It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Police beat, taser mentally ill homeless man to death

page: 7
61
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
This is disgusting. It's pure evil indeed. What have this world become?
I think too many policemen and people working with that kind of things feels an urge to be in control..




posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by areyouserious2010
 


What possible circumstance would justify beating an unarmed, crying man to death? What happened to Serve and Protect? What happened to "Keeping the Peace"? Government sanctioned murder is all this is. Local tax dollars hard at work.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by areyouserious2010
 


What circumstances would justify what has happened here? We know the man was unarmed so I'm curious what he could have possibly done to justify getting beaten to death by 6 police officers.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by MessOnTheFED!
Theres no excuse for what these officers did. NONE. How can it take 6 men to subdue one person?


Have you ever seen someone on a ton of PCP get angry? I can assure you, it'll take several people to subdue them. It ain't pretty. Now I'm not claiming that was the case, I wasn't there (or was I?). All I'm saying is that there is always the possibility of mitigating factors. Being homeless doesn't necessarily mean they're downtrodden scamps with a heart of gold. It's a distinct possibility that being mentally ill, things got out of hand and he resorted to violence, which of course escalated.

Once again, before the inevitable "but the cops did BAD!!! You so stupid!!!" responses, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here. Question everything, even things that may support your own agenda.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhiskyKisses

Have you ever seen someone on a ton of PCP get angry?


Have you? PCP the great cover all myth.

let's not forget the guy was face down and handcuffed when he was murdered.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Thepreye
 




Have you? PCP the great cover all myth.

It is not a myth. PCP can render someone inable to feel pain. That combined with a reaction that causes them to become violent can make for a very dangerous situation.

That may not be the case here but his mental handicap could have played a role. Some mental disorders can have the same effect.


let's not forget the guy was face down and handcuffed when he was murdered.

Speculation. We do not know if the man was handcuffed when he sustained the injuries that led to his death. It sounds like he was still resisting when the police were using force on him.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by areyouserious2010
 





The only difference between you and I is that I reserve judgement until the full facts are known.


This is a bald faced lie. You have passed judgment from the moment you entered this thread, and the vast majority of judgment you have passed is on the members of this site outraged at a clear and undeniable act of criminality. Even if you were to qualify this remark of yours and say you meant you have reserved judgment regarding the police officers actions, this would be a lie as well, as you have posted plenty to make it clear you have come to a determination that the police officers were justified in their brutal and lethal beating of an unarmed retarded man.

Xcathdra has now entered this thread and is imminently more qualified to do what you are pretending to do. You have very clearly only made it worse for the police officers in question. Your fallacious arguments and willful lying has only contributed to the very real reasonable suspicion that exists regarding these alleged criminal thugs called Fullerton Police Department officers. I would call them by name, but these names have not been released, (to the best of my knowledge).

Your judgments permeate this thread and your hypocrisy reflects the kind of hypocrisy we see all too often from government employees. I don't know if you are a government employee or not, but I know the honorable Xcathdra is, and if I were you, I would take a day or two to back off and watch how he handles himself in this thread. He will ultimately give these police officers a better defense than you have so far.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
As a parent it breaks my heart to think that one day this may be my child calling out to me for help...but I'm not there.

This really brings a tear to my eye and the picture of the beaten man in hospital sickens me. There is no justification for the horrendous damage that can be seen in the picture.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 




He will ultimately give these police officers a better defense than you have so far.

So you will admit that there IS a defense for the police officer's actions?

Xcathdra will probably not give these police officers a defense unless more evidence is revealed that justifies their actions. Xcathdra will most likely reserve judgement until more facts are gathered. In fact, here is a quote from his post seeking more information.


As far as this incident goes a few questions come to mind.

Like I said, there is not enough information to pass a judgement on the situation either way. It could be police misconduct and brutality or it could not.

The additional information that I provided was merely something to think about and I did not present it as fact.

I really hope you have not thought the entire time I was attempting to provide a defense for the officers. If we go back and look at my posts, I am pretty sure I have stayed consistent in saying there is not enough information yet to condemn the officers. Maybe I was not vocal enough but there is also not enough information to justify their actions either.

