Activist Forward March!

Activist Forward March!

www.infowars.com

When a cop murders a civilian it’s a mistake, but when a civilian kills a cop it’s a tragedy. This is what we’ve allowed the mainstream media to get away with by feeding us such deceptive hocus-pocus that we accept this party line. In Seattle and Oakland, John T. Williams and Oscar Grant were both murdered in cold blood with witnesses present and with video evidence; their precious lives brutality taken by the hands of police officers. The outcome?

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.stopfbi.net
www.copblock.org

Once again, our beloved and Sworn civil servants are at it again. With the brutal slaying's of individuals, not only video taped, but with witnesses as well. And yet, once again, the motion of due process fails once again.
With the technicality of " no witness can administer charges when a police officer makes an arguably ‘good faith’ mistake," then why cant a " civilian kills a cop in “good faith” will prosecutors abstain in making murder charges stick? " Why the double standard?
Just sickening, and to think there are those who don't think the " police state " is gaining momentum?

www.infowars.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by Whereweheaded


There is a Supreme Court ruling that introduces the legal concept of not judging an Officers use of force based on 20/20 hindsight.

The standard is what did the Officer perceive at the exact moment the use of force occured. Whether people agree with that or not, I could honeslty care less, since the ruling is handed down by the Judicial branch.

I always find it intresting that people demand the rule of law, while at the same time demanding that rule not apply to law enforcement.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I see your point, but I certainly believe that the " rule of law " should be administered to all subjects, civil servants or other. Just because you have a badge, doesn't mean that officer is now " free " of his/her responsibilities, or actions.

Without any video of the shooting, contrary to what you said, how could you or anyone else possibly know what happened at the moment of the shooting? You don't know and I don't know.It is very suspicious, but since when are we convicted based on suspicion?

Taking on a cause and spinning the facts just to get attention, seems to describe most "Activists". "Activists Forward March" Adults take the matter to Civil Court and petition the Legislature to change the Laws to work better. Children sit in the street and smoke joint's while pretending to care about a cause they could care less about. By next week the Activists will adopt a new cause, while the people who really matter write their Legislators and hopefully a good attorney will take this matter to a Civil Court for resolution.

"Activists Forward March"

reply to post by Whereweheaded


People are ignoring what they are saying. They are saying they don 't have enough proof to proceed with criminal charges. They are not saying the Officer was right or wrong. In fact they are implying the opposite.

People always develop selective hearing and comprehension when the topic is an emotional one. Normal human nature to do so, but it does not change facts, no matter how they are spun.

reply to post by Blaine91555

Without any video of the shooting, contrary to what you said, how could you or anyone else possibly know what happened at the moment of the shooting? You don't know and I don't know.It is very suspicious, but since when are we convicted based on suspicion?

I understand your view, but the video ( on the above link ) tells the story that the officer in question resigned. With that, why else resign, if your not guilty of a criminal act?

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Blaine91555

While prosecutor Dan Satterberg stated that he was unable to press charges on cop Ian Birk who brutality murdered John T. Williams, because “under the 1986 statute, he can’t file charges when a police officer makes an arguably ‘good faith’ mistake, he insisted.”

Its not about the lack of facts, its about a statute that prevents any criminal charges against an unruly officer.

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

I see your point, but I certainly believe that the " rule of law " should be administered to all subjects, civil servants or other. Just because you have a badge, doesn't mean that officer is now " free " of his/her responsibilities, or actions.

We agree on that point so no worries there. What is ignored though, at least in my view from seeing some of these articles, is the laws that govern officer actions. If a person kicks down your front door, takes you hostage and ransacks your home, its a crime.

If a cop does the same thing, its also a crime (without any type of call pending etc).

The difference between the 2 is the type of crime, which are different from each other, because we are covered under laws that do not apply to the individual.

If a person is walking down the street with a an exposed knife, a civilian is under no obligation to confront the person to see whats going on. Law Enforcement, on our own, can stop and ask but if no laws are being broken its a mute point.

