It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lawyer, 3 CHP officers linked to killing of ‘scrapper’

page: 1
16
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Didn't think this belonged in the PC forum, as the story extends well beyond "just" police misconduct.

Summary is that an attorney killed a would-be thief who had entered his property. Said attorney then used several personal connections to not only cover up the killing but to get the body moved and dumped in a national forest. So far there's been three CHP officers, the attorney, and two owners of a liquor store that have been implicated and arrested in the case.

Opinion: the guy's mugshot says it all. He clearly doesn't give much of a damn about what he did or what he orchestrated. He's a smug little prick who obviously thinks he's going to skate on everything. Truly disgusting, and I hope the lot of them catch convictions and prison time.

sfgate.com...




posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

They got caught, probably not the first time they acted as judge jury and executioner, either.


The 326-page arrest affidavit, which reads like a macabre and fantastical television drama, identifies Carson, who ran unsuccessfully for Modesto district attorney last year, as the vengeful ringleader in an elaborate scheme to stop scrap collectors from sneaking onto property he owned in Turlock, taking metal and selling it to junkyards.

If they make a movie out of it it will probably play like "The Enforcer" with Clint Eastwood.

The guy who would be DA and his ring of killer cops.

That just made my day.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

smiling in his mugshot like a clown (literally), wow.

at least the last guy was genuinely remorseful and even visibly distraught in his mugshot. That attorney guy is inhuman though - he very likely thinks he's above the law, especially if he thought he could serve as DA.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: FamCore

Agreed. That's one of the more disturbing mugshots I've seen on a while. The level of disconnect his mugshot portrays is pretty mind boggling. Zero effs given by him from what I can tell.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

That doesnt look like a "mug shot" to me.

Im not sure what the laws are in Cali pertaining to killing intruders, but he must have thought it was illegal, otherwise why dispose of the body? If he can get 3 highway patrol cops to help him cover up a murder, he probably knows enough people to get away with it.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Urantia1111

Looks like it to me, if only because there's four other pictures with similar lighting and background. But you may be right, though if that's the case I'd be curious to know where the other pictures were all taken.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Holy crap, the fact that he went out of his way to cover all this up makes me think the shooting must have been iffy in his eyes.

Going to interesting to see where this goes.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Damn, the big grin on his face. That's your typical "I'm gonna slide on this one" grin if I ever saw one.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

I'm surprised this is just now posted. I saw it a couple of days ago and almost started a thread.

The article I read mentioned that some of those charged were his wife/girlfriend (I can't recall which) and the daughter.

There were no details on what they were specifically accused of or charged with, but something about a firearm charge and accessory.
The article I read did not mention the a *why* to the killing, but this looks like some seriously shady business.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

I was surprised too.

I think it was his wife and stepdaughter, if I remember correctly. I also found the lack of mentioning specific charges to be kind of peculiar. I'd love to know what they're involvement all was in this.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 06:04 PM
link   
What's sad is people are wringing their hands over the death and subsequent game of 'hide-the-body' of some meth-addled copper thief.

The only problem I see is that the state of California makes people defacto felons for defending their property, livelihood and lives. Here you have an example of the existence of a known thief being placed above that of the general population. I'll bet the only reason the body was drug all over the state is because Kauffman knew this and feared the righteous retribution from the state.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Lipton




What's sad is people are wringing their hands over the death and subsequent game of 'hide-the-body' of some meth-addled copper thief.



No where did it say anything about a meth addiction. You know something we don't? Or just assuming the guy deserved to die by the hands of some rat bastard who thinks he's above the law? If he was only "defending his property" why hide all this. Why not just call the cops, report what happened and be done? He's a lawyer. He knows what he can and can not do. That he went so far to hide what he did, tells me he probably flew off the handle, killed the guy and then realized he better make the body disappear before some cops that were not in his pocket starting asking awkward questions.


The affidavit alleges that Carson was known to confront and threaten people he believed stole from his property. He allegedly investigated cases of thefts on his own without contacting police, the document says, and had a violent temper, at one point screaming at, charging and shoving a Stanislaus County Superior Court employee.



edit on 15-8-2015 by DAVID64 because: typo



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Lipton




feared the righteous retribution from the state.



What politics are your peddling? Man I feel sorry for you.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Wow Shamrock another thread about bad cops?

Genuine question,Why is it if you do it no big deal, and i post 1 im a cop hater with an agenda to push?


(post by Shamrock6 removed for a manners violation)
(post by alienjuggalo removed for a manners violation)

posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: alienjuggalo

Lol! Next you're going to ask where I live and say you'd like to "hang out" sometime, right?

Ta-ta



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Stand your ground didn't cover this? Why did they have to go through all that trouble? I'm confused.

Stand-your-ground the rule in state, courts affirm
edit on 8/16/2015 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Most stand your ground laws require you to retreat and be in imminent threat to your life to shoot someone.

California Stand Your Ground Law:


1) Neither California’s constitution nor its statutes contains a stand-your-ground law. They have what’s known as a “castle doctrine” (California Penal Code Section 198.5), granting a justification for deadly force inside one’s residence. If someone forces his or her way into your home, and you have a “reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury,” then you would be justified in using deadly force to defend yourself.



“A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/great bodily injury/) has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.”

So in California, not only could you stay and fight, you can even chase your attacker if it will neutralize the threat to your life.

3) California’s stand-your-ground defense as part of the justifiable homicide rules has several conditions. Aggressors are not eligible for this — you must be defending, not striking first. You, as a reasonable person, would have to believe the danger is imminent and not a threat at some time in the future. Also, you had to have believed that deadly force was necessary, and you had to have used just enough force to defend yourself. However, a defendant does not have to be correct about having actually been in danger. A jury can acquit if they think the defendant reasonably believed that mortal danger was truly there.

ww2.kqed.org...

He wasn't in his house, he was on his property. Castle doctrine didn't apply.
edit on 8/16/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Okay.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<<   2 >>

log in

join