Arizona Police Officer Execute Man For Telling Them They Needed A Warrant

Originally posted by smurfy
The officer was arrested five hours later, then released on bail?? It seems also that the indictment is second degree murder, where did that come from? he should have been off the force anyway if his prior act of planting evidence in another unrelated incident is true. So let me get this straight, in America if you are law enforcement and you kill someone who is unarmed, and having been eyeballed doing it, you get bail. Your officers union goes into automatic, and has a fund raising Barby 'cos you got the sack. No thanks America it's soo in your face stuff.

edit on 16-6-2011 by smurfy because: Text.

EXACTLY DUDE, THE ABSURD SH@T THAT GOES ON HERE IS UNBELIEVABLE !!! I MEAN WHY FIGHT IT WE ARE ALREADY IN A POLICE STATE

reply to post by Xcathdra


You're right. There MUST be key information missing.

We all know cops cannot fly off the handle and completely lose control... After all, they're cops!! They are out shepherds and protectors!! HEIL! HEIL! HEIL!

...

I use to have a manager that works in my store when I first transfered here and this guy use to come in once a week to order food and talk to her, nice enough fellow. One day I overherd he was in the sheriffs department you know the one here in maricopa county AZ, led by the one and only sheriff joe. Well, once I heard that, I walked up to him, looked him straight in the eyes and said "I can't stand cops" then walked away. Every time he would come in I would say something different "jack booted thugs" etc. Well one day he came in and I said "you know, cops are nothing but armed tax collectors" he said it was the harshest thing he was ever called. He quit the force a few months later and told me that he agrees with everything I said. That is the state of the police force

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman




If a cop is at the door and there is yelling and screaming going on inside no warrant is needed but was this the case? We don't have all the facts here I'm thinking. Like, maybe the guy made like he was pulling a gun. That would be a good way to get shot legally. Too early to judge.

Oh no, you mean that giving everyone in America a gun was a bad idea?! Whodafunkitay?
Why not put your guns down and stop crying about some stupid bit of toilet paper written hundreds of years ago about bear paws. Fools.

I have found it very easy to separate the good cops from the bad cops. A good cop is a member of LEAP

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition is an international organization of criminal justice professionals who bear personal witness to the wasteful futility and harms of our current drug policies. Our experience on the front lines of the “war on drugs” has led us to call for a repeal of prohibition and its replacement with a tight system of legalized regulation, which will effectively cripple the violent cartels and street dealers who control the current illegal market.

LEAP
I know of one active duty LEO that is a member of LEAP, he is Richard Van Wickler

Face with the argument that alcohol is easier to serve with dinner than heroin, group members said that they were not advocating drug use—but rather wanted to regulate the products and limited the doses.
“That’s exactly what the Women’s Organization for National Prohibition reform said about alcohol prohibition in the 1920’s,” said LEAP member Richard Van Wickler, a warden in New Hampshire. “Life and prosperity went on. Alcohol was regulated, controlled and it was taxed. Everybody won except the gangsters.”
“And the terrible evils that were said to occur, like the epidemic of alcoholism—didn’t.”

news.medill.northwestern.edu...
Since he is rather high up the food chain he has so far not been retaliated against by the status quo

Bradley Jardis, the only common everyday patrol officer that i am aware of, also in New Hampshire, who admitted publicly to being a member of LEAP, quit in disgust.

He was railroaded off the force, just like every good cop.
Now don't get me wrong, I dont agree with LEAP on a lot of things, but it is a start in the right direction. One thing that disgusts me about LEAP is what they did to Bradley Jardis

Wanna know how the bad cops feel about former office Jardis during the hearing to terminate him?

Its time to stop supporting LEO's and make it clear, they are not the slave masters

Originally posted by AGWskeptic

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by OneNationUnder

 

Well I write at least a letter/email a day to our representatives, or to officials etc. Am I really that rare? Or is it they just couldn't care less what we think?