If dispatch receives 911 calls, it becomes something else entirely, as we are now required to check into the incident in order to clear the call out.

In the example of the deaf in one ear guy, im going to point out hindsight is 20/20. The officer who was involved with that had no idea the guy was deaf in one ear. All he knows is they recevied reports of a guy walking down the street with a knife in his hand. They show up, the guy ignored verbal commands, and ends up being shot and killed.
Did the guy ignore the officer? Did he not hear the officer? He had one ear with sound ability.

I am not defending their actions, I am just pointing out that its not as clear and cut as people think. There are differeing guidelines for law enforcement that have been granted by consent of the people and supreme court rulings that give us a greater leeway so we can investigate crimes.

Without that leeway we would not be able to do our jobs.

The law says a person cannot exceede the posted speedlimit. Cops are bound to that as well, unless we are responding to a call that is priority 1 or 2 (will vary by agency and state). There is a seperate law that allows law enforcement to violate established laws in order to do our jobs.

Exceeding speed limit
stopping / standing on a highway
disregarding redlights
disregarding any traffic direction (driving wrong way on the highway)
use of force


This is the point I am trying to make.. I dont want to argue or anything like that because I do understand your point and the articles intent, but I do want to put some more info out there that its not always as clear cut as what people think.

reply to post by Whereweheaded


I never said he was not guilty? I don't know that one way or the other and apparently the DA can't prove intent and HAD TO do what they did.

That Law likely needs to be revisited and changed. A bunch of "Activists" jumping on board the "cause célèbre" of the day won't do any good. Using the system to enact change will.

I can understand this homeless mans community venting, but to suggest a bunch of uninvolved "Activists" should jump on board is not helpful. I was an Activist during the Vietnam War and I know for a fact most Activists jump on these things for attention and treat it like a party. Half of them would have spit on this guy before this happened to him. You only need to be around these radicals for a short time before you realize how phony they are.

Look at Wisconsin where now the Pro-Communists and International Socialists groups are jumping in front of the camera's, even though they have nothing to do with the protest. I saw a video of them doing drugs and partying in the State Capitol. All that does is hurt the Teachers cause and guarantee the silent majority will be even more disgusted about the whole thing. These Activists are such cowards I noticed some are wearing scarves to cover their faces.

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by Blaine91555

 

Without any video of the shooting, contrary to what you said, how could you or anyone else possibly know what happened at the moment of the shooting? You don't know and I don't know.It is very suspicious, but since when are we convicted based on suspicion?

I understand your view, but the video ( on the above link ) tells the story that the officer in question resigned. With that, why else resign, if your not guilty of a criminal act?

www.youtube.com...

edit on 21-2-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-2-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)

NONONONO... A resignation is not a result of guilt, nor should it ever be considered one. As I said before, we are protected by the very laws that protect accused people, that they are innocent until proven guilty.

I have seen officers who have been invovled in a clean shoot resign because of the shoot itself (the actuality of pulling your duty wapon, pointing it another living human, and pulling the trigger - No amount of training will ever prepare a person for that action).

In this instance, even if there are no charges filed against the officer because of the "what did he perceive the moment the use of force occured standard", the officer has to deal with the fact his actions, while covered by law, ended a persons life.

A resignation in this case is not an admission of guilt. If anything it can be taken as a sign of remorse with the action of resigning being done to prevent the officer from ever making another "mistake" of that magnitude.

The protection of the law in this case is not comforting in the least. This officer will have to live with his actions, and that is not ogoing to be easy. Even if the victems family forgives the officer, it does not mean the officer will ever forgive himself.

Law Enforcement is not a black and white profession as people think it is. Think about it, your a cop, you are sent to a report of a man walking down the street with a knife. You find the guy, get out of your car and stand directly in front of the guy about 40 feet away. You start giving loud verbal commands for the guy, who has a knife in hand, to stop. Because of the hearing issue, the guy has no idea what you are saying and continues to advance.

