• 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!

cop acquitted of murder captured on video

Bodhisattva said:
My rule of thumb is to never interact with police unless it is literally life or death for me or my daughter.
Click to expand...

Bodi, the majority of our Police Officers here are good people and they do a great job. I'm sure it's the same in NZ.
 
OldFatGuy said:
We recognize as part of system, that not only are courts fallible, they are subject to review by higher jurisdictions for corruption, error and violation of other laws.

In your not so humble opinion the court was wrong. :) Prove it. Make a case demonstrating how the court was wrong. Not maybe's, perhaps, or other opinions, but with factual evidence. And apparently the video won't do, because the court has already ruled against it and you don't know why. Pursuant to our judicial system's criminal parameters, innocent until proven guilty, an acquittal is an affirmation of innocence.

So present a case for appeal of the decision and judgment, or one that makes a case in the Federal jurisdiction based upon federal applicable law(s) that would lead to a conviction of some sort against the shooter. Those are your real options. Use them, fulfill them, or you have nothing other than whining positions to offer.

Are you an attorney, and if so or not, what kind of court did you present that argument to? Was it a criminal court, usually a state supreme court, or was it a small claims case, landlord tenant, or any other court geared toward protecting the consumer, and doing so often with an unfair hand? Were you pro ce in a matrimonial/family court? Do tell. I do have a sense of humor.
Click to expand...

I self represented three times... one a motion... one against the Unemployment Dept and once in Family Court for a case. I am not a lawyer but beat two lawyers and the third the Judge ruled in my favor. I am not here to present a case either... but if I were i would withdraw if not enough evidence went my way... or win, as is my routine.

Based off of the main and most important evidence that there is... and off statements too... the outcome is wrong in terms of guilt. Why the prosecuter bungled it... or the outcome favoured the cop... like I said... could have been a number of things.
 
Serenity said:
Bodi, the majority of our Police Officers here are good people and they do a great job. I'm sure it's the same in NZ.
Click to expand...

They look for wrong doing. After my ex-wife attacked me with her Judo and I called the Kiwi cops they tried to make it look like I engineered being attacked. How in tbe **** do you set something up in hopes a person will start attacking you in front of your children?

**** cops.
 
OldFatGuy said:
I wear two sheathed 3" throwing knives, under my shirt on my right arm. They are within the laws of the City of New York which allows the carry of blades less than 3 1/2 inches. Within ten feet of target, I can put one of those knives in a target's throat before that target can raise a pistol in hand but on a lowered arm to a shooting position. I assure you, I am far from the only individual with such skills.
Click to expand...

Lol. You question my experince in law then turn around and claim to be a ninja... :lol:
 
MaggieD said:
Then you are a reserve officer who was never involved in a life and death situation.
Click to expand...

I have been. And before I was a reserve officer as well.

but nice try and diversion.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
He was an idiot, and should have used the exact same procedure that is used during a felony car stop. This would have prevented all of this, but he kept escalating and building up tension to the point where it's almost like he's psyching himself up to shoot.

The amount of idiocy I'm reading here from people w/zero experience in law enforcement isn't surprising, but it's a pathetic thing to behold.
Click to expand...

I agree. Given the hype the officer was creating.. and the confusing commands. "if you put your hands down you will get shot..".. "Now crawl". Left leg crossed over right"

Its amazing to me that the fellow.. and now I understand he was inebriated as well? It amazes me that the fellow could be that compliant.
 
holbritter said:
It was clear as a bell that the guy reached towards his back as if reaching for a gun. But that was a very dramatic telling of what you thought you saw.
Click to expand...

Yeah no.. it was clear that he had no firearm.. from the angle you could see that he did not have one in his waistband or the small of his back. It was pretty obvious that in crawling his shorts got caught up in his leg and were being pulled and he reflexively reached to adjust them. Heck..he didn;t even get a chance to bring his hands back into view.. that minor deviation from crawling got him shot.
 
holbritter said:
They were called there because of a report that he had a gun! It ended up being a pellet gun he was waving around at the hotel window.
Click to expand...

there were probably a hundred people in that hotel that day. And so what if he had a gun? So? Cripes.. lots of people carry concealed and unconcealed legally. Not to mention all the other ways that people mistake something for a firearm.

