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.

 

NYPD murders unarmed teen in Grandmothers home

page: 2
22
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Mate, when the day comes that someone is telling you that the officer had no choice but to shoot and kill someone that you know or love over something pathetically unimportant, then I'll listen to you. You're saying that every cop has every right to shoot and kill someone for no good reason, as long as that cop felt it was warranted.

That is something you seem to hold to high regard, and I for one find that thought process nothing more than handing them ky jelly as we undo our trousers. No man should be given free reign to kill someone and then fall back on an argument that cannot be refuted. It must be treated as it would be treated for anyone, or else you may as well just hand out blank cheques to anyone in a police uniform as a get out of jail free card. And I don't give a damn about the law, I only know how faulty this world is BECAUSE of this law.

This kid was killed for a bag of plant material. Nothing changes that fact, and in this case for it to have any merit whatsoever then the law must be applied to the person who took that life, and not used to justify it. Which seems to be what is happening now, at least for now given we all know the likely outcome.

But no doubt over the years there have been a plethora of cases that have resulted in legislation to cater to just such situations.. you know, the kid was killed while in possession, therefore he was engaged in a crime when he was killed and therefore no blame can be applied to the officer.

Like a woman here who was raped after smoking speed with the man who raped her, she claims she did it under duress to appease him so he would not assault her again, but the case was over ruled and she was refused compensation as she was in the process of committing a crime when she was raped. Pathetic, but law.

The law is a joke. It has been bent in so many directions it's weak and brittle and breaks all the time, but as long as it's there, cops like this guy shooting a teenager in his grandmothers home for $20 worth of dope, will continue and people will continue to justify it because of ridiculous logic and a somehow unwavering belief that the law works.




posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainNemo
 


Trained yes but even the most advanced in depth training still gives way to actual life and the situation at hand. Nothing ever goes as planned, which is why the saying goes officers never rise to the occasion, but fall back to their level of training.

The ideal outcome of any encounter is to end it peacefully using the least amount of force necessary. That would require cooperation from both parties, law enforcement as well as the person we are dealing with.

If I do a traffic stop, and the person gets out of his car and has a dark object in his hand, how much warning do I need to give before I can consider his actions threatening?

If I perceive the item in his hand as a weapon, and I use deadly force to stop the threat (the guy is refusing to comply with verbal commands to stop and show his hands) its is irrelevant as to whats actually in his hand after the fact. Its what did I perceive the moment I used deadly force.

Its a 2 way road.. The reason for yelling gun gun is to alert other officers / agencies / people that there is an imminent threat perceived with deadly force implications. The other factors to take into account during those situations is if one officer yells it, the other officers dont need to see it to respond. They cant act off that officers actions (acting in good faith that the information you are using is is accurate and valid at the time).

The offer is yelling at the guy to show his hands, the guy is refusing while running into the bathroom. According to the article the guy had drugs in his possession and was apparently trying to flush the evidence. If the guy complied with the verbal commands it most likely would not have gone down this road. Instead the guy performed an action to lead the officer to believe there was an imminent fear for his life and that of the other people in the area. As I stated, its not relevant if the guy actually had a gun or not. Its dependent upon the officer and what he perceived at the exact moment.

I cant stress that enough as it is key to the actions performed. Its key because his actions will only be reviewed in that context. Its key because if it goes to court its the only way the court will be able to review the actions taken.

They will not get to play the what if game... A warrant is not needed to enter a house to prevent the destruction of evidence, contrary to the lawyers position. As I stated his job is to argue the case for the client he represents, which is not the police. Law Enforcement can enter a house without a search warrant if they have information / evidence of a crime and that evidence can be destroyed. It allows law enforcement to secure the evidence and the house, to perform a basic search to ensure there are no other people in the house that can pose a threat to anyone. The house is then secured until the search warrant can be obtained / arrive on premises.

A search warrant requires police to acknowledge their presence and entrance upon the property UNLESS a judge authorizes a no knock warrant, which is where there is the probability of an extremely high risk encounter if their presence is announced before hand.

