Activist Forward March!

page: 2
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





NONONONO... A resignation is not a result of guilt


Allow me to clarify, I meant or suggested that his resignation could have possibly suggested guilt. However, this nation is built upon " due Process", which would require a proper hearing and legal actions. But what concerns me, is the fact that the state has a " clause " which allows an officer to basically say " oops my mistake" and can't be tried. We this prevalent in our country. Case in point, there are a few states that have deemed it illegal to video tape officers in their wrongful actions. Matter of fact, there was a thread on that a while back. That's what concerns me.




posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


I understand what your saying, and I dont disagree, but my argument has always been the "1986 statute ", which prevents any formal charges on an officer if it is deemed an accident, or "my mistake ". As I have said above, this nation is of " due process ", or is suppose to be?
That's what I'm discussing. Again, you are right, with or without the lack of evidence then there is no case. If I mentioned the video about the " statute ", thats my mistake.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Here is the footage released.
Take note on how quickly the officer went from telling the guy to put the knife down to firing his weapon! Rather quick trigger finger if you ask me?


www.infowars.com...




edit on 22-2-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   
After 2:00, Officer Birk says, “Ma’am, he had a knife and he wouldn’t drop it.”


The only problem, is how did he have the knife open with his hands full? You see the guy in the beginning of the film with his hands full, how could he have possibly dropped his stuff that fast and wielded the knife....I dunno I'm not buying it~

Even the girl who was the eye witness questioned his actions...
edit on 22-2-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   
The fact still remains, that the officer first of all, didn't have probable cause, to begin with. We ALL see this guy walking across the street leisurely, minding his own business, then gets shot several times?

Looks to me like a status quo~


After reviewing it again and again, it looks like the guy may have had the knife out and was cutting the board or what ever was in his hands, but that still doesn't give the officer any right to question his actions. He was minding his own business.

edit on 22-2-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)



By the way, it took 5 shots of what sounded to be a 40 caliber handgun...little excessive~
edit on 22-2-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
Allow me to clarify, I meant or suggested that his resignation could have possibly suggested guilt. However, this nation is built upon " due Process", which would require a proper hearing and legal actions. But what concerns me, is the fact that the state has a " clause " which allows an officer to basically say " oops my mistake" and can't be tried. We this prevalent in our country. Case in point, there are a few states that have deemed it illegal to video tape officers in their wrongful actions. Matter of fact, there was a thread on that a while back. That's what concerns me.


I understand where you are coming from, and it goes back to the "clause" you refer to. The "clause" is probably the least understood by the general public.

Its kind of difficult to explain this is such a way that people will understand it. I am going to include some info already covered in hopes it might help some understand the clause is there for a reason, but not to protect the officer from bad judgment or illegal actions.

To civilians, a physical offensive action is a foreign concept for the simple fact people want to avoid confrontation when its heading into the physical person on person realm. Most people, if confronted by, say a drunk guy on the street looking for a fight, will simply disengage and move off into the opposite direction and continue on their way.

To an officer, the behavior of the person is an issue, and a potential threat to the public at large (assume the 2 people walking called the police to report the encounter). We show up and make contact, and the guy continues with the aggressive behavior towards the cops. For the cops, walking away and disengaging will not be the first thought that goes through their minds. Resolving the situation is the goal.

Again, if a person in the same scenario has a gun or knife, people will avoid the situation, where law enforcement is forced to deal with the issue.

Laws are on the books for a reason, and as I said before law enforcement is bound by those laws. The only time the "clause" kicks in is an emergency situation, and even then there is still a possibility the officer could face charges / termination for actions that are out of bounds.

Due to the nature of our profession, and the situations we deal with, things can go downhill in a split second, forcing the officer to make a split second decision. Because its a split second decision, any actions that occur have to be looked at through that split second window and description of events.

I understand why it appears as law enforcement has a special status, but to be honest its anything but that. The stuff the public does not see in terms of an officer involved shooting is where the perception of a special status comes in. A civilian has more rights than an officer does when it comes to using deadly force. The manner it is investigated in is completely different as well. The rule for a civilian shoot is:

* - what prompted the use of force
* - if its a duty to retreat state, could the person safely do this, or were they forced into a defensive action
* - if no duty to retreat, was the action inside the law
* - are there mitigating circumstances
* - is there any substance abuse by either party
* - Is the weapon legal
* - do witnesses coroborate the described events
etc etc

The investigation would include the above and a few more, and the person who shot (if the evidence suggests its not a good shoot) could be arrested and taken to jail pending a review by the PA's office. If its a good shoot the PA might tell us to send the report and let the person who shot go.