There is the 21-26 feet rule with armed subjects who have a knife. They can traverse 21-26 feet before an officer can draw his duty weapon, bring it to bear and pull the trigger before the distance is covered.

The guy is continuing to come at you, albeit he is walking, while ignoring your commands. Do you shoot? Back away? are there other peope around who could be targets of the guy with the knife?

A lot of info to process for a split second decison.

People ignore that aspect when judging officers on a use of force encounter.

reply to post by Xcathdra


The Supreme Court is not supposed to be legislating! That is the main problem with our judicial system now, every ruling is based on precedent instead of being based on the individual circumstances and a judgement by a jury of our peers.

Castle Doctrine in Florida says I can use lethal force in defense of my life or the life of another person, so if I see a cop clearly "murdering" someone, I would be justified in using lethal force against the cop. I'm am sure the court system would not see it that way, but why not?

What if all those witnesses had jumped on these officers and dealt out vigilante justice on the spot? Would we crucify them or celebrate them? Would the public take the time to delve into the story, or would they believe a sound bite and a headline and swallow the official story wholeheartedly? Would ATS be any better than the general public? Would the typical cop haters celebrate while the typical cop cheerleaders demonized, or would we all read the story and try to determing the facts?

Our McNews, and our overarching Judicial System is the central problem. We have taken the human element out of our system. We have tied the hands of our juries and refused to let common sense have a place in the courtroom. We have spoonfed soundbites and catchy headlines to the masses and taken away all critical thought.

As long as we are settling these cases based on Supreme Court rulings and legal precedents, we will not be doing anybody justice.

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by Blaine91555

 

While prosecutor Dan Satterberg stated that he was unable to press charges on cop Ian Birk who brutality murdered John T. Williams, because “under the 1986 statute, he can’t file charges when a police officer makes an arguably ‘good faith’ mistake, he insisted.”

Its not about the lack of facts, its about a statute that prevents any criminal charges against an unruly officer.

False. You need to watch the video or catch up on the story. They do not have proof of Malicious Intent. All they have is a video that shows nothing and the word of the Officer. He might be guilty, he might not. Unless they can prove it, they can't bring charges. From the video we don't know either and it's a lie when people claim to know. Assuming guilt just because of hate, does not change how the Courts work. They are not going to railroad this Cop just because Cop Haters wish it so.

reply to post by getreadyalready


The Supreme Court did not legislate.. The laws were already on the books for officer actions. Tennesse Vs. Gardner actually refined the law for officers use of force on fleeing felons. The standard was adopted by the court that -

An officer use of force must only be judged from the aspect of what the officer perceived at the exact moment the use of force occured.

Specifically to avoid what we see in these forums. A news report comes out talking about an officer shooting and killing a deaf man. It completely leaves out the fact that the officer had no idea the person was deaf. People read the article, which is all wrapped up in a nice tidy box that goes from begining to end.

The problem with that is people apply that media box back to the officer, wanting to know why he shot a deaf man..

see the issue?

reply to post by Xcathdra


I definitely see the issue, and my posts in 99% of these threads support the officers. I totally agree that we cannot expect cops to make split-second life and death decisions and then question those decisions with the benefit of unlimited time, hindsight, and panels of experts. It is ridiculous to think an average officer can walk the letter of the law that teams of lawyers can't even figure out in a courtroom with months of preparation.

On the other hand, we have to be able to use evidence as it presents itself, and we have to be able to take action when it is clearly necessary. We can't let the Supreme Court become a legislative body and expect the precedents that it sets to be applicable to every single case. The Supreme Court is effectively writing case law and changing the outcomes of trials, and changing the interpretations of laws. We should not allow this, it should be up to juries of our peers, and those juries should not be manipulated into believing they have to choose one way or another based on legal precedents. They should be presented all of the facts and allowed to make whatever decision they find appropriate.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
The Supreme Court is not supposed to be legislating! That is the main problem with our judicial system now, every ruling is based on precedent instead of being based on the individual circumstances and a judgement by a jury of our peers.

