Los Angeles California - 5000 Angelenos For Kelly Thomas Protest

VanceMack said:

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.

Click to expand...

The use of force continuum is clearly spelled out and if police stay within those guidelines they are good to go.The officers stayed within those guidelines

This is straightforward....in the *real world*

The police's authority is to enforce the law and nothing more. Once he/she tells you you're under arrest and you don't comply/you resist/, bar the door because, the cop will use whatever force necessary up to and including killing you if that is what's called for.

A cop tells you you're under arrest and you say "**** you, cop...I ain't going and walk away..... you will get tased/OC/punched

Ignoring the police is the first step to not getting along with them. They only way LE have efficacy is if people hear, understand, and obey their commands. When failure to comply becomes the issue, it is extremely important to regain that compliance with......fill in the blanks

It's up to you whether you choose to accept

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.

CA Codes (pen:422-422.4)

Using your 'source'

Would you like varying legal opinions on verbal threats as a violation of law as well? Would it matter?

VanceMack said:

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.

Click to expand...

Random sampling?
iLOL
None of what you posted was relevant.

VanceMack said:

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.

Click to expand...

Repeating your dishonesty doesn't change the facts.
His actions were legal. And you did not provide California Penal Code. I did.
He was within his training. What he did was not illegal.
Nor does the following apply.


On to 422.
There was no threat to commit a crime.

Excon said:

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.

Click to expand...

:doh
:lamo
Apparently your emotions cause you to babel. I would suggest you learn the facts, as your narrative is off.
Way off.

ric27 said:

The use of force continuum is clearly spelled out and if police stay within those guidelines they are good to go.The officers stayed within those guidelines

This is straightforward....in the *real world*

The police's authority is to enforce the law and nothing more. Once he/she tells you you're under arrest and you don't comply/you resist/, bar the door because, the cop will use whatever force necessary up to and including killing you if that is what's called for.

A cop tells you you're under arrest and you say "**** you, cop...I ain't going and walk away..... you will get tased/OC/punched

Ignoring the police is the first step to not getting along with them. They only way LE have efficacy is if people hear, understand, and obey their commands. When failure to comply becomes the issue, it is extremely important to regain that compliance with......fill in the blanks

It's up to you whether you choose to accept

Click to expand...

The cop didnt say "Im placing you under arrest"...he got angry, put on gloves, balled up his fist, and said "I'm going to beat the **** out of you." I very clearly committed a criminal act.

Ive worked with cops for years. Ive responded to thousands of crisis calls with far more difficult suspects. That you find his actions for the 15:27 prior to the assault and his entire course of behavior acceptable is just...sad.

Excon said:

Random sampling?
iLOL
None of what you posted was relevant.


Repeating your dishonesty doesn't change the facts.
His actions were legal. And you did not provide California Penal Code. I did.

​

:doh
:lamo
Apparently your emotions cause you to babel. I would suggest you learn the facts, as your narrative is off.
Way off.

Click to expand...

Try it again. I used YOUR source...and I posted the California Penal Code. It mirrors the source from the previous post. Both my original source AND your source very clearly show that a verbal threat is classified as a criminal act.

VanceMack said:

The cop didnt say "Im placing you under arrest"...he got angry, put on gloves, balled up his fist, and said "I'm going to beat the **** out of you." I very clearly committed a criminal act.

Ive worked with cops for years. Ive responded to thousands of crisis calls with far more difficult suspects. That you find his actions for the 15:27 prior to the assault and his entire course of behavior acceptable is just...sad.

Click to expand...

Whether you *think*, the officer's actions were wrong or immoral... The fact is, the officer's actions were legal

Your emotions are not making you see, the final LEGAL aspect of this incident

VanceMack said:

Try it again. I used YOUR source...and I posted the California Penal Code. It mirrors the source from the previous post. Both my original source AND your source very clearly show that a verbal threat is classified as a criminal act.

Click to expand...

:doh
Figures you would reply before editing was complete.