For Law Enforcement, in addition to the above questions, we also have the civil rights investigation to determine if we violated any. We are required to submit to a blood / breath / urine test to determine if we are on anything that is illegal, or a prescription or otc drug that affects actions / thought process etc.

Our duty weapon is seized as evidence (same as civilian) we are placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of all the other investigations. We are required to write a detailed report of the incident (which technically violates our right to not incriminate ourselves. We can alos be ordered to answer guilt seeking questions regardless of Miranda (In addition to Miranda we also have whats called Garrity Rights which addresses the miranda violation of being forced to give evidence against ourselves.. I can go on and on, but you get the idea.

Civilian
- investigation, report sent to PA office for review.

LEO
Agency criminal investigation that essentially seizes the officer (we cannot work, cant leave the state, etc)
Independant agency investigation that is seperate than the above (to proivde an independant investigation.
Prosecuting Attorneys office, who does their investigation as well.

Additionally we can be investigated by the FBI for civil rights violations.

Because our profession deals with people who violate the law, and because those encounters dont always go as planned or peacefully, there has to be something in place for us to do our jobs. If there was nothing there, then the officers would be just as guilty as the person who is breaking the law because we just violated it as well.

All the civili immunity is for is to prevent constant, frivelous lawsuits against officers who were doing their job. Its not carte blanche for us to do whatever we want though.

This making sense? or did I add to much info?



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


I understand what your saying, and I dont disagree, but my argument has always been the "1986 statute ", which prevents any formal charges on an officer if it is deemed an accident, or "my mistake ". As I have said above, this nation is of " due process ", or is suppose to be?
That's what I'm discussing. Again, you are right, with or without the lack of evidence then there is no case. If I mentioned the video about the " statute ", thats my mistake.


I know this is directed to another poster, but I want to point out that 99.5% of the time, when the officer uses deadly force, its because the person we are dealing with decided he did not want due process by their own actions.

Due process is exercised during a "normal" call.. We show up, investigate, get all the facts, witness interviews etc etc etc.

When a person performs actions that force the officer to use deadly force, the person decided to skip his due process of his own accord.

Also, keep in mind that what we are talking about, deals specifically with deadly use of force, and not other types of investigations.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
Here is the footage released.
Take note on how quickly the officer went from telling the guy to put the knife down to firing his weapon! Rather quick trigger finger if you ask me?


www.infowars.com...




edit on 22-2-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)


For what its worth, the dashcam footage actually justifies the officers actions. When a person makes statements they are going to kill someone, themsleves or the cop, the threat must be taken seriously, regardless if they are telling the truth or not.

Ignoring it because the guy is drunk is how people end up dead. If they guy was not going to kill a cop, he never should have said it.

When repeat offenders do this type of thing, there is an officer safety bulletin that goes out letting officers know the person has threatened to kill law enforcement.

When cops have prior knowledge when dealing with a person we have fought before, or known to have weapons on them, we can automatically place the person in cuffs for officer safety reasons, and that goes in our report. This goes with the perception of the officer, what did he perceive the moment force was used.

The cop knows the guy.. Has had issues with him and his behavior, the guy bowed up / clenched his fists with officers, leading them to beleive he wanted to fight, and he made the comment to kill. That is all that is needed for an officer to exercise a more agressive position during the encounter.

As an example I had an incident where an irate driver threatened t kick my ass, stating he was prior marine corp and was an expert in some type of martial art (I forget which one he said). I explained to him in a very clear and direct manner he would not have the option of employing any of those methods with me. When he asked why I flat out told him he would be shot if he even attempted to get out of the car. The guy backed down, and all of that, including my aduio / dashcam went into evidence and my report.

Comments like the 2 above encounters changes the way the situation is handeled. Up to and including a much shorter time to escalte to deadly force.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
The fact still remains, that the officer first of all, didn't have probable cause, to begin with. We ALL see this guy walking across the street leisurely, minding his own business, then gets shot several times?


