opinion that is in direct contradiction to what is shown in the video. Please go away or get a clue. YOU"RE FOOLING NO ONE.

If you try to reason with an EDP or drunk, you are asking for an ass-kicking. It's that simple.

The US Supreme Court has ruled LEOs are not required to use the minimum amount of force, but reasonable force and yes, there are times where an officer can and should talk to a suspect and attempt to reason with them but there are times when you can't and should not attempt to.

Policy, procedures, the LAW * the LAW* and experience come into play....The thing is COMPLY WITH THE COMMANDS THE FIRST TIME and avoid, the ass whippin
 
Re: Police not guilty in Kelly Thomas death; DA won't try 3rd officer

If you try to reason with an EDP or drunk, you are asking for an ass-kicking. It's that simple.

The US Supreme Court has ruled LEOs are not required to use the minimum amount of force, but reasonable force and yes, there are times where an officer can and should talk to a suspect and attempt to reason with them but there are times when you can't and should not attempt to.

Policy, procedures, the LAW * the LAW* and experience come into play....The thing is COMPLY WITH THE COMMANDS THE FIRST TIME and avoid, the ass whippin

Nice try.

Policies and procedures are always broken regularly, just like this case.

Excessive force was used.

To hard for those groupthink morons jacked up on adrenaline to know when to quit.

Happens every day.
 
Re: Police not guilty in Kelly Thomas death; DA won't try 3rd officer

Nice try.

Policies and procedures are always broken regularly, just like this case.

No....hence, the not guilty verdict
Excessive force was used.

Wrong again...hence, the not guilty verdict
To hard for those groupthink morons jacked up on adrenaline to know when to quit.

Happens every day.

This appears to be your *and many others* crucial mistake.....and here's why

Lets imagine for sec, you're a practitioner in a court of law and are legally qualified to prosecute and defend actions

Now, if you think that you got all the story from a video, then you are exactly the type of attorney who should not practice law.

Do you understand, now?
 
Re: Police not guilty in Kelly Thomas death; DA won't try 3rd officer

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.

[video=youtube_share;e6yaeD-E_MY]http://youtu.be/e6yaeD-E_MY[video]
I see you are not paying attention. Figures. The thread I quoted you from is about the rally for him.
And I have already told you there are other threads where this is thoroughly discussed. And yet, here you are still trying to take the thread off topic.
Strange indeed.

So lets bring it to one of those appropriate threads.

He was on the ground before they tazed him? OMG! Call the Police!
So what. He was resiting so much that they tased him. So what?
And it had no effect.


They commented on blood? OMG he was bleeding and still resisting. So what?


You don't see why it took 6 Officers? You do not see why while ignoring that multiple tasering had no effect. Strange.
He was resisting, that is why.


It only took three for you? And?
Are you Kelly? Why no, you are not. Duh!
Different situation and things happen with different people.
Next.


Yes he did say I couldn't breath. And?
You do realize that the mere fact that he could say that, says he could breath. Which means he was lying at that point.
Just like he was lying previously about his name and his ability to understand and do what he was told.
I already provided you the link, may be you should have read what was there.
This claim of his was put into proper perspective by experts.


That is resisting arrest? Yes he was resisting arrest. It is obvious in the video.
Kelly was in the wrong. Had he not resisted he would still be alive.
 
Re: Police not guilty in Kelly Thomas death; DA won't try 3rd officer

I see you are not paying attention. Figures. The thread I quoted you from is about the rally for him.
And I have already told you there are other threads where this is thoroughly discussed. And yet, here you are still trying to take the thread off topic.
Strange indeed.

So lets bring it to one of those appropriate threads.

He was on the ground before they tazed him? OMG! Call the Police!
So what. He was resiting so much that they tased him. So what?
And it had no effect.


They commented on blood? OMG he was bleeding and still resisting. So what?


You don't see why it took 6 Officers? You do not see why while ignoring that multiple tasering had no effect. Strange.
He was resisting, that is why.


It only took three for you? And?
Are you Kelly? Why no, you are not. Duh!
Different situation and things happen with different people.
Next.


Yes he did say I couldn't breath. And?
You do realize that the mere fact that he could say that, says he could breath. Which means he was lying at that point.
Just like he was lying previously about his name and his ability to understand and do what he was told.
I already provided you the link, may be you should have read what was there.
This claim of his was put into proper perspective by experts.


