• 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

And again.
This was not an assault. ...

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.

OK, so, assuming you're correct and the injuries were inadvertent, then perhaps technically "assault" is not the proper charge. Criminal threat may be more accurate.
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.
 
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.

I understand. The guy may not have been a dangerous criminal, but he was dangerous. One of the reasons folks on PCP can be dangerous is that the normal safeguards (pain response, judgement and evaluating thought) are switched off. The same can be true of mentally ill folks. The word used to be berserkers.
 
When you ball up your fist and offer to beat the (bleep!) out of someone, that is assault.

When you actually do beat the (bleep!) out of them, than that is battery.

And assault is against the law, at least for most of us.

NOT when it's in response to an out of control force as was the case here.
 
OK, so, assuming you're correct and the injuries were inadvertent, then perhaps technically "assault" is not the proper charge. Criminal threat may be more accurate.
You are reaching to an extreme, and it is why you are wrong.
He was acting in Official capacity attempting to gain compliance. Acting within his training.
He was not threatening to commit a crime.

422. (a) Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime [...]
 
OK, so, assuming you're correct and the injuries were inadvertent, then perhaps technically "assault" is not the proper charge. Criminal threat may be more accurate.

There's no assuming. He is correct

No assault and no criminal threat by, the LEO

Don't mess around with the officer trying to arrest you and you won't get tased/OC or punched in the face. Seems simple enough.
 
There's no assuming. He is correct

No assault and no criminal threat by, the LEO

Don't mess around with the officer trying to arrest you and you won't get tased/OC or punched in the face. Seems simple enough.
as long as you're rational, yes, that might work.
 
as long as you're rational, yes, that might work.


I can also tell you that having, the right attitude can be helpful like using these simple words....

Yes sir, no sir, thank you sir, etc...
 
:doh
Attempt to have an Officer, who acted in official capacity and within his training, charged with such, and watch yourself get laughed out of the Office.
So...you excuse criminal behavior...as long as it is criminal behavior by an officer.
 
You are reaching to an extreme, and it is why you are wrong.
He was acting in Official capacity attempting to gain compliance. Acting within his training.
He was not threatening to commit a crime.

422. (a) Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime [...]
ANY person. NOT "Any person except cops...because they can do whatever they want..."

****ty cop did a piss poor job of dealing with a suspect, then committed a crime, and the suspect is dead.
 
Still more absurdity. And the only thing criminal was Kelly's resistance.

Stop being so emotional.
Kelly was in the wrong, so get over it.
There is a general understanding that targets of law enforcement will not act reasonable and cooperative. That doesnt give law enforcement officers carte blanche to beat the **** out of them or even threaten to do so. Cuz...see...thats a crime...
 
There's no assuming. He is correct

No assault and no criminal threat by, the LEO

Don't mess around with the officer trying to arrest you and you won't get tased/OC or punched in the face. Seems simple enough.
So...you "read up"....you just dont care what the law says if it differs with your opinion.
 
I can also tell you that having, the right attitude can be helpful like using these simple words....

Yes sir, no sir, thank you sir, etc...

You don't have to tell me. Tell the next delusional paranoid you meet.
 
So...you excuse criminal behavior...as long as it is criminal behavior by an officer.
As it wasn't criminal behavior on the Officers part, you are exaggerating.


422. (a) Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime [...]
ANY person. NOT "Any person except cops...because they can do whatever they want..."

****ty cop did a piss poor job of dealing with a suspect, then committed a crime, and the suspect is dead.
D'oh!
You are ignoring the operative words. "...threatens to commit a crime..." That didn't happen.

And you are ignoring what was testified to during trial to come to such a conclusion.

But for the foul language, his actions were within his training. They were legal.


There is a general understanding that targets of law enforcement will not act reasonable and cooperative. That doesnt give law enforcement officers carte blanche to beat the **** out of them or even threaten to do so. Cuz...see...thats a crime...
Still spouting nonsense I see.
Figures.

Your emotions are preventing you from staying within the evidence.
 
As it wasn't criminal behavior on the Officers part, you are exaggerating.



D'oh!
You are ignoring the operative words. "...threatens to commit a crime..." That didn't happen.

And you are ignoring what was testified to during trial to come to such a conclusion.

But for the foul language, his actions were within his training. They were legal.


Still spouting nonsense I see.
Figures.

Your emotions are preventing you from staying within the evidence.
I posted the actual legal code. His actions were in fact a crime. That you defend that slug of a cop is just sad. He failed miserably dealing with a guy for 15:27 and then lost his cool and threatened an assault and in the process committed a crime. Then they proceeded to act on the threat. because Ramos is a ****ty cop, the suspect died.
 
I posted the actual legal code. His actions were in fact a crime.
:naughty
No. I actually posted the relevant legal code from California. His actions were legal.
What you posted was legal code from Texas, which is not relevant to an Officer in California. And even if this had taken place in Texas, still not relevant as his actions were still legal.