The Supreme Court is not a trial court, they review procedural issues / constitutional issue that arise from lower court rulings. An officer shooting a person and killing them is a constitutional issue, since the person was seized under the 4th amendment.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Castle Doctrine in Florida says I can use lethal force in defense of my life or the life of another person, so if I see a cop clearly "murdering" someone, I would be justified in using lethal force against the cop. I'm am sure the court system would not see it that way, but why not?

Because Law Enforcement is not covered under the Castle Doctrine. We do not have to wait to be attacked by someone in order to use deadly force. Also whether the officers actions are legal or not are not decided by you, but the courts, just as if you would shoot an individual would be. If the officer is not in uniform and is not wearing anything identifying him as an officer, then you might have a defense.

The Officer is identified as such, and has the authority to temporarily deprive an individual of their rights during the course of their duty / investigations. You do not have that right as a civilian, nor do you have any rights to interfere with a Police matter. I dont think you are going to like this answer, but it is what it is and is like that for a reason.

Criminals dont abide by the law, because they are criminals. The courts allow police to cheat with those people to level the playing field, and they allow it in a very strict box for little to no room for errors, and we must be able to justify our actions.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
What if all those witnesses had jumped on these officers and dealt out vigilante justice on the spot? Would we crucify them or celebrate them?

They would be charged with multiple crimes... And my question at that point is if people are so determined to hold law enforcement accountible to the law, then why are those same people willing to ignore the law to dish out justice they are railing against?

2 wrongs make a right? Again, civilians are not allowed to do some of the things law enforcemnt can do, simply because they are not covered by some of the laws that pertain only to law enforcement (41 USC for instance).

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Would the public take the time to delve into the story, or would they believe a sound bite and a headline and swallow the official story wholeheartedly? Would ATS be any better than the general public? Would the typical cop haters celebrate while the typical cop cheerleaders demonized, or would we all read the story and try to determing the facts?

For the most part the people on this site have high minded ideals that in theory would make the world a great place to live. The problem is we dont live in that world. As far as your question, it would be up to the investigating agency to determine the facts at hand from itnerviews and eyewitness accounts, turn that in to the PA, and they would review and determine if charges are warranted or not. IF they are, the people get a lawyer, and are presumed innocent until found guilty.

Just like Cops.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Our McNews, and our overarching Judicial System is the central problem. We have taken the human element out of our system. We have tied the hands of our juries and refused to let common sense have a place in the courtroom. We have spoonfed soundbites and catchy headlines to the masses and taken away all critical thought.

Legislation from the bench comes mainly from trial and appeals courts. The law I am referencing came from the Supreme Court and was based on a constitutional question - can an officer use deadly force to "seize" and individual under the 4th amendment.

Whose common sense? That is not a constant in this world, and common sense to one person, say a police officer and what would occur if a person is walking towards them with a knife as opposed to an individual walking down the same street, no gun, and sees a person walking towards them with a knife.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
As long as we are settling these cases based on Supreme Court rulings and legal precedents, we will not be doing anybody justice.

We are not solving anything based on the Supreme Court. The standard that courts are to use when judging an officers actions dealing with a use of force was standardized by the Supreme Court because its a constitutional question.

It does not give law enforcement carte blanche to go out and indiscriminately kill people. What it does say is if we do, it must be viewed through the same pair of glasses for everyone. Hindsight is unfair because its just that, information after the fact.

You are in the same position.. Guy walking at you with a knife, you pull your gun, give commands and the guy does not stop. He is within 30 feet of you. You have about a second or 2 to decide what your action is.

What do you do?

reply to post by Blaine91555


I just had to point out that John Williams was not homeless.

Assuming that that is who you were referring to.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I definitely see the issue, and my posts in 99% of these threads support the officers. I totally agree that we cannot expect cops to make split-second life and death decisions and then question those decisions with the benefit of unlimited time, hindsight, and panels of experts. It is ridiculous to think an average officer can walk the letter of the law that teams of lawyers can't even figure out in a courtroom with months of preparation.