You try again.

ric27 said:

Whether you *think*, the officer's actions were wrong or immoral... The fact is, the officer's actions were legal

Your emotions are not making you see, the final LEGAL aspect of this incident

Click to expand...

Its not about 'emotions'. The FACTS are that the cop is an embarrasing slug that engaged in a power play for 15:27, got angry, and broke the law by threatening to beat the **** out of a suspect and demonstrating the intent to do so. Your continued defense of his behavior is sad.

Excon said:

:doh
Figures you would reply before editing was complete.

You try again.

​

Click to expand...

Your posts are laughable. I have cited the applicable penal code. Both are identical. One of the two sources is the source YOU provided, just in case you wanted to keep posting your lies about the actual penal code.
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.

VanceMack said:

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

Click to expand...

I see you chose to ignore the wording of the law and the evidence again.
Figures.

Evidence ~ His actions were within his training.
Law ~ Threatens to commit a crime ...

His actions being within his training, says that he made no threat to commit a crime.
You can't change that no matter how much you try.

VanceMack said:

Its not about 'emotions'. The FACTS are that the cop is an embarrasing slug that engaged in a power play for 15:27, got angry, and broke the law by threatening to beat the **** out of a suspect and demonstrating the intent to do so. Your continued defense of his behavior is sad.

Click to expand...

Dept policy, the law, the jury.....including my behavior of my continued defense of the officers involved is sad?

VanceMack said:

Its not about 'emotions'. The FACTS are that the cop is an embarrasing slug that engaged in a power play for 15:27, got angry, and broke the law by threatening to beat the **** out of a suspect and demonstrating the intent to do so. Your continued defense of his behavior is sad.

Click to expand...

Those are not the facts, just ridiculous emotional opining from you.

Excon said:

: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.

Click to expand...

One difference is that I don't have a multi-paged thread in the basement in my honor.

Texmex said:

One difference ...

Click to expand...

No meaningful difference noted.
As I stated.

Excon said:

Those are not the facts, just ridiculous emotional opining from you.

Click to expand...

Why thats just horse****, son. Just like you refuse to accept the FACTS regarding the cited Ca Penal code, you refuse to see anything beyond your blind defense of Ramos.

ric27 said:

Dept policy, the law, the jury.....including my behavior of my continued defense of the officers involved is sad?

Click to expand...

Reeeeeeealllllllyyyyyyy? Please...DO cite department policy that endorses an officer breaking the law and threatening to beat the **** out of a suspect. Should be good for a laugh.

Yes...sad. Pathetic. Absolutely.

VanceMack said:

Reeeeeeealllllllyyyyyyy? Please...DO cite department policy that endorses an officer breaking the law and threatening to beat the **** out of a suspect. Should be good for a laugh.

Yes...sad. Pathetic. Absolutely.

Click to expand...

Once again, you continue to let your emotions dominate/control you and blatantly spew untruths

PDs encourage, the use of a taser as the first choice in a verbal non-compliance confrontation, age/gender is not considered a factor as far as the training of officers

An officer might do something that doesn't necessarily have to be done, but that doesn't mean that they are wrong or are not allowed to do it. Unfortunately, LEOs are in a damned if you do, damned if you don't job and yeah, it would nice and try to keep things all soft/friendly and talk them into getting in the back seat, but what about when *said suspect* goes ape****??

Basically, it's do as you are told, or get tased, tased again by back up, sprayed, and then on up the ladder

ric27 said:

Once again, you continue to let your emotions dominate/control you and blatantly spew untruths

PDs encourage, the use of a taser as the first choice in a verbal non-compliance confrontation, age/gender is not considered a factor as far as the training of officers

An officer might do something that doesn't necessarily have to be done, but that doesn't mean that they are wrong or are not allowed to do it. Unfortunately, LEOs are in a damned if you do, damned if you don't job and yeah, it would nice and try to keep things all soft/friendly and talk them into getting in the back seat, but what about when *said suspect* goes ape****??

