reply to post by areyouserious2010
That is the wikipedia definition of soft tissue damage.
What do you mean by this? Is this your lame attempt to impeach facts while simultaneously insisting everyone else wait for the facts to come out?
Are you hoping that by simply dismissing the link regarding "soft tissue damage" as being a Wikipedia article that this will be more than enough to
convince readers that "soft tissue damage" means something else all together and that we cannot go by Wikipedia?
Of course, if you genuinely thought that the Wikipedia article misstated what "soft tissue damage" is, you would have supplied different definitions
from more credible sources to counter that Wikipedia article you lamely hope to dismiss. The problem is this:
When you participate in sports and physical fitness activities, you can injure the soft tissues of your body. Even simple everyday activities can
damage these ligaments, tendons, and muscles.
Some of the soft-tissue injuries you are most likely to experience include:
Any of these can be the result of a single episode, such as a fall, a sudden twist, or a blow to the body. You might also sustain one or more of these
injuries because of repeated overuse, such as in ongoing athletic activities. In this case, small amounts of body stress accumulate slowly but
steadily. The result can be damage and pain.
That definitions comes from The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons
...or perhaps you
would be more comfortable with a lawyers definiton of "soft tissue
Soft tissue injury is damage to four different types of tissue: muscles, ligaments, tendons or nerves.
Soft tissue injury is caused by direct or indirect trauma. Direct trauma may happen in connection with sports or other accidents, being struck by an
object or falling. Indirect trauma commonly stems from overuse of the tissue. For instance, assembly line or factory workers often suffer from this
type because of the many repetitive movements they have to do many times a day.
Types of soft issue injury
Soft tissue injuries include ligament sprains (e.g. sprained ankle), tendon strains, repetitive stress injury and carpal tunnel syndrome.
A clever advocate would have done the research in an effort to find some fact that might refute what the Wikipedia article defined as "soft tissue
damage", and failing that a really smart advocate would have never have handed his opponent a silly logical fallacy of argument by dismissal such as
you did, and handed it to me on a silver platter.
When the police stated this it was an ambiguous statement at best. Without stating exactly what the injuries were I will not speculate so this is a
good question. Instead of wanting to know exactly what the injuries were and making a determination based on fact, you have turned to a definition
from wikipedia and made a conclusion based on that. Which is not investigation it is speculation.
You are the one speculating that "soft tissue damage" is an ambiguous statement, and are ignoring that the very unambiguous previous statement
reported by ABC News that broken bones were sustained was corrected and replaced with what you now speculate is an ambiguous statement. It is not a
good question I asked when asking "what is soft tissue damage"? It was a successful prediction that you had no idea what "soft tissue damage" was and
that you would trip up all over this issue.
If you would have stated "I want a rigorous investigation into the matter to collect all the facts and find out exactly what happened; After getting
those facts, if it is found that there is probable cause of police of misconduct, I would like to see the responsible parties charges with a crime," I
would not have said one word. But you didnt. You immediately jumped to conclusions condemning all of the police officers involved.
Since you are so insistent on the facts, and I agree that the facts need to be known, it is prudent to clarify what you mean by the above remark.
Since it was I who took up debate with you, and your initial post
responded to that was itself actually addressing a different member. I - in fact - replied to your disclaimer insisting that the members shouldn't
pass judgment. I responded by pointing out that the police officers who beat this unarmed retarded man to death certainly passed judgment in order to
do such a thing. Of course, those are just the facts, and when they get in the way for you, I suppose you will just dismiss them like you would a
Wikipedia article, for no other reason than it is a Wikipedia article.
I have not provided an excuse or justification for their actions. I have merely stated that there is not enough information to condemn the police
officers for their actions at this point. I have maintained that there is a clear reason to launch an investigation into the incident due to the
severity of what happened and I have maintained that if there is evidence of police misconduct they should be charged with a crime just like anyone
Let's get both the facts and the data that has been reported thus far.
On July 6th, The Los Angeles Times
A 37-year-old man was in "very critical condition" Wednesday evening after brawling with half a dozen Fullerton police officers, authorities
Now, in fairness to the beleaguered Fullerton Police Department, based on this paragraph alone, the "authorities" being sourced are unnamed and we
should take such an unnamed source with a grain of salt. Indeed, we now now that it was not a fact that Kelly Thomas was "brawling with half a dozen
Fullerton police officers", but as you have pointed out, it was in fact only two. The L.A. Times continues:
Two officers also were injured with a broken rib and broken bone in the arm during the fight, which lasted about seven minutes. The officers had
responded to a report of someone breaking into cars in a lot at the Fullerton Transportation Center, police said.