Nobody pays much attention to the little dogs that bark all day long.

Only when a big dog barks do they really pay attention.

The little dog wakes up the big dogs. The big dogs are kind of deaf. The little dog does not bite. This is the way of the world.

reply to post by TKDRL

Probably because I am not a coward, and don't agree with a lot of the cases where it is deemed "justifiable force".

Without a particular instance, it cannot be determined if you are being reasonable or not. There is action that the police take that a reasonable person would deem justifiable and there is action that a police officer takes that a reasonable person would deem unjustifiable. Based on your track record, I would deem you unreasonable when it comes to the police using force.

Police carry batons for a reason, and it isn't decoration.

Correct. The police carry batons and various other weapons to use if the situation arises.

Yet many times they fall back on lethal force, never even try a non lethal avenue.

If someone has a gun, knife or other weapon and is a threat to the police officer or someone else, it is unreasonable to expect the police to attempt a non lethal method. It does happen due to the quick thinking of the police at the time but when someone else is putting another life in danger, the police need to act swiftly and decisively to end that threat.

Most of the time when I see a video of a cop using a tazer or a baton, it is after they are already on the ground, or already cuffed where they pose no threat at all. Or a little kid, or some little old lady. Straight up cowards.

Just because someone is on the ground does not mean they are no longer a threat. And usually the video does not start until they are on the ground and does not show what happened just before which precipitated the use of force. And when you deem someone not a threat anylonger it is laughable. They are not a threat to you, sitting in front of your computer or television, in the comfort of your home.

Also, it is unreasonable for you to claim that most of the video on the internet of police using force is against children or old ladies that are handcuffed and on the ground.

reply to post by Fractured.Facade


Please, do not take an event, put your own spin on it and post it here as fact.

Oscar Grant was resisting lawful arrest and still had his hand underneath of his body and was refusing to give it to the police. The officer decided to draw his tazer and use it. Instead, he made the mistake of drawing his weapon and pulling the trigger.

The officer was correctly convicted of involuntary manslaughter because a court deemed he did not have the intention of killing him. The court did deem that his amount of negligence was criminal and he was sentenced to two years. In California, all convicts are credited one day for every day of good behavior which is why he was released after 11 months.

reply to post by areyouserious2010

Instead, he made the mistake of drawing his weapon and pulling the trigger.

Pretty big mistake, eh?

Maybe we need a 5 day waiting period before inept police officers are allowed to pull their tasers from their holsters.

reply to post by AwakeinNM

The union guy's statement "We're standing behind our officer" is one of the big problems with all of the police brutality that occurs. The cops know they can get away with it because the union thugs will cover for them. They need to be held accountable but they aren't.

Unfortunately it takes a tragedy like this to trump whatever sway the union has to get a bad cop charged. I can't believe the union is standing behind this criminal when his own partner is washing his hands of him.

The police union's charter is to represent the police officer's interests no matter what the circumstances just like any criminal defense attorney when it comes to criminals. The statement that they are standing behind their officer is correct but probably came before all the facts were known.

The only misdeed by the police union in this case is going before the media. What transpired is a public relations nightmare for the department and the union. And you are correct, it makes him look very pompous.

The union exists to ensure the police officer gets a fair shake. That fair shake could result in acquittal or just a proper defense that results in conviction. They are there to represent the officer's interests nonetheless.

reply to post by BlubberyConspiracy

I now hate every single policeman there is. They are all dirty scum.

And this is the problem. You, and others, jump to this "knee-jerk" reaction and label all cops dirty scum and hate all of them.

We have already established that what THIS officer did was absolutely wrong. Even people who are police officers have deemed the actions of THIS officer reprehensible.

What is also reprehensible is taking the actions of the minority of police who are just wrong and painting all officers as dirty scum when most are just trying to do the job correctly and to the best of their ability.

reply to post by Nicolas Flamel

Also, why are they (the police) allowed to investigate themselves? If I committed a crime, the court would not be filled with my friends and co-workers would it?