In fact this is from the first post that I made. I even put the disclaimer in with stars in an attempt to draw attention to it so this exact thing did not happen.


***Disclaimer***
I am reserving judgement on the incident at hand because there simply is not enough facts for one to pass judgement. Please do not accuse me of being a police apologist. I am merely presenting facts that may not be thought of before passing judgement.
***Disclaimer***

And again at the end of the post.


***DISCLAIMER***
If this was a case of police brutality where the man died, the police deserve to be dealt with harshly. I am merely providing the reader with a different view point because, with the evidence provided, no judgement can be passed yet.
***DISCLAIMER***

So this entire time, you have been under the false impression that I was attempting to provide a defense for the officers? What a waste of time.

Let me make this perfectly clear. Based on the facts presented in the original post, photograph and video, there is not enough information to justify the police officer's actions or condemn their actions. If you are satisfied with the information presented, then your standard is subpar and your judgement on the situation is based mostly on your emotional response and not factual information.

I have been very consistent in my argument for more information. You have been very consistent in your argument that you have been provided enough information and are ready to condemn the officers.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by areyouserious2010
 





So you will admit that there IS a defense for the police officer's actions?


This is precisely the lying you engage in that I am talking about. All people have a right to defense. I have never argued otherwise and have consistently used the term REASONABLE SUSPICION regarding these apparent criminal thugs dressed as Fullerton Police Officers.

You've reserved judgment my ass!!



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Ok let me rephrase.

So you would admit that there COULD BE justification for the officer's actions?



I have never argued otherwise and have consistently used the term REASONABLE SUSPICION regarding these apparent criminal thugs dressed as Fullerton Police Officers.

Ok, now I think we are on the same page. Yes, I will agree that there is reasonable suspicion that the incident may have been police brutality. This incident warrants a full investigation, reviewed by the State's Attorney, to gather additional facts. If the evidence amounts to probable cause that the officers committed murder, assault or manslaughter then they should be charged with such crimes.

I hope we have finally found some common ground.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by areyouserious2010
 





Ok, now I think we are on the same page. Yes, I will agree that there is reasonable suspicion that the incident may have been police brutality. This incident warrants a full investigation, reviewed by the State's Attorney, to gather additional facts. If the evidence amounts to probable cause that the officers committed murder, assault or manslaughter then they should be charged with such crimes.


Now you see it? Only just now you recognize that I have consistently used the term REASONABLE SUSPICION regarding the police officers actions?

Not quite the same page yet, but you are getting closer.

The members have the right to REASONABLY SUSPECT a crime has happened here, and there is indeed REASONABLE SUSPICION that either murder, or manslaughter took place and was committed by police officers. The members adrenaline is more than likely just as pumped as those police officers were on the night of July 5th. Stop castigating the members for using their natural and unalienable right to exercise free speech and show their outrage at this REASONABLY SUSPECT crime.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I think this is as close as we are going to get.

I did not have an issue with someone stating that they reasonably suspect that the officers committed a crime. It is those that went so far as to condemn the officers based on the information provided.

Reasonable suspicion warrants further investigation not condemnation.

It is everyone's natural and unalienable right to not be condemned based solely upon reasonable suspicion.

I did not try to suppress anyone's right to freedom of speech. I merely stated that I disagreed with their condemnation based solely upon reasonable suspicion.
edit on 29-7-2011 by areyouserious2010 because: edit to add

edit on 29-7-2011 by areyouserious2010 because: edit



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by areyouserious2010
 





It is everyone's natural and unalienable right to not be condemned based solely upon reasonable suspicion.


It is also everyone's natural and unalienable right to defend themselves, including defend themselves against unlawful arrest.

It is very rare that we are treated to media reports of police officers being convicted of unlawful arrest. In this so called investigation happening by the Fullerton authorities, is the matter of the arrest being investigated, and if it turns out that Mr. Thomas was in fact innocent of all suspicion that brought about his death, what will we hear about this, I wonder.

It most certainly merits discussion in this thread, and as I type this reply to you I am hard at work collecting case law for Xcathdra's sake in reply to his post.