Basically, it's do as you are told, or get tased, tased again by back up, sprayed, and then on up the ladder

Click to expand...

Its not about 'emotions'. Its not an 'emotional' response...it is a factual response. I have personally been on thousands of crisis calls with people that were actually dangerous and represented a real threat. This guy was NOT dangerous and did NOT represent a threat. Ramos spent 15:27 engaged in a power play, then lost his temper and committed a crime. The law you keep hiding behind does NOT say "no one can threaten violent harm...well...except police officers" Your assertion is that somehow because he was a cop that exempts him from responsibility for making a verbalized threat to beat the **** out of someone. Your argument is foolish. Your defense is sad. Your continued insistence that law enforcement can and should behave in such a manner is pathetic.

I have no doubt you will continue to blindly defend Ramos. Can you answer why he is FORMER officer Ramos?

VanceMack said:

Why thats just horse****, son. Just like you refuse to accept the FACTS regarding the cited Ca Penal code, you refuse to see anything beyond your blind defense of Ramos.

Click to expand...

I have no idea who you think you are trying to bamboozle, but no, it isn't horse ****. Those are not the facts, just ridiculous emotional opining from you.

All you originally provided is what you said the law defines it as you did not provide the actual law as I did.

I have no clue why you want to continue arguing what you were wrong about, but oh well...
The following is you not actually providing the law. But only providing a persons interpretation of the law.
The info you provided above, which was unsourced, can be found at the following.
California laws on "Criminal Threats" | Penal Code 422 PC
Which is not the actual law.
(And yes, you did later provide the full law after you were challenged as not providing it, which in no way negates that challenge)


Then "Dittohead not!" switched it up to "Assault", in which, unlike you I provided the actual law.

We then got back to 422 when he quotes what you provided.

At which time I respond with the relevant portion of the actual law.



Of which, from all of the above, nothing applies.
As the Officers were acting within their training. You can not get around that no matter how you try.
And even more telling in the debate, as to which side is correct, is the fact that they were not charged with any such a crime. Duh!

VanceMack said:

Its not about 'emotions'. Its not an 'emotional' response...it is a factual response.

Click to expand...

No it wasn't. It was emotional tripe.


As for the Officers being out of a job?
And?
A decision based on uninformed public outrage, of what the terminating authority believes wasn't proper conduct for their Department, in no way shape or form says it was criminal.
They had a trial for that and were found not guilty.

VanceMack said:

Its not about 'emotions'. Its not an 'emotional' response...it is a factual response. I have personally been on thousands of crisis calls with people that were actually dangerous and represented a real threat. This guy was NOT dangerous and did NOT represent a threat. Ramos spent 15:27 engaged in a power play, then lost his temper and committed a crime. The law you keep hiding behind does NOT say "no one can threaten violent harm...well...except police officers" Your assertion is that somehow because he was a cop that exempts him from responsibility for making a verbalized threat to beat the **** out of someone. Your argument is foolish. Your defense is sad. Your continued insistence that law enforcement can and should behave in such a manner is pathetic.

I have no doubt you will continue to blindly defend Ramos. Can you answer why he is FORMER officer Ramos?

Click to expand...

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

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...

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.

Excon said:

I have no idea who you think you are trying to bamboozle, but no, it isn't horse ****. Those are not the facts, just ridiculous emotional opining from you.

All you originally provided is what you said the law defines it as you did not provide the actual law as I did.

I have no clue why you want to continue arguing what you were wrong about, but oh well...
The following is you not actually providing the law. But only providing a persons interpretation of the law.

​

The info you provided above, which was unsourced, can be found at the following.
California laws on "Criminal Threats" | Penal Code 422 PC
Which is not the actual law.
(And yes, you did later provide the full law after you were challenged as not providing it, which in no way negates that challenge)


Then "Dittohead not!" switched it up to "Assault", in which, unlike you I provided the actual law.

​

We then got back to 422 when he quotes what you provided.