Again all must be supported by Police actions.

All I am saying is contrary to the article, which can only print what the defense gives them and what they hear from people who saw but weren't necessarily present for all of it. The police cant refute every single accusations because its an open an active investigation.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by mainidh
 


Im telling you that in the United States the standard for the use of deadly force is what the officer perceived at the exact moment force was used. As far as listening to me or not, thats your problem not mine. I do this for a living and know what i;m talking about, as opposed to people ignoring "technicalities" because they simply dont understand there use.

Out of curiosity what country are you from? I am always curious to find out what countries people are from who like to chastise US law enforcement without even knowing the laws.

Coming back to that comment about when to listen to someone and when not to. Your ability to take a complex situation and somehow try to pass it off as an officer being able to shoot who ever he wants is just sad and pathetic.
edit on 12-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by MysticPearl
 


A life was lost yes, however im not the one rushing to judgment. Just because you dont agree with the way the law works doesn't mean the law should be ignored. Yes I complain about the overlooked technicalities because its those technicalities that places the situation into proper context.

For example the technicality of the use of deadly force being what the officer perceived at the moment force was used as opposed to people who ignore those laws they dont agree with in order to rush to judgment on the officers actions, as was done in this case, which by the way gives the illusion you guys have no concern for law, just revenge based on incomplete / inaccurate information.

Since there are so many people who embrace ignorance when it comes to law enforcement you are damn right I will be in those threads giving the side of the story you guys refuse to look at and accept.

The 100 meter rush to judgment you guys do is just insane as well as hypocritical. When you decide to put on a uniform, put a gun on your hip and stand in harms way, then you get to second guess an officers actions.

Until that time, your opinion means nothing.

You just proved my point.

Again, you don't care about life lost. You're more concerned with technicalities, as well as generalizations I might add. I referred to your opinions specifically, yet as a hopeless defense mechanism, here you are grouping me with a bunch of other people. You guys? I'm responsible for my own opinion. Attack that as much as you like, but don't go off grouping with a bunch of others. Really is a sad defense mechanism. Generalizations like that are probably why cops keep shooting civilians to death.

Where did I say I don't agree with the law? I said I don't agree with you arguing technicalities with little concern for loss of life. It's like going to the funeral for someone who died from a drug overdose. Yes, they were most likely wrong in taking too many drugs which ended up killing them, and those drugs could have been some of the worst ones out there, but would you show up to a funeral and start spouting off about the person being in the wrong for being an addict? I find what you do to be similar. You jump right in and argue technicalities, while not even commenting on the life lost.

That is however different than disagreeing with the law, which was an assumption on your part, probably due to your need to group people opinions together.

Also shows what wrong with cops. Your mentality. No one can second question a cops actions unless they were previously a cop? That's funny, I see you second questioning politicians all the time, yet, you aren't one. Ever second guess a teacher? A CEO? A doctor? What a hypocrite you are.
edit on 12-2-2012 by MysticPearl because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by CaptainNemo
 


As I stated, its not relevant if the guy actually had a gun or not. Its dependent upon the officer and what he perceived at the exact moment.

I cant stress that enough as it is key to the actions performed. Its key because his actions will only be reviewed in that context. Its key because if it goes to court its the only way the court will be able to review the actions taken.


Yet increasingly, what cops "perceive" in a situation, turns out to be wrong. What happens when you have a bunch of cops who "perceive" a threat incorrectly? You get poor judgement, which is the crux of most complaints I've seen about cops recently.

It's not the law. It's the poor judgement at a shockingly increasing rate.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by MysticPearl
 


Again you miss the point and take the wrong message from it.

I wouldn't show up to a funeral pointing out technicalities.. I would show up i court as well as refute those in the paper, as I am doing here. You are the one who keeps shifting the argument not me.

As far as grouping people together, I point out you have done the same thing with law enforcement, as well as your comments directed at me and my technicalities.


