Originally posted by Xcathdra
You insinuated through your comments about the Officers guilt and what should happen to him is where you are throwing the Constitution out the
I did not say he was guilty of anything at the time you quoted my post and began a dialogue with me. However, there is a case for why he should be
arrested and brought up on charges. 2 witnesses, one of whom is his own partner and a dead body. And maybe you can tell me what I said should happen
to him? Unless you have me confused with someone else, I have not even stated an opinion on what should happen to him.
As far as the rocket goes, you are honestly arguing that because an incident where an officer crosses the line is somehow justifing the
lunatics actions of firing a rocket into a police station?
I never said it was justified. Here you are assuming my intent without actually reading what I wrote. My point is about cause and effect, not weather
an action is justified. What I am saying is... as more and more of these cases continue to make it into the public eye, it will create a backlash, and
in fact already has.
Are you really that insane? Are you really that naive to assume that all officers act the same way?
Where did I say all Officers act the same way? I am saying that these actions are becoming more and more commonplace and it is a problem with the
system itself. I didnt say, "All cops are the same we should blow up the police station!" I am saying that Police Abuses are commonplace, it is
creating a dangerous situation for everyone, and people are lashing out. That is not opinion, that is fact. 10 years ago you wouldn't find a news
story of a guy firing a rocket into a police station much less several articles about attacks on a police station or police services. Does that not
tell you something?
Would it be appropriate for all officers to assume your a threat to society because of your posts and view point on the police?
Well first off all, I already am viewed as a threat because of my Political views and support of a particular candidate according to last election
year's MIAC report. Second of all, I am already viewed as a threat because in this country we are all guilty until proven innocent. If this is
something you have not realized yet, you are a blind fool who lives in fantasy land or you have flat out ignored all the evidence. Take your pick.
So far, based on your argument, that is exactly what you are arguing.
Wrong, I have not actually argued anything. I have stated facts. You however are making many assumptions and they are all wrong.
The constitution is important, if for no other reason than it would show you that law enforcement is NOT part of the judicial system, and
because of that police are NOT the ones who finalize charges nor are we the ones who sentence people who are found guilty. In addition, state laws
vary from state to state, so a punishment in one state will not be the exact same in another.
Here you just make me laugh. You want to tell me how important the Constitution is when a Police Officer shoots an unarmed man, yet Police ignore
the Constitution on a daily basis. You can not have your cake and eat too. Now saying Police are not part of the Judicial system is a bold faced lie.
The Judicial System begins when one is charged with a crime. Those charges do not come from Joe Blow the guy walking his dog, they come from Police.
Charges can be filed against you solely based on the word of the Officer with no other evidence to support his accusation.
Again, based on your argument above, you are throwing the Constitution out the _ On the off chance you missed the key info in the BART
incident, the officer was found guilty of involuntary manslauighter - Why you ask? Because his actions and circumstances involved, in the State of
California, rose to the level of involuntary manslaughter. He was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced inline with California State
First of all, as far as the BART incident goes I would argue that the Officer's actions did not rise to the level of involuntary manslaughter. It was
murder. The State CHOOSE to charge him with involuntary manslaughter. There is a big difference between the two and it is very common for the State to
charge Officers to a lesser degree than they would the average citizen. With the BART incident, a Police Officer shot a handcuffed man, who was lying
face down, in the back. The Officer claimed he made a mistake and thought his gun was actually his taser. Yet no one bothered to ask the most obvious
question...... if a man is handcuffed and lying face down on the ground and posing no threat at all, why would you tase him? Let's couple that with
the fact that according to Police, if I use a taser on someone in the head and neck area, it is considered deadly force. So by the Officer's own
admission, even if he really did mistake his gun for his taser, he was still using deadly force against a man who posed no threat and could not even
defend himself. You can play with words all you want, but if this case involved a normal everyday person instead of a Police Officer, that normal
everyday person would have been charged with Murder and rightfully so.
Originally posted by MrWendal
As far as "innocent until proven guilty", you can take the nonsense some place else. Innocent until proven guilty no longer applies to the general
Which is utter nonsense.. Again, throwing the constitution out the _
Wrong, I did not throw the Constitution out the window, the Police did. What I am doing...clearly.. is pointing out my opinion that the general
population is not innocent until proven guilty. No where did I say, "This is how it should be". Again... you assume.
Have what both ways? There is no both ways, there is only one way, and that way is the law. Taking the BART incident as an example again, the
crime the officer was charged with and his sentence is not a police charge. Its the same time of charge a civilian would face and the punishment is
the same a citizen would receive.
No where do I claim it was a "police charge". What I am saying is that he was charged to a lesser degree than the average citizen would have been
charged under the same circumstances. The average citizen would have been charged with MURDER not involuntary manslaughter. Furthermore, you can not
say he faced the same punishment the average citizen would have faced. Again, a bold faced lie. In the State of California a charge of "involuntary
manslaughter" is a felony charge that carries a sentence of 24-48 months. That is 2-4 years. The Officer in the BART shooting served 11 months. Not
even a full year. That does not happen to the Average Citizen, at the minimum the average citizen would do 20 months and be released 4 months early if
he was on his best behavior. That is the best the average citizen could hope for, but the average citizen should not be shocked if parole is denied
and he served something closer to the maximum 48 months. The only reason this Officer got out after 11 months, was because he was a Police Officer.
Yeah, because every single officer in this country are corrupt and do the same thing. Quit sterotyping. If you found the actions innapropriate,
fiel a complaint with the departments IA division. Failure to do that and constantly griping about it does not change a thing, now does it?
HAHAHA Oh just stop. Now your being beyond foolish.
#1. Yes all Police are corrupt. Even the "good cops" and I can tell you why. For every "good cop" that sees an injustice, wrong doing, or any corrupt
action by another Officer and he keeps his mouth shut about it, is just as corrupt as those who are violating their oath. For every "good cop" that is
backing up his partner's move and arresting someone knowing full well they shouldn't be arrested to begin with, they are just as guilty. For every cop
that ignores his oath and upholds and arrest people based on unconstitutional laws.. they are just as corrupt.
#2. File a complaint with IA division? Part of the problem is the IA division. Cops investigating other cops? Does the term "wolf guarding the hen
house" sound the least bit familiar to you?
As far as the mother goes, the article states the officer met her outside, not inside. The article also states the officers entered the house.
Where does it say the mother was with the officers and witnessessed everything first hand?
I didn't say she witnessed "everything first hand", I said she is a witness, and guess what? She is. Again you are making assumptions and not
actually reading what I wrote. Maybe if you spent as much time reading into and making assumptions of Police actions instead of assuming they are
always right because they are police, you could make a difference. I also must say, I LOVE how you selectively ignored the Officer's own partner as a
witness to make your above point. It just goes to show your obvious bias.
edit on 16-6-2011 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)