We dont have to have probable cause to do a traffic stop or make contact with anyone, but reasonable suspicion something is afoot. Even a person walking across the street has the potential to snap when an officer makes contact, forcing a deadly use of force.

What did the officer perceive at the moment the force was used.


Originally posted by Whereweheaded
Looks to me like a status quo~


I respectuflly disagree.


Originally posted by Whereweheaded
After reviewing it again and again, it looks like the guy may have had the knife out and was cutting the board or what ever was in his hands, but that still doesn't give the officer any right to question his actions. He was minding his own business.


Sure it does. He is intoxicated in a public area and is armed with a knife. Its against the law in almost all states to be intoxicated and in possession of a weapon. He has made comments about killing cops, has caused disturbances at area businesses, yelled and threatened innocent bystanders etc. All of the elements are present for not only contact with the person, but an investigation as well for the possession of a weapon while intoxicated.


Originally posted by Whereweheaded
By the way, it took 5 shots of what sounded to be a 40 caliber handgun...little excessive


Have you ever discharged a weapon at another human being? TV is not anywhere close to being accurate on how it works. The adrenaline dump also impacts higher brain functions (fight or flight - auditory exclusion). Chances are when first asked, the officer probably did not remeber how many he fired. He could say 3 and find out 5 shots were discharged. He could say 6 shots when in reality only 2 were discharged.

As far as being excessive, we shoot to stop the threat. Bullets fail, amped situation resulting in gross motor control, etc etc etc.

example - not one hit at less than 5 feet from each other.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I appreciate your insight, but with this topic at hand, we don't really know if the man was drunk, homeless, etc.. So that piece of evidence would be crucial to know. However I have heard claims last night that the suspect was not a homeless man. So we need to know that mental state of the suspect.

OFF topic:




weapon is seized as evidence (same as civilian)



Let's say I shot a man in self defense, and my weapon is seized as evidence, do I get that weapon back, or does the state reimburse me for that expense?



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


So, I am going to continue to play Devil's Advocate here, because as I have said before, I am usually fully supportive of the police and the difficult situations they are in. I am also amazed that out of millions of tense interactions between police and civilians every single day, we only get a few youtube videos and complaints.

BUT, what is your advice to a civilian that feels they are in danger by a uniformed officer? It can happen, and it does happen once in a while. It happened to me when I was 16, a cop was stalking a young girl that I was dating, and he pulled me over and threatened me a couple of times. She had filed complaints and an investigation was ongoing, but in the meantime I was on a deserted road with this jealous guy threatening me.

How does a civilian ever justify self-defense against a uniformed officer? How would onlookers justify stepping in to come to the defense of a Rodney King style beating?

I was once a witness and unarmed participant in a shootout at a bar, and when it was all said and done, the murderer turned out to be an off-duty cop that never once identified himself as such, and he was the aggressor the whole time, and he was the first to pull out a firearm, and yet he was acquitted of all charges, because he was an officer, and he sold his story to the jury.

So, maybe this shooting in the OP was justified, but what would your advice be for a group of onlookers witnessing a cop committing a violent crime? They can't just wait for backup to arrive, the victim will be dead, but if they act they will be committing a crime themselves. Any advice?



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





We dont have to have probable cause to do a traffic stop or make contact with anyone


I would tend to disagree :


A reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. The test the court of appeals employs to determine whether probable cause existed for purposes of arrest is whether facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. U.S. v. Puerta, 982 F.2d 1297, 1300 (9th Cir. 1992).


The suspect had done nothing to commit a crime. No evidence would support that he had. Walking down the street in la la land is not a crime. Neither is caring a knife either.



reasonable suspicion something is afoot.


Suspicion defined:


objectively justifiable suspicion that is based on specific facts or circumstances and that justifies stopping and sometimes searching (as by frisking) a person thought to be involved in criminal activity at the time


Walking down the street, with a legal knife, ( it is not illegal in most states to carry a knife ), does not give or warrant the excuse of suspicion. That is a " cop out " excuse. It always has been. Be that it may you are an officer, or former, you won't agree with that. That's a given, maybe due to the " brainwashing " of the academy, but most people know that the " suspicion" clause and the " probable cause " clause are just excuses for officers to cross that imaginary line of ethics.

Again I do appreciate your insight, but with no supportive evidence to suggest a suspect has or is going to commit a crime doesn't justify an officer blatant attempt on infringing a persons rights.





 
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join