At which time I respond with the relevant portion of the actual law.

​

Of which, from all of the above, nothing applies.
As the Officers were acting within their training. You can not get around that no matter how you try.
And even more telling in the debate, as to which side is correct, is the fact that they were not charged with any such a crime. Duh!




No it wasn't. It was emotional tripe.


As for the Officers being out of a job?
And?
A decision based on uninformed public outrage, of what the terminating authority believes wasn't proper conduct for their Department, in no way shape or form says it was criminal.
They had a trial for that and were found not guilty.

Click to expand...

:lamo That was a pathetic attempt at tap dancing. I offered two codes for comparison showing Ramos actions were illegal and would in in pretty much every state. I cited both the Texas and Ca law. I then cited it with a second source and finally cited it with yet a third source, the third being one YOU used so you couldnt give a mindless rebuttal based on sources. They all said the same thing. They all show quite clearly that Ramos violated the Ca Penal code. AND he was a pathetic cop to boot. He engaged in a power play for 15:27 second...got pissed, and threatened to beat the **** out of a suspect. He got fired for his actions.

VanceMack said:

:lamo That was a pathetic attempt at tap dancing. I offered two codes for comparison showing Ramos actions were illegal and would in in pretty much every state. I cited both the Texas and Ca law. I then cited it with a second source and finally cited it with yet a third source, the third being one YOU used so you couldnt give a mindless rebuttal based on sources. They all said the same thing. They all show quite clearly that Ramos violated the Ca Penal code. AND he was a pathetic cop to boot. He engaged in a power play for 15:27 second...got pissed, and threatened to beat the **** out of a suspect. He got fired for his actions.

Click to expand...

It is a waste of time trying to convince blind followers the wrong act of Ramos. The one fact that stands glaringly out is even though this jury found him not guilty his own police dept fired him.

One cannot have an agency without any checks and balance as absolute power corrupts. This sort of gestapo police action can not be allowed in our country.

He was a pathetic piece of garbage to be wearing that badge. What are the standards down there? Obvious being fit for the job is not a criteria.

Crosscheck said:

It is a waste of time trying to convince blind followers the wrong act of Ramos. The one fact that stands glaringly out is even though this jury found him not guilty his own police dept fired him.

One cannot have an agency without any checks and balance as absolute power corrupts. This sort of gestapo police action can not be allowed in our country.

He was a pathetic piece of garbage to be wearing that badge. What are the standards down there? Obvious being fit for the job is not a criteria.

Click to expand...

They were charged with 2nd degree murder and manslaughter. I think it would have been tough to prove those charges. Ramos wasnt charged with wht he was obviously guilty of...however it did cost him his job.

VanceMack said:

That was a pathetic attempt at tap dancing.

Click to expand...

The tap dancing has been all yours, as shown.

VanceMack said:

I offered two codes for comparison showing

Click to expand...

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

VanceMack said:

Ramos actions were illegal and would in in pretty much every state.

Click to expand...

You have shown no such thing.

VanceMack said:

I cited both the Texas and Ca law.

Click to expand...

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

VanceMack said:

I then cited it with a second source and finally cited it with yet a third source, the third being one YOU used so you couldnt give a mindless rebuttal based on sources.

Click to expand...

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.

VanceMack said:

They all show quite clearly that Ramos violated the Ca Penal code.

Click to expand...

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.

VanceMack said:

AND he was a pathetic cop to boot. He engaged in a power play for 15:27 second...got pissed, and threatened to beat the **** out of a suspect. He got fired for his actions.

Click to expand...

: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.

---

Crosscheck said:

It is a waste of time trying to convince blind followers the wrong act of Ramos.

Click to expand...

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

Crosscheck said:

He was a pathetic piece of garbage to be wearing that badge.

Click to expand...

See, emotive nonsense.

Crosscheck said:

The one fact that stands glaringly out is even though this jury found him not guilty his own police dept fired him.

Click to expand...

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.