Just because they are police officers on the same department does not necessary mean they are friends or even know each other. You are correct, the jury would be filled with your "peers" or people who are like you and come from your community. The average person does not know what it is like to be a police officer and do the job.

There should be an independent panel not affiliated with the police to investigate these killings. Maybe it would slow them down a little.

For instances as heinous as this, a state's attorney is involved with every step of the process.

reply to post by JAGx1981

In professoinal sports, athletes are held a high standard when doing something wrong

This statement in particular made me laugh. Very funny.

reply to post by areyouserious2010

Just because they are police officers on the same department does not necessary mean they are friends or even know each other. You are correct, the jury would be filled with your "peers" or people who are like you and come from your community. The average person does not know what it is like to be a police officer and do the job.

Do you think a judge would allow a jury consisting of nothing but police officers to be seated for the trial of another police officer?

You are right. The average person does not know what it is like to be a police officer.

The average person is much too honest to be a police officer, and do the job.

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
reply to post by Fractured.Facade

 

Please, do not take an event, put your own spin on it and post it here as fact.

Oscar Grant was resisting lawful arrest and still had his hand underneath of his body and was refusing to give it to the police. The officer decided to draw his tazer and use it. Instead, he made the mistake of drawing his weapon and pulling the trigger.

The officer was correctly convicted of involuntary manslaughter because a court deemed he did not have the intention of killing him. The court did deem that his amount of negligence was criminal and he was sentenced to two years. In California, all convicts are credited one day for every day of good behavior which is why he was released after 11 months.

Yeah, because its so easy to mistake a gun for a tazer.



Yep, he was resisting, while bones were being fractured... He obviously couldn't be controlled, and had to be shot, with a tazer?

The cop served 11 months.... Fact is, if this had been a black cop, that shot an unarmed white kid (in the back), the justice would have been more swift, and much more harsh.... IF it was captured on video, and there were witnesses.

Frankly, I'm surprised the officer involved here served any time... In fact if there had not been such a public reaction to this murder, the whole incident could have been dealt with much differently.

But, you are right I suppose... accidents happen.

reply to post by donkeystyle


So we are just supposed to take your word that your account of the incident is the complete truth?

People, realize that criminals lie. Realize that people make things up all the time just to throw their two cents into the mix and get a little support from someone else.

Taking this story at face value is rediculous. What I have learned is that there are two sides to the story and usually, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

reply to post by TKDRL

What I really don't understand.... If the good cops out there supposedly outnumber the few bad seeds like some would have us believe, than why don't the good cops band together to expel the bad ones?

Because not all situations are as clear cut as you claim them to be. The incident in the original post is an example of the situation being a little more clear cut than the normal, "I was arrested and now Im mad at the police so I am going to claim police brutality."

When the case is as clear cut as this, the good cop will stand up and testify against the bad and he will be charged with murder. Which is what happened.

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
reply to post by donkeystyle

 

Taking this story at face value is rediculous. What I have learned is that there are two sides to the story and usually, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Post removed.... I assumed this above comment was addressing the incident in the opening post.

reply to post by Fractured.Facade

It's amazing when some people will try to find anyway to avoid a horrible truth whenever law enforcement are involved, or worse seek some way to defend brutality and murder.

I have read through most of the posts here and no one is seriously attempting to defend this guy.

This kind of stuff happens daily, very little of it gets reported.... IF this cop's partner had not said what he did, then this one too would have been quickly shoved off of the books, and may have never gotten any press coverage at all.

I think you are being unreasonable to believe you have some sort of inside knowlege on the frequency of police brutality and murder and how much of it gets reported. In fact, you are speculating and have no inside knowlege.

In my opinion, less than 5% of the cases of brutality, corruption and murders perpetrated by rogue and corrupt law enforcement officers ever get reported.

Again, speculation. You have absolutely no factual basis to make this determination. You are now merely providing your opinion in an attempt to further your agenda against police.