That is however different than disagreeing with the law, which was an assumption on your part, probably due to your need to group people opinions together.

No, the need is to explain to people who are ignorant when it comes to the law and those pesky technicalities that have everything to do with the actions of the officer. Its not an assumption based on the peoples response in this thread who want to bitch about me pointing out the technicalities. Without those technicalities "you guys" can continue to bash the police without having to justify that bashing, which is just cowardly.


Also shows what wrong with cops.

Hypocritical much? For a person who is against stereotyping others, you seem to have no problem doing it when it is convenient for you.


Your mentality. No one can second question a cops actions unless they were previously a cop? That's funny, I see you second questioning politicians all the time, yet, you aren't one. Ever second guess a teacher? A CEO? A doctor? What a hypocrite you are.
edit on 12-2-2012 by MysticPearl because: (no reason given)

The only hypocrite here would be you. You want to ignore any and all information that casts the situation into context, instead choosing to cloud it with stories of confronting people at funerals which is not even close to what I am talking about.

There is a reason some drugs are illegal to possess and use.. As the guy in the article as well as your friend found out. Dont sully there image because you hate law enforcement. Dont use their situation to somehow justify your ignorance of the law.

Ironic... You chastise me on stereotyping, while you do the exact same thing..

Pot, meet kettle..



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by MysticPearl
Yet increasingly, what cops "perceive" in a situation, turns out to be wrong. What happens when you have a bunch of cops who "perceive" a threat incorrectly? You get poor judgement, which is the crux of most complaints I've seen about cops recently.

It's not the law. It's the poor judgement at a shockingly increasing rate.


Ah yes, more stereotyping of all law enforcement. Exactly how deep does your hypocrisy and ignroance of the law run?

The poor judgment in these cases would be the people who opted to freely break the law. The poor judgment would be these morons who decided to run from the police in an attempt to destroy evidence.

My job would be easier if the morons who break the law would comply when they got caught. Dont believe me, go ask the guy who just died of the drug overdoes you brought up. He was killed by his own actions, not the police. Its evident his fate was sealed regardless of whether it was ended by his owns stupid actions, or if he had an encounter with the police.

The fault and end consequences lie with them, not the police.
edit on 12-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by MysticPearl
 


Again you miss the point and take the wrong message from it.

I wouldn't show up to a funeral pointing out technicalities.. I would show up i court as well as refute those in the paper, as I am doing here. You are the one who keeps shifting the argument not me.

As far as grouping people together, I point out you have done the same thing with law enforcement, as well as your comments directed at me and my technicalities.


That is however different than disagreeing with the law, which was an assumption on your part, probably due to your need to group people opinions together.

No, the need is to explain to people who are ignorant when it comes to the law and those pesky technicalities that have everything to do with the actions of the officer. Its not an assumption based on the peoples response in this thread who want to bitch about me pointing out the technicalities. Without those technicalities "you guys" can continue to bash the police without having to justify that bashing, which is just cowardly.


Also shows what wrong with cops.

Hypocritical much? For a person who is against stereotyping others, you seem to have no problem doing it when it is convenient for you.


Your mentality. No one can second question a cops actions unless they were previously a cop? That's funny, I see you second questioning politicians all the time, yet, you aren't one. Ever second guess a teacher? A CEO? A doctor? What a hypocrite you are.
edit on 12-2-2012 by MysticPearl because: (no reason given)

The only hypocrite here would be you. You want to ignore any and all information that casts the situation into context, instead choosing to cloud it with stories of confronting people at funerals which is not even close to what I am talking about.

There is a reason some drugs are illegal to possess and use.. As the guy in the article as well as your friend found out. Dont sully there image because you hate law enforcement. Dont use their situation to somehow justify your ignorance of the law.

Ironic... You chastise me on stereotyping, while you do the exact same thing..

Pot, meet kettle..

Wow. Not too bright for a cop are you?

Again, I never disputed the law. I disputed you talking technicalities instead of acknowledging death of a citizen.