That is resisting arrest? Yes he was resisting arrest. It is obvious in the video.
Kelly was in the wrong. Had he not resisted he would still be alive.

What was he being arrested for? Was he ever advised of his Miranda rights? No, he was not, therefore I assume that he wasn't committing a crime. So this wasn't a case of a criminal being arrested for a crime. For an unknown reason, he was being bothered by the police who thought they should haul him in to the psych ward because they could.

So, no I don't see why it took 6 officers. Was he some kind of Mr. Universe who had so much strength they couldn't get his arms in cuffs? It must be nice to live in Fullerton where there's so little crime they can devote 6 officers to hassling the homeless. And after seeing how much he bled, not one of them said "Hey wait a second...?"

Do you think the police are always right? On what charge was he being arrested, and why was he never mirandized? Being such a hardened criminal as you assert, there must be a crime that he was being killed for.
 
Re: Police not guilty in Kelly Thomas death; DA won't try 3rd officer

Here is a better perspective.

Getting your head smashed into concrete repeatedly.

14c6e124aa761c64ab7f5474724e84f1[1].jpg

Getting arrested and cuffed.

kelly-thomas-hospital[1].jpg
 
Re: Police not guilty in Kelly Thomas death; DA won't try 3rd officer

Here is a better perspective.

Getting your head smashed into concrete repeatedly.

View attachment 67161001
:naughty
Wrong.
The first shows one strike to the persons face with a fist.

The second shows what happens when you grab and try to take the following device from an Officer trying to subdue you.
mx40gu-b781218380z.120131130195632000gdr1h8kpl.2.jpg


You get hit in the face with it, in a measured and controlled fashion.
 
Re: Police not guilty in Kelly Thomas death; DA won't try 3rd officer

If you try to reason with an EDP or drunk, you are asking for an ass-kicking. It's that simple.

The US Supreme Court has ruled LEOs are not required to use the minimum amount of force, but reasonable force and yes, there are times where an officer can and should talk to a suspect and attempt to reason with them but there are times when you can't and should not attempt to.

Policy, procedures, the LAW * the LAW* and experience come into play....The thing is COMPLY WITH THE COMMANDS THE FIRST TIME and avoid, the ass whippin

Take a step back and reassess it from the beginning. This was not a fugitive who was armed and dangerous. Deadly force was used. In question here, is whether the leo's feared for their life enough to warrant the deadly force. When the cop instructed Thomas to get down on the ground, Thomas remained standing. They knew, however, that Thomas had a mental condition, and they knew he was unarmed. He wasn't a threat in any way, so they never should have had their batons out.

If you actually believe 5 cops could not subdue and cuff this 135 lb. homeless guy in a matter of 15 seconds, then you lack the knowledge or skills required to make these assessments. All factors considered, it's unreasonable to say he could not have been subdued and cuffed without any bludgeoning or blows thrown at all. In one of the videos that a witness took with their cellphone of the altercation, you can hear bystanders saying "just cuff him already!". That's not something you would hear anybody say if it didn't appear that it could be done.
 
Re: Police not guilty in Kelly Thomas death; DA won't try 3rd officer

Take a step back and reassess it from the beginning.
You should really follow you own advice.

Deadly force was used.
No it wasn't.
The weight of the Officers inadvertently crushed his chest. That is not using deadly force.


In question here, is whether the leo's feared for their life enough to warrant the deadly force.
:naughty
No. That is not the question, as they did not use deadly force.


When the cop instructed Thomas to get down on the ground, Thomas remained standing. They knew, however, that Thomas had a mental condition, and they knew he was unarmed. He wasn't a threat in any way, so they never should have had their batons out.
Bs! Kelly failed to comply and then decided to flee. The use of a baton to gain compliance was appropriate.


If you actually believe 5 cops could not subdue and cuff this 135 lb. homeless guy in a matter of 15 seconds, then you lack the knowledge or skills required to make these assessments.
:doh
It is right there on video for all to see. Those five Officers had trouble subduing a resisting Kelly.


All factors considered, it's unreasonable to say he could not have been subdued and cuffed without any bludgeoning or blows thrown at all.
Nothing but bs, and is contradicted by the actual evidence in the video.


... you can hear bystanders saying "just cuff him already!". That's not something you would hear anybody say if it didn't appear that it could be done.
Just more meaningless bs.
 
Back
Top Bottom