We now have reports disputing this earlier report of "a broken rib and broken bone in the arm" sustained by the two officers during the fight, and it
by a named source - Sgt. Andrew Goodrich of the Fullerton Police Department - that the police officers did not suffer any broken
bones, but instead sustained, what you term an ""ambiguously stated", injury of "soft tissue damage".
Even so, the L.A. Times continues with their earlier report:
Kelly Thomas, 37, described by police as a transient, began fighting two officers who tried to arrest him on suspicion of possessing items stolen
from the vehicles, Sgt. Andrew Goodrich said.
Thomas tried to run from the two officers, who ended up knocking him to the ground and calling for backup as the struggle continued, Goodrich said.
Four additional officers arrived and tried to help subdue Thomas.
Hmmmm. Suddenly the earlier unnamed "authorities" has at least one name, and that name is - lo and behold - Sgt. Andrew Goodrich! But wait a minute,
this early report tells us that Goodrich said it took altogether six police officers to "subdue" Mr. Thomas, but you're saying that the beating was
only done by two police officers. Hmmmm. Well, maybe subsequent reports will support your contention it was just two police officers and not six
that beat the ever loving crap out of Kelly Thomas.
Yet, before we look at any other news reports let's finish with the L.A. Times report:
"It was a long fight," Goodrich said. "He suffered a lot of injuries to his neck and head area."
Thomas was being treated Wednesday night at UC Irvine Medical Center.
Goodrich said that Fullerton Police Department internal affairs officers were conducting an administrative investigation of the incident and that
detectives had launched a criminal probe of Thomas and the alleged vehicle burglaries.
A criminal probe of Mr. Thomas regarding the "alleged vehicle burglaries"? Why, that's right! It was the alleged vehicle robberies that gave the
police, what you speculate to be "reasonable suspicion" to detain and arrest Mr. Thomas to begin with. The L.A. Times reported that Mr. Thomas was,
after all, arrested on suspicion of possession of stolen items from vehicles. Has anything else been reported about this reported criminal
investigation on the now deceased Kelly Thomas? This report was on the 6th of July, it is now the 28th of July and I can find no information
what-so-ever incriminating Kelly Thomas in any criminal activity leading to his brutal and fatal beating by what appears to be actually six police
officers, not two. Although admittedly two police officers got the jump on the other four in "subduing" an unarmed retarded man.
Let's take a look at a more recent report by the Huffington
On July 5, Fullerton police received reports of someone breaking into cars in the area around the bus depot, according to the LA Times. Police
subsequently tried to arrest 37-year-old transient Kelly Thomas on suspicion of possessing the stolen items.
When Thomas resisted, it took several minutes for him to be subdued. Sgt. Andrew Goodrich told the OC Register that it took "an upwards of five, maybe
six officers to subdue him."
So, with a report made just yesterday, (July 27th, 2011), we still have Sgt. Andrew Goodrich contradicting your contention that it was only two police
officers who beat Mr. Thomas to death, and Goodrich is sticking to his story that it ultimately took "maybe" six police officers to kill Mr. Thomas.
Of course Goodrich is still referring to this killing as an effort to "subdue" Mr. Thomas but of the facts we do have, that these efforts to subdue
Kelly Thomas resulted in his death is one of those facts.
It is important to note that 22 days after the incident it is still being reported that Mr. Thomas was arrested on "suspicion of possession of stolen
items". No report to be found confirming that in fact there were stolen items on Mr. Thomas' person at the time of his arrest, only the same report
we got from the L.A. Times on the 6th of July that he was arrested for suspicion of possession of stolen items. That becomes an important fact to now
into consideration. If Mr. Thomas did in fact have stolen items on his person, why are we not hearing anything about this?
Do you imagine with your over speculative mind that revealing information that actually incriminates Mr. Thomas of criminality will somehow hurt the
police officers investigation into the police officers who beat him? Is there some sort of reasonable and rational explanation as to why - if there
is incriminating evidence against Mr. Thomas - as to why that evidence has not been revealed to help vilify the police officers?
Certainly, if the Fullerton Police Department had information incriminating Mr. Thomas in the burglaries that led to the police officers suspecting he
was in possession of stolen items they would release this information to put the public at ease somewhat and allow them to understand that the police
officers did in fact have reasonable suspicion and that it is easier to now understand why an unarmed retarded man might have fought so hard as the
Fullerton Police Department alleges.