And yes, your assumption was wrong. You grouped me with people who questioned the law. I didn't, anywhere. Too much of a proud hypocrite to admit that, eh?

You keep bringing up my ignorance of the law, but show me where I questioned it? That's a strawman argument. Because you don't like me bringing up you not acknowledging the death before arguing technicalities, you've created an argument about me being ignorant to the law, where I never commented on it.

Truly brilliant on your part. What a lack of common sense from a cop. Not surprising. What a joke.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by MysticPearl
Yet increasingly, what cops "perceive" in a situation, turns out to be wrong. What happens when you have a bunch of cops who "perceive" a threat incorrectly? You get poor judgement, which is the crux of most complaints I've seen about cops recently.

It's not the law. It's the poor judgement at a shockingly increasing rate.


Ah yes, more stereotyping of all law enforcement. Exactly how deep does your hypocrisy and ignroance of the law run?

The poor judgment in these cases would be the people who opted to freely break the law. The poor judgment would be these morons who decided to run from the police in an attempt to destroy evidence.

My job would be easier if the morons who break the law would comply when they got caught. Dont believe me, go ask the guy who just died of the drug overdoes you brought up. He was killed by his own actions, not the police. Its evident his fate was sealed regardless of whether it was ended by his owns stupid actions, or if he had an encounter with the police.

The fault and end consequences lie with them, not the police.
edit on 12-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

Actually, the world would be a far better place if cops quit going around shooting people over dimebags, and blaming everyone but themselves.

And running from police to destroy evidence doesn't equate to a death sentence. Unfortunately, far too many of you cops think it does.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Well if the claims were true and there was no gun, his perception was horribly off, but like you said in all fairness I guess we'll just have to wait until the investigation is finished.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by MysticPearl
 


Your ignorance of the law and my accusations re supported by your continued use of the term technicalities, which are in fact, the law.

Your inability to understand that the technicalities are involved and present for a reason is a problem of yours not mine. Your exception to those technicalities being brought up and discussed is in fact you ignoring the laws in place for situations like this.

I think the non bright individual would be you, not me. After all I know the difference between a law, case law and how they work with each other, where as you view them as a technicality that is not needed.

Wanna keep it on topic instead of dragging it off topic with your assault / stereotyping of law enforcement and your wrong assumption of my intelligence? We can go at each other all night and in the end I am still going to be right with my posts and "technicalities" and you will still be trying to figure out the difference to justify a failed argument on your part.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by MysticPearl
 


Your ignorance of the law and my accusations re supported by your continued use of the term technicalities, which are in fact, the law.

Your inability to understand that the technicalities are involved and present for a reason is a problem of yours not mine. Your exception to those technicalities being brought up and discussed is in fact you ignoring the laws in place for situations like this.

I think the non bright individual would be you, not me. After all I know the difference between a law, case law and how they work with each other, where as you view them as a technicality that is not needed.

Wanna keep it on topic instead of dragging it off topic with your assault / stereotyping of law enforcement and your wrong assumption of my intelligence? We can go at each other all night and in the end I am still going to be right with my posts and "technicalities" and you will still be trying to figure out the difference to justify a failed argument on your part.


Wow. That's a huge assumption on your part.

I brought it up as a matter of empathy, as you can see in my original post. I think it's a lack of empathy on your part to talk technicalities before acknowledging ones death.

So again, where did I dispute the law? Where did I even talk about the law? My point was compassion for another human being. You keep changing the subject. Yet I'm the one sidetracking the thread?

Don't reply before going to my original post you quoted, and show me where I even brought up the law.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainNemo
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Well if the claims were true and there was no gun, his perception was horribly off, but like you said in all fairness I guess we'll just have to wait until the investigation is finished.


Does the article give us specifics on where each person was when the use of force occurred? Was the suspect facing the officer, facing away where the officer couldn't see his hands, was he half turned towards the officer where only 1 hand was visible?

Was there anything blocking the officers view? Like the suspects body, partial wall, shower stall, sink?