It was most assuredly Kelly Thomas' right not to be condemned based solely upon reasonable suspicion, and yet, it appears as if he was condemned. We cannot know until more facts come out, but it is now 24 days later and the facts remain the same. The Fullerton Police Department appears to be dragging their feet on this investigation, and they should be fully aware that the world has eyes on this incident and releasing if they have no intentions of charging the two police officers in this mess, then it would be more than prudent to release the information they have that led to this determination. If they have information incriminating the police officers then they have a lawful responsibility to bring charges against them.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by areyouserious2010
 


The witness said,



Well i saw two cops on top of a homeless guy that i know, and uhh they were pretty much beating him up, telling him to stop resisting and then more police came and they started beating him with the back of the flashlight at the back of his head.
And he wasn't moving around at all, but more came and they started tasering him and it was just a horrible sight.



And in the other video someone says that they tased him for the five times.

You know, if it was you, you would want to defend yourself againt the beatings, everybody would because it is only natural to be self protective don't you think?
And they just beat him and tased him even more as he tried to defend himself, he died because of the beatings which means they have murdered him by using excessive force.

edit on 29-7-2011 by earthling42 because: spell error

edit on 29-7-2011 by earthling42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





Setting aside the brutality for a moment I just wanted to point out that there is a line when it comes to what a lawful arrest is or is not, and a person resisting that arrest. I know most people in here think they are jtually exclusive, IE if the arrest is not lawful, I dont have to cooperate. The problem is they are seperate from each other. If an officer is making a false arrest, a person cannot resist that arrest.


The Supreme Court disagrees with you, brother.


At common law, if a party resisted arrest by an officer without warrant and who had no right to arrest him, and if in the course of that resistance the officer was killed, the offense of the party resisting arrest would be reduced from what would have been murder if the officer had had the right to arrest, to manslaughter. What would be murder if the officer had the right to arrest might be reduced to manslaughter by the very fact that he had no such right. So an officer at common law was not authorized to make an arrest without a warrant for a mere misdemeanor not committed in his presence.



If the officer had no right to arrest, the other party might resist the illegal attempt to arrest him, using no more force than was absolutely necessary to repel the assault constituting the attempt to arrest.


John Bad Elk v. United States

There are, of course, plenty of lower court rulings that also confirm that resisting an unlawful arrest is the fundamental right of any person. The problem with citing lower courts is finding actual links that I could provide so that you could read the case law for yourself. Sometimes I have to rely upon my Lexis/Nexis account, and I cannot link this because you would have to have an account. You very well may have a Lexis/Nexis account, and if you do, then good. I will cite a few lower court cases in hopes that you do:

THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT against LEACH.


HEADNOTES

A person confined in gaol, by virtue of a void warrant, may lawfully liberate himself, by breaking the prison, using no more force than is necessary to accomplish this object.

Nor is it a crime or misdemeanour in such person, that while his sole object was to liberate himself, other persons lawfully confined for atrocious crimes in the same room with him, in consequence of such prison-breach, made their escape.



The act of the prisoner in question was so far from being a high crime and misdemeanour, that it was justifiable. [**8] And here it is not intended to suggest, that a prisoner might not do acts which would be unjustifiable, in order to escape from unlawful imprisonment. He might not, for example, kill the gaoler, or set the prison on fire, or totally demolish it; for none of these acts might be at all necessary to effect his object. But he might lawfully free himself from this imprisonment; since it is confessed to have been illegal. It appears, that all the proceedings were void. A void process is no process. The complainant,--the justice of the peace who ordered him to be committed,--the sheriff who executed the pretended warrant,--and the gaoler who held him under it,--are all liable for false imprisonment. This is the undoubted doctrine of the common law from the time of the Marshalsea case, 10 Co. 68. to this day. It hence results, that the keeper of the gaol is vested with no authority; the building in which the prisoner was confined, is not a gaol, but as to him, a mere private building; and hence he might regain that liberty of which he was unjustly deprived; and it is no part of the case that he made use of more force than was necessary to accomplish this object. Nor does [**9] the fact that he was confined with certain atrocious offenders, render it less proper for him to effect his escape.