That you defend that slug of a cop
Emotive tripe!


He failed miserably dealing with a guy for 15:27 and then lost his cool and threatened an assault and in the process committed a crime.
Emotive tripe.
The amount of time showed just how patient he was being with Kelly.
Nor did he commit a crime.
He made a hollow threat, that was not acted upon, in an attempt to gain compliance from Kelly. As testified to, but for the foul language his actions were within training. They were not illegal or a crime.


Then they proceeded to act on the threat. because Ramos is a ****ty cop, the suspect died.
The hollow threat that was not acted upon, is separated by events from Kelly that caused both officers to react. That reaction had absolutely nothing to do with any hollow threat made.
Kelly resisting brought about his own death.
 
I believe Excon is just playing devil's advocate. No one is that stupid or uncaring.
 
You don't have to tell me. Tell the next delusional paranoid you meet.

There you go....now, you get it

There is no nice way to arrest a potentially dangerous, combative suspect.
 
:naughty
No. I actually posted the relevant legal code from California. His actions were legal.
What you posted was legal code from Texas, which is not relevant to an Officer in California. And even if this had taken place in Texas, still not relevant as his actions were still legal.


Emotive tripe!


Emotive tripe.
The amount of time showed just how patient he was being with Kelly.
Nor did he commit a crime.
He made a hollow threat, that was not acted upon, in an attempt to gain compliance from Kelly. As testified to, but for the foul language his actions were within training. They were not illegal or a crime.


The hollow threat that was not acted upon, is separated by events from Kelly that caused both officers to react. That reaction had absolutely nothing to do with any hollow threat made.
Kelly resisting brought about his own death.
No...I posted BOTH the Texas AND California penal code. You can try to deny it all you want.You can ignore the facts all you want and cling to your defense of a worthless scumbag cop that is such a slug he couldnt handle a basic face to face with an unocoperative suspect without losing his temper, violating the law, and then beating the **** out of the guy.

Your defense of him is...sad...
 
There you go....now, you get it

There is no nice way to arrest a potentially dangerous, combative suspect.
Horse****. LE does this every day. Hell Ive seen cops talk people in active psychosis talk them into putting the cuffs on themselves. This individual was not delusional or paranoid but if he WAS...hell thats even MORE of a reason for them to handle him differently.
 
Horse****. LE does this every day. Hell Ive seen cops talk people in active psychosis talk them into putting the cuffs on themselves. This individual was not delusional or paranoid but if he WAS...hell thats even MORE of a reason for them to handle him differently.

Oh, "I've seen cops" or "I've taken calls for whatever"....means squat

Watch your lane markers. If you are not a LEO, you have no idea what its like to be a LEO in a street fight at 3am or any other time for that matter. The officer did what he could as well as he could of at the time. If he was in my *framework* Id still be buying him beers for taking care of business.
 
Oh, "I've seen cops" or "I've taken calls for whatever"....means squat

Watch your lane markers. If you are not a LEO, you have no idea what its like to be a LEO in a street fight at 3am or any other time for that matter. The officer did what he could as well as he could of at the time. If he was in my *framework* Id still be buying him beers for taking care of business.
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.
 
I believe Excon is just playing devil's advocate. No one is that stupid or uncaring.
:doh
Excuse me?
:lamo
Apparently your comments more accurately reflect upon you than they do upon me.

If you hadn't noticed I stated that if what he says is true, it is excessive force.

The problem with it possibly being true is that his story and the circumstances cast suspicion on his claim.
Stupid would be not recognizing that. And that is hardly uncaring.
 
No...I posted BOTH the Texas AND California penal code.
:naughty
You posted irrelevant Texas penal code.
It didn't apply to California, nor to the facts of this case.
You then also included a definition from what you believe is the applicable California penal code. Not that actual Penal Code itself.
Which actually appears as an act of deception.
I later provided the actual Penal Code, which does not apply to this case because he did not make an unlawful attempt to commit a violent injury.


You can try to deny it all you want.You can ignore the facts all you want
:doh
:lamo
You are the only one clinging, denying and ignoring the facts.
His actions were within his training. They were legal. Stop ignoring the facts.


Your defense of him is...sad...
:naughty
What is sad, is you not defending his legal actions.
 
:naughty
You posted irrelevant Texas penal code.
It didn't apply to California, nor to the facts of this case.
You then also included a definition from what you believe is the applicable California penal code. Not that actual Penal Code itself.
Which actually appears as an act of deception.
I later provided the actual Penal Code, which does not apply to this case because he did not make an unlawful attempt to commit a violent injury.


:doh
:lamo
You are the only one clinging, denying and ignoring the facts.
His actions were within his training. They were legal. Stop ignoring the facts.


:naughty
What is sad, is you not defending his legal actions.
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.

"Please go try it...see how that works out for you. Now...I wont bother you with EVERY code...but the Texas and California law reads as thus...

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.

You know...just in case you want to "read up"...."

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.
 
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
 
Back
Top Bottom