My point is these are all factors that are looked at and taken into account. Because of the level of force used and potential for criminal charges in both directions, as well as a civil law suit towards the police, the police are not going to talk about the specifics to the media. It will come out in court, where more times than not information is presented that the media did not have that changes the entire dynamics of the situation.

If a civilian kills a person, there is one investigation - criminal.

For Police its entirely different.

There is a criminal investigation into the officers actions to determine if he violated local / state law.
There is an internal affairs investigation to determine if the officer violated any departmental policy.
There is a 42 USC 1983 investigation from the Federal level to determine if the officers actions violated the suspects civil rights (shooting an individual is a technical seizure under the 4th amendment).

As with civilians law enforcement has the right to invoke their 5th amendment rights.
Unlike civilians police are also read our garrity rights. Because our organization employs a command structure, we can be ordered to answer questions, even if those answers will incriminate the officer.

If we refuse to answer questions under a direct order, it can be used against the officer during the IA investigation. The officer is considered guilty until proven innocent essentially.

If we comply by order, the information can be used in the IA investigation but not the criminal investigation.

If we waive the rights then the info can be used during both portions.

There are aspects to these investigations the public aren't aware of, which is the reason I always sound off in these threads. The fact several people know my name reinforces my opinion that the bulk of people are quick to condemn the police without any reasons other than they just simply dont know the law, how it works, and those pesky technicalities people have issues with.

Let the legal system to its job....



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by MysticPearl
 


Again you bringing it up and the manner in which you tried to incorporate it has absolutely on bearing on what we are talking about. You have accused me of being the person who would bring up technicalities at a funeral, when in fact I have never done nor would I ever do that. That would be a huge assumption on your part, and a wrong one at that.

You made that scenario a part of the discussion by trying to pass it off as something I would do, when in fact it would not be. I used your example to make my point that the police are not responsible for the decisions other people make. The only time law enforcement gets involved at that level is when the law violation occurs and comes across the radar screen for whatever reason.

If you dont like the laws, then take that issue to the appropriate forum, which would be your legislatures. The police have absolutely nothing to do with the drafting and passing of laws, and we have nothing to do with how those law violations are prosecuted.

I see time and time again being complaining about the number of drug users cops put in jail. We have NOTHING to do with punishment and sentencing, let alone prosecution. Hence my comments about ignorance of the law, as well as those technicalities you seem to disassociate with law.

You taking exception to the technicalities, is in fact you disputing the law. I dont know how else to explain this concept to you. The Technicalities ARE a part of the law, and when you dispute the technicalities, you are disputing the law.

It reminds me of the guy who posts in almost all law enforcement threads that the supreme court ruled a person can use deadly force against a police officer. What he ignores, and its the same problem you are having, is the technicality that the use of deadly force must be in proportion to the level of force against yourself or others.

And officer making an arrest is not a justification for the use of deadly force, so the use of deadly force against that officer is invalid, because of that technicality being ignored, which stems from Tennessee Vs. Garner, which applies to the supreme court decision he constantly brings up.

The technicalities matter a great deal, and your continued position of trying to make them different is the direct reason you are not understanding what im saying.

Also, drop the BS you dont care about the loss of life argument. The loss of life is always the worst possible outcome. The manner in which I view that death is directly related to the cause of that death. Is it sad a person died, absolutely. Am I going to weep and cry because the guy who died decided to pull a weapon, which was the direct result of his death? Nope, im not.

What you guys should be concentrating on is educating people to make the right choices to avoid contact with law enforcement in a negative encounter through wrong choices they made. Your sadness over the loss of life should be used to get through to people that once they made their decisioned to break the law and get caught, that the you aren't taking me alive mindset is the wrong one to have.

In almost all officer involved shootings, its the result of an action taken by the suspect that forces the encounter.