The Huffington Post article concludes with these two paragraphs:
Currently, the Fullerton Police Department is performing an inquiry into the incident, and the case is being examined by the Orange County
District Attorney's office, reports the LA Times. There have been several protests, and a vigil for Kelly was held in downtown Fullerton, the OC
Register tells us.
In an open letter, City Council Member Bruce Whitaker has called for the police to offer a clear explanation and to release a video that apparently
shows the actual beating.
So, where the Huffington Post, in some regards echoes the earlier report by the L.A. Times, a glaring difference is that where the L.A. Times had
reported a criminal investigation was taking place into to Mr. Thomas regarding the burglaries, in the Huffington Post the only investigation
mentioned, or "inquiry" if you will, is the "incident" itself, and no mention at all about any criminal investigation into to Mr. Thomas' connection
with the alleged burglaries of that night.
Further, the Huffington Post reports of a Fullerton City Council Member who has written an open letter demanding the release of a video and the
Fullerton P.D. offering a "clear" explanation as to what actually happened. Here is a
shows that letter in its entirety and
also quotes the Mayor of Fullerton and other City Council Members reaction to Bruce Whitaker's letter:
Mayor Richard M. Jones said that even though the letter is on official city stationary, it reflects the views of Councilmember Whitaker as a
private citizen. “He is exercising his right to free speech as a private citizen,” and that it does not represent the council itself. “It’s
just not good to speculate on things until we know all the facts,“ Jones said, acknowledging that there have been no official findings from any of
the investigations currently underway.
Why look at that! The Mayor of Fullerton sounds a lot like you. Okay, so what sort of speculation did City Council Member Bruce Whitaker make in his
open letter printed on city stationary?
Well, the fact of the matter is that Whitaker did not make any speculations at all and only called for some clear explanations and release of a video.
So, let's list these facts:
On July 5th Fullerton Police received reports of someone breaking into vehicles in an area near a bus depot.
When Fullerton police arrived on the scene at some point they discovered Kelly Thomas.
For undisclosed reasons, two Fullerton Police officers arrested Kelly Thomas on suspicion of possessing stolen items.
At this point, the Fullerton Police Department, primarily through a Sgt. Andrew Goodrich, alleges that Mr. Thomas resisted arrest and that it took
four more police officers to subdue Mr. Thomas, which ultimately resulted in his death.
These are the facts as we understand them today.
Here are some more facts:
It was reported on July 6th that detectives had launched a criminal investigation into the now dead Mr. Thomas regarding the alleged break ins to
vehicles parked in the area near the Fullerton bus depot, but no evidence of any further reporting on this investigation. It is a fact that at this
point we do not know if this criminal investigation on Thomas is still in play or has been dropped.
If Kelly Thomas was in possession of stolen items - the excuse given for "reasonable suspicion" - we do not know. This is a fact. It is a fact that
if the Fullerton Police Department knows if Mr. Thomas was in possession of stolen items at the time of his arrest that they have not disclosed this
information. (Unless they have and I have just failed to find that information. If it has been reported that Mr. Thomas was indeed in possession of
stolen items at the time of his arrest, I urge you to find these reports and post them in this thread, as that would be kind of fact that would help
calm down an outraged membership somewhat.)
Another fact is that when City Council Member Bruce Whitaker used City stationary to write an open letter the Mayor of Fullerton felt compelled to
respond to that open letter by (presumably) countering with a warning that we should not speculate, at the very least, implying that Bruce Whitaker in
his open letter had engaged in some form of speculation. However, a careful reading of his open letter reveals that Whitaker did not engage in any
speculation and merely reported the facts as he understood them and called for the release of a video in the possession of the Fullerton P.D. That
is a fact.
When looking at all these facts, the members of this site have more than enough reasonable suspicion regarding, not just the police officers involved,
but at this point the Fullerton Police Department.
Your pretenses of not speculating are either as I just called them pretenses, or they are lies. You are speculating, the only difference between your
speculation and those members you smugly admonish is that you are speculating, very obviously so when you make assertions such as "in reality" the can
of whoop ass the police opened up on Kelly Thomas "was not" "unprovoked or excessive", that the police officers acted professionally and properly,
while those you admonish are speculating otherwise. You appear to be speculating when you assert it was only two police officers who beat the
almighty crap out of Mr. Thomas. You have done plenty of speculation in this thread, sport.
edit on 28-7-2011 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)