Runyan v. The State.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA 57 Ind. 80; 1877 Ind. LEXIS 519


HEADNOTES

Criminal Law. -- Murder. -- Self-Defence. -- Retreat when Assailed. -- Use of Deadly Weapon. -- Instruction to Jury. -- On the trial of a defendant indicted for murder, where the evidence showed, that he, being disabled in one arm, had procured a pistol to defend himself against a threatened assault by an able-bodied man, and that, while standing on a public street, leaning against a building, surrounded by an excited crowd, he had been threatened by another person, and then struck by a third, the deceased, whom he at once had shot and killed, the court instructed the jury, that, "before a man can take life in self-defence, he must have been closely pressed by his assailant, and must have retreated as far as he safely or conveniently could, in good faith, with the honest intent to avoid the violence of the assault."



Held, that such instruction is erroneous.



Held, also, that, where a person, being without fault and in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel force by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self-defence, he kills his assailant, he is justifiable.



"The law gives to every man the right of self-defence. This means [**4] that a man may defend his life, and may defend his person from great bodily harm. He may repel force by force, and he may resort to such force as, under the circumstances surrounding him, may reasonably seem necessary to repel the attack upon him, and, in his defence, he may even go to the extent of taking the life of his assailant. The law, however, is tender of human life, and will not suffer the life even of an assailant and wrong-doer to be taken, unless the assault is of such a character as to make it appear reasonably necessary to the assailed to take life in defence of his own life, or to protect his person from great bodily harm. And if the person assailed can protect his life and his person by retreating, it is his duty to retreat, and thus avoid the necessity of taking human life. Do not understand me, gentlemen, to say, that retreat is always necessary, before the party assailed may take life in his defence. Retreat might be perilous or impossible, and might tend only to increase the danger.


STATE v. JOHN C. MOBLEY

240 N.C. 476; 83 S.E.2d 100; 1954 N.C. LEXIS 467


OVERVIEW: Police officers arrested defendant for public drunkenness without a warrant. Defendant, asserting he was not drunk, resisted the arrest and hit the officers. The jury rendered a verdict of not guilty of public drunkenness but guilty of resisting arrest and of simple assault. On appeal, the court reversed. The court held that the evidence on which the state relied failed to show prima facie that defendant's conduct at the time of arrest amounted either to an actual or threatened breach of the peace within the meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15-39. Hence, the arrest was illegal and the state failed to make out a prima facie case of resisting arrest. It was manifest that mere drunkenness unaccompanied by language or conduct which created, or was reasonably calculated to create public excitement and disorder amounting to a breach of the peace, could not justify an arrest without a warrant under the statute.



The offense of resisting arrest, both at common law and under the statute, G.S. 14-223, presupposes a lawful arrest. It is axiomatic that every person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such case the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self-defense.





Now, with that being said some states (Texas and a few others) do have laws that take that stuff into account. This will vary from state to state. I am not condoning the officers actions at all. I am simply pointing out what the law says when dealing with this subject manner.


It would be more than prudent for police officers across the nation to look into the statutes you allude to. As the case law I provided suggests, these statutes do not provide immunity for a police officer acting unlawfully. If, however, as you suggest, there are states that do provide statutory immunity for unlawful actions, such a statute is most assuredly challenge-able as being unconstitutional




Before people torch me on the front lawn, I did not make the law. If you dont like the law, then get involved and have it changed.


As I have argued with you before, no one "makes law", but law simply is. That said, I again urge you to look very carefully at the statutes you believe impose some sort of regulation of the right to self defense, where a person innocent of any and all crimes is unlawfully arrested and must acquiesce to this unlawful arrest. I am confident you will not find any statute worded in that way, and whatever statute your are relying upon, it appears as if you are misconstruing the language.

A police officer who makes an unlawful arrest is no longer a police officer, but is a private person acting upon their own private beliefs and they do not hold any immunity from wrong doing.




I have gone hands on a few times with EDP (emotionally disturbed people). Just because there is a "mental issue" present does not mean the person weas a nerf helmet and is incapable of doing damage. With mental problems there is the very real possibility that there is a misfire when it comes to strenght and pain thresholds.