You are right to find the loss of life sad, but your reason for that sadness is wrong.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by MysticPearl
 


Again you bringing it up and the manner in which you tried to incorporate it has absolutely on bearing on what we are talking about. You have accused me of being the person who would bring up technicalities at a funeral, when in fact I have never done nor would I ever do that. That would be a huge assumption on your part, and a wrong one at that.

You made that scenario a part of the discussion by trying to pass it off as something I would do, when in fact it would not be. I used your example to make my point that the police are not responsible for the decisions other people make. The only time law enforcement gets involved at that level is when the law violation occurs and comes across the radar screen for whatever reason.

If you dont like the laws, then take that issue to the appropriate forum, which would be your legislatures. The police have absolutely nothing to do with the drafting and passing of laws, and we have nothing to do with how those law violations are prosecuted.

I see time and time again being complaining about the number of drug users cops put in jail. We have NOTHING to do with punishment and sentencing, let alone prosecution. Hence my comments about ignorance of the law, as well as those technicalities you seem to disassociate with law.

You taking exception to the technicalities, is in fact you disputing the law. I dont know how else to explain this concept to you. The Technicalities ARE a part of the law, and when you dispute the technicalities, you are disputing the law.

It reminds me of the guy who posts in almost all law enforcement threads that the supreme court ruled a person can use deadly force against a police officer. What he ignores, and its the same problem you are having, is the technicality that the use of deadly force must be in proportion to the level of force against yourself or others.

And officer making an arrest is not a justification for the use of deadly force, so the use of deadly force against that officer is invalid, because of that technicality being ignored, which stems from Tennessee Vs. Garner, which applies to the supreme court decision he constantly brings up.

The technicalities matter a great deal, and your continued position of trying to make them different is the direct reason you are not understanding what im saying.

Also, drop the BS you dont care about the loss of life argument. The loss of life is always the worst possible outcome. The manner in which I view that death is directly related to the cause of that death. Is it sad a person died, absolutely. Am I going to weep and cry because the guy who died decided to pull a weapon, which was the direct result of his death? Nope, im not.

What you guys should be concentrating on is educating people to make the right choices to avoid contact with law enforcement in a negative encounter through wrong choices they made. Your sadness over the loss of life should be used to get through to people that once they made their decisioned to break the law and get caught, that the you aren't taking me alive mindset is the wrong one to have.

In almost all officer involved shootings, its the result of an action taken by the suspect that forces the encounter.

You are right to find the loss of life sad, but your reason for that sadness is wrong.




What is wrong with you, god?

He never mentioned anything about the law nor about an investigation. He merely stated your post was conducted with poor taste.

Furthermore, the argument is amnesty. As you said, if answered by order, it can't be used in the criminal court.

Meaning at worst if he complies, he can only get fired for taking a life. That's called above the law, and the IA throwing you off the force is not fair punishment.

Furthermore, despite the use of force claims, the judgement on behalf of the officer needs to be better. Period. There was no gun and he was flushing weed.

Plus the weed he was flushing was a misdemeanor desk appearance. That's a citation in NY. Your boy killed a man over a citation.

And you're blindly defending his poor judgment.

Who is going to shoot a cop over a 75$ ticket? That's less than an ounce of mids, btw.

Yes, let them conduct their investigation, but if their investigation grants him immunity to criminal court then the investigation is a fraud.


You ignore all of that and blindly stick up for the gang you represent. Like any other gang member on the street.

You are demonstrating in this very thread why people hate cops. They aren't human. They value the faulty law over the life of the people they swear to protect.

They value their own lives more than those of the people they attempt to save.

Being a police officer is a high risk and prestigious job because it's an act of selflessness. The minute the officer puts himself before the citizen, he is no longer an honorable officer. He becomes selfish and corrupted. Shooting people and crafting excuses. This goes for those he is attempting to apprehend as well. The officer's opinion and judgement does not equate to guilt. Killing people recklessly because you made a mistake should never be defended.

The officer who executed the guy in the cali train station is free already. You don't see a problem with that, do you?

Also;

Knowing the law and disagreeing with it does not equate to ignorance, as; knowing the law and blindly following it because it is law does equate to ignorance.