I completely agree..

Originally posted by getreadyalready
On the other hand, we have to be able to use evidence as it presents itself, and we have to be able to take action when it is clearly necessary. We can't let the Supreme Court become a legislative body and expect the precedents that it sets to be applicable to every single case. The Supreme Court is effectively writing case law and changing the outcomes of trials, and changing the interpretations of laws. We should not allow this, it should be up to juries of our peers, and those juries should not be manipulated into believing they have to choose one way or another based on legal precedents. They should be presented all of the facts and allowed to make whatever decision they find appropriate.

And this occurs.. When a weapon is discharged, there are generally 2 to 3 different investigations that occur. A criminal investigation by the agency the officer is employed with, a criminal invesitigation done by an independant agency, usually the State Police, and an Internal Affairs investigation by the employed agency to determine any policy violations. The FBI could technically investigate as well in shootings where death occurs to determine if the persons civil rights were violated.

In the end, all that info ius turned over to the Prosecuting Attorneys office for review, and they will decide to charge or not to charge.

The person who was shot is sent to the ME for autoopsy, where the cause of death will be listed as homocide (States thathave the death penalty are the same way. The executed inmates cause of death is listed as homocide).

The officer anhave a clean shoot and be cleared from all criminal charges, but be in violation of policy. If he is in violation, he can be terminated, and is no longer covered under the civil immunity shield in place. The city and police agency can dissassociate themselves from the officer, laying the whole pile at his doorstep.

This is not the same for civilians, who are viewed in the same manner. What did the civilian perceive at the moment he used force. The standards are different because of the training cops receive, which is why its more stringent than for civilians.

It is against the law to kill a person. In most states civilians have a duty to retreat, not engage, and failure to retreat can result in charges. This is where the letter of the law and spirit of the law comes in. Just because a law says - no you cant do this- the thought process is a law cannot concevably account for every single scenario that might come up.

Not sure if this helps or hurts what I am trying to say.. Im pretty tired right now.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I forgot that you were law enforcement, but it doesn't change my opinion. If you investigate my other postings on this issue, you will see that 99% of the time I am on the side of law enforcement, and I have lost 2 LEO acquaintences in Florida this year already.

I didn't take an opinion on this particular case because I couldn't watch the video or read the links at the time, but I decided to just rant about the problems I see in trial law. I am not a fan of how they manipulate juries, hide facts, and restrict the decision making based on someone else's interpretation of the written law. I think lawyers and judges are out of line when they interpret law for the juries, that is the duty of the jury. The Supreme Court does in fact legislate through their decisions, and that is another major pet peeve of mine.

Since you ask, I work for the state, and I do investigations, lol! I am not sworn though, but I have gotten permission through all the proper channels to conceal carry while at work.

Edit to add:

It is against the law to kill a person. In most states civilians have a duty to retreat, not engage, and failure to retreat can result in charges.

Florida is one of the few states that changed their castle doctrine and it no longer requires retreat at all. It used to just be inside your own home, but now it extends to your person at all times. Retreat is no longer required. They also changed to allow weapons on public University grounds after the VaTech shooting.

And yes, I am tired and shooting from the hip tonight too, so I totally understand if you aren't as articulate as you would like to be. I had to leave work at noon today and nurse a sick kid all afternoon, and I'm pretty groggy myself.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Your good man.. For the most part we agree.. I dont mind rulings by the Supreme Court in this area, but I do agree about the problem of judges who like to legislate from the bench.

My whole position is the bubble that Law Enforcement works in is different than what people think. While we are all subject to the same laws, there are laws that only law enforcement is subject to, and its those laws that seem to be the most misunderstood by the Public as a whole.

Its this perception that creates the problem.

We will call it good for now.. When you are more awake and have time, hit me back up and we can pick up where we left off.