Whats scary is that when stopped in a park talking to my mother on a cell phone.. in a minivan no less. I had police noticed two police officers coming up along side my vehicle in the sideview mirror. I put the window down and said.. whats going on officer. the officer looked into the car and radioed.. "Its just toys".

My two little boys.. age 4 and 5 had used legos to construct little "guns"..and were pretending that they were shooting things and each other in the back seat.. in their car seats.

Apparently.. some "concerned citizen" had called the police stating "their were gang members brandishing guns in the park".

Now.. according to your philosophy.. those police officers would have been perfectly within their rights to gun down everyone in the car based on "gang members brandishing guns".
 
Lutherf said:
No. I simply didn't give the cop a reason to freak out. I allowed him to give me whatever directions he felt were necessary and didn't make any stupid moves.
Click to expand...

No.. you simply ran into a police officer.. who is among the vast majority.. (though it seems less every day).. that did not panic.

You had a firearm.. he knew you had a firearm.. and if he was jumpy.. any of your movements "could" have been construed as a threat. Just like this kid.. who wasn;t even armed.
 
Lutherf said:
At that point he was under control. When he got on his knees and put both hands behind his back he was not under control. When he started crawling he was under control. When he reached back to his waist as he was crawling he was not under control. We're talking about a dynamic event. Circumstances change with every move.
Click to expand...

that dynamic event was caused purely by trying to comply with the police officers commands.. which were inconsistent and caused heightened stress to any individual..
 
Fledermaus said:
I have a point. One that you should have figured out earlier.

The CONTEXT is there was a call of a man with a GUN.

The CONTEXT is the man who had the GUN reached for his waist.

The CONTEXT is that no one at that time KNEW what GUNS were in play.
Click to expand...

You know what I do? Ask him to please stop moving, (assuming I already rifle ready as in this scenario).. until I identify that he is pulling his weapon out to kill me. That's what the law and common sense dictates.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Yes...and no. The policeman is right in that the guy reached in behind to his pants...and in that kind of situation it certainly could have looked as if he was reaching for a firearm. I could not in good conscience have convicted that policeman.

That being said, police today are trained to shoot first and investigate later - they're trained to be on a hair trigger. This is IMO a direct institutional reaction to the MUCH higher rate of police killings we had during the 1970's and 1980's...but the problem now is that because they're on a hair trigger, ready to shoot at the least sign of possible danger, a lot of innocent (or at least completely unarmed) civilians are getting shot and killed. IMO it's not the individual policeman's fault, but in the paranoia that is being instilled in them during their training. YES, that paranoia keeps some alive...but the problem is that that same paranoia is costing the lives of unarmed and non-threatening civilian lives...and it's making the civilian community distrust the police. If we want the civilians to trust the police, then the civilians have to see and believe that the police really are there to protect and serve.
Click to expand...

Good post.. and to add to that.. the civilian population has to hold the police responsible for their actions. Doing so is what will change the training, change the mindset and change the culture that has apparently developed.

and whats ironic.. is that its a safer time, with less violence.. than almost at any other time in history. the police have LESS to fear now overall.
 
Fledermaus said:
Which time was he instructed to reach for his waistband?
Click to expand...

He was instructed to crawl to the officer. In the process of trying to comply.. a drunk, scared kid.. arm went backwards to catch his balance, or to adjust his pants that were caught on his leg.

The officer had multiple views to see that there was no weapon in his waistband.. from the front. or the back.
 
jaeger19 said:
there were probably a hundred people in that hotel that day. And so what if he had a gun? So? Cripes.. lots of people carry concealed and unconcealed legally. Not to mention all the other ways that people mistake something for a firearm.