I.E.

The law is broken. This is the observation that is being made and challenged in this thread. You refuse to present reasoning behind how it's not broken, and keep calling people ignorant for disagreeing with the current use of force laws.

Laws can be repealed. Life cannot be brought back.

This is where you show zero compassion, it's like you're not human, you're Robo-Cop.

You're supposed to jump in front of a bullet for me, not look to put one in me.

It's "Protect and Serve" not "Hunt and Harass."

You're a gangsta thug in blue.


Am I going to weep and cry because the guy who died decided to pull a weapon, which was the direct result of his death? Nope, im not.


What about when the guy who died didn't pull a weapon and the cop lies about his perception of force to dodge a criminal sentence? Oh that's right, we care only about what he CLAIMS he perceived. Not about what he actually perceived. Real.Big.Distinction.


This is called a free pass, because if I was a police officer who wanted to murder somebody, I'd just claim it LOOKED like he had a gun and I'd be scott free. This is called an "honor" system. It never works with crooks, thugs, or cheats, and should be abolished immediately.


^^^^^^^^
COMMON SENSE.
edit on 12-2-2012 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I read somewhere he was shot in the chest, but it's not in the article and I haven't found the article that I read it in. So I can't comment on the deceased's body language.

The state of the NYPD is horrendous. THey're killing civilians and eachother, somebody should put a watergun in Mayor bloomberg's hands and call 911. New York city would be a much better place then.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I agree with you that the Court has held that they can stop destruction of evidence, but not a dime bag, sorry but that is a stretch. And how would a cop get that information and have a probable cause to think it was being destroyed? The kid heard the cop and tried to flush and he was shot. The cop may have yelled GUN GUN but who cares the kid didn't have a gun. It's not OK for a cop to just say gun gun and then be OK to shoot an unarmed person. This kid was murdered in my humble opinion. I wish the good cops would turn on the bad ones and clean it up form the inside because the PTB seem to want jack booted thugs for cops...



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by theindependentjournal
 


How do you know there arent more drugs in the house? Or weapons in the house? My point is we have a part of the story from the view point of non law enforcement.

Dime bag or 50 tons of coc aine, the standard is the same when it comes to securing evidence in a manner outside of an intial, valid, search warrant. We know that kid did not have a gun after the fact. What we dont know is what prompted to the officer to yell gun and discharge his weapon.

My point is until the entire story comes out, we have one piece of it, and its coming from everyone except law enforcement.

Questions to consider.

the article states the kid was not armed.
Do we know if there were any weapons in the bathroom within reach?
Just because gun is yelled does no neccissarily mean the weapon is in fact a gun.
Did the suspect have his back t the officer the entire time?
Did the suspect peform an action where, when viewed from behind, could lead to the impression the person was making moves towards a weapon on his person?

Until all of the details come out, its premature for the OP to take creative license with the term murder (which is not even the name of the articles title).

People are jumping to a conclusion (leap of logic) which can be incorrect.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Laokin
 


Starred ya! Excellent response! I could not have said it better. I will argue the Law side of it with him, Law is my thing and I find nothing Lawful about what was done here and he is incorrect about immunity from prosecution. There are several ways to take down a cop. My most recent and current case is a Civil Rights Case in Federal Court seeking damages in the millions.

I would start this case out at the top with the federal district court for NY and be ready for a US Court of Federal Claims with it... But money will not bring back this young man. Cops used to be called Peace Officers and that is what they did then they became Military trained Law Enforcement and they turned into assassins and tyrants. It's time the good guys take the bad guys out of their ranks and clean it up or no people will trust any cop ever.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by MysticPearl
 


A life was lost yes, however im not the one rushing to judgment.


Your own paranoid rants about "left-wing liberals" and "cop haters", etc. suggest otherwise. I have yet to determine if you are serious or not. Your personal motto "Resident Jack-Booted Thug" suggests you're just a troll, or you're simply roleplaying a