I do not think anyone in this thread is arguing that the unarmed retarded man (and actually he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia) was incapable of doing damage himself. It is the reasonable suspicion that regardless of what damage the unarmed schizophrenic may have caused did not merit this lethal beating.




Anyways, I am just pointing this info out and nothing more.


Your input is appreciated, and you add more information worthy of discussion in this thread. Thank you, brother.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by earthling42
 




You know, if it was you, you would want to defend yourself againt the beatings, everybody would because it is only natural to be self protective don't you think?

If it was me, I would have cooperated with the police and not resisted arrest or detention. I think one of the established facts is that he resisted arrest to some extent.


And they just beat him and tased him even more as he tried to defend himself, he died because of the beatings which means they have murdered him by using excessive force.

When confronted with resistance to an arrest, the police must use a reasonable amount of force to overcome that resistance and take the person into custody. There is a fine line between defending yourself and resisting arrest. At this point, based on the facts provided, the man died as a result of force used by a police officer. An in depth investigation will determine if he was murdered due to excessive force or not.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by areyouserious2010
 





If it was me, I would have cooperated with the police and not resisted arrest or detention. I think one of the established facts is that he resisted arrest to some extent.


It is no where near an established fact, but is merely an allegation being reported ad nauseum while established facts seem to be in short supply.




When confronted with resistance to an arrest, the police must use a reasonable amount of force to overcome that resistance and take the person into custody. There is a fine line between defending yourself and resisting arrest. At this point, based on the facts provided, the man died as a result of force used by a police officer. An in depth investigation will determine if he was murdered due to excessive force or not.


It is most imprudent to assume that the Fullerton police officers involved in this incident actually had probable cause to make an arrest. It there was no probable cause then the arrest was unlawful and any resistance to that unlawful arrest wholly lawful. There is not at all a fine line between lawful arrest and unlawful arrest, and it would be naive to assume - especially given the obvious fact that many police officers - well obvious that at least one in this thread, at the very least, believe they have authority to unlawfully arrest someone without dealing with resistance - that police do not make unlawful arrests.

Since jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, your suggestion of simply just complying with an "arrest" - regardless of its lawfulness - is an understandable strategy. Of course, presumably you are not schizophrenic and it should not be assumed that a diagnosed schizophrenic is incapable of knowing when he is being unlawfully arrested.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by areyouserious2010
 


Well, but we have to remember, the reason he resisted arrest was probably due to his mental illness. Picture it..you are mentally ill, homeless...walking around..someone comes and tries to force you physically to go somewhere..then because you resist being taken by a stranger, they start beating you. Your scared...so you fight back..and call out for your dad. I'm sorry, but maybe I just have more common sense then the police officers? but probably..if I encountered a homeless person, and that someone began calling out for their dad while I'm hitting them because they won't stay down for an arrest? I'm going to think.."what the f.....?" I might rethink my steps a bit. Look, as cliche as it will sound..I've seen plenty of "Cops" shows to see live tv where someone resists. They tackle the dude/dudette
, one sits on their back, while the other straps their hands with those plastic tie things, and then also straps their ankles. They then simply pick them up by the shoulders and feet and into the car they go. Simple procedure. My cousin, as I mention her and her husband are police officers in Trenton New Jersey, as well as my uncle, and his 2 sons...my father in law is also a sheriff here where we live, and my brother went through Iraq and is now also a police officer about an hour from us. All of them..everyone of them have stated the same thing "police brutality"

Doesn't matter if the guy resisted..wouldn't even matter if he had a weapon, there are ways to handle the situation and I have 7 separate police officers from all different counties across the eastern US stating...this was police brutality, pure and simple. They even have procedures for those who try to bite..tasering and hitting in the head with police stick or flashlight is not one of them.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Nkinga
 


The head beating is what gives this away as murder to me. It seems to me that the mentally challenged, socially challenged, and the physically challenged need a bit more protecting than most of society. More and more it seems that the police brutality is committed against those very people.




top topics



 
61
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join