Whats scary is that when stopped in a park talking to my mother on a cell phone.. in a minivan no less. I had police noticed two police officers coming up along side my vehicle in the sideview mirror. I put the window down and said.. whats going on officer. the officer looked into the car and radioed.. "Its just toys".

My two little boys.. age 4 and 5 had used legos to construct little "guns"..and were pretending that they were shooting things and each other in the back seat.. in their car seats.

Apparently.. some "concerned citizen" had called the police stating "their were gang members brandishing guns in the park".

Now.. according to your philosophy.. those police officers would have been perfectly within their rights to gun down everyone in the car based on "gang members brandishing guns".
Click to expand...

That is what I was going to bring up. People calling cops over stupid things AND when police dispatchers dont relay CRUCIAL INFORMATION like when a citizen mentions it might be a toy...
 
Bodhisattva said:
That is what I was going to bring up. People calling cops over stupid things AND when police dispatchers dont relay CRUCIAL INFORMATION like when a citizen mentions it might be a toy...
Click to expand...

Heck... we had a woman call the police because she thought there was a domestic abuse going on in the alley behind her house. When the police arrived she went out to talk to the police.. and the policeman in the passenger side shot her. He thought he heard a loud noise and was startled.
 
jaeger19 said:
Heck... we had a woman call the police because she thought there was a domestic abuse going on in the alley behind her house. When the police arrived she went out to talk to the police.. and the policeman in the passenger side shot her. He thought he heard a loud noise and was startled.
Click to expand...

That was in Minneapolis? Deborah something?
 
GhostlyJoe said:
Shouting contradictory demands at gunpoint is standard procedure?
Click to expand...

No, it's really not. At least from my experiences.

I wasn't able to view the video earlier but I've watched it now with four others. All are on the same page. The Officer was an arrogant pig from the get go and the contradictory demands whilst threatening to kill at gun point are not standard procedure.

It's actually beyond disgusting that so many people are ok with a human life being disposed of so carelessly and easily.
 
I showed this video to a cop friend here at the Beach over a coffee at the boat ramp parking lot (He also browses this forum)

He was totally put off by the paranoia, fear, and incompetence.

His words:

They got the dude covered by cop with a "AR" and they are too afraid to cuff him while he's on his belly? The "M F'ers" should be pushing brooms, not policing.
 
RetiredUSN said:
I showed this video to a cop friend here at the Beach over a coffee at the boat ramp parking lot (He also browses this forum)

He was totally put off by the paranoia, fear, and incompetence.

His words:

They got the dude covered by cop with a "AR" and they are too afraid to cuff him while he's on his belly? The "M F'ers" should be pushing brooms, not policing.
Click to expand...

Bingo.

The Officers involved didn't appear to be interested in resolving the situation peacefully. He complied with their requests and immediately laid down on his belly. There was no good reason not to cuff him right then and there.
 
Bodhisattva said:
My rule of thumb is to never interact with police unless it is literally life or death for me or my daughter.
Click to expand...
Yeah. In that circumstance never call the police. Might not even call the police if I come home and my house has been burgled. They're ****ing out of control. But not every time a cop shoots is a "bad shot". What gets me is when the bad shots lead to acquittals.
 
Mr Person said:
In the context of the few minutes before that?

Looks more like he just pitched forward from a combination of adrenaline and booze. This stuff really shouldn't be a death sentence.






I find it terrifying that they have that power and get acquitted with ease. Want more compensation for the job? Better Pension? Fine. I'll pay more in taxes.

But with great power comes great responsibility. And it seems that they generally have less responsibility.
Click to expand...

All that mattered was that he reached behind him with his right hand, and the one whose body cam footage was shown could not see what the hand was reaching for. In a sensible world, the policeman wouldn't have shot...but this policeman was so hyped on adrenaline, and taught to be so paranoid in his training, that that's all it took for him to honestly feel endangered and so he ended the victim's life.

The problem isn't that policeman, but the training that instills such paranoia on the part of the police even as deaths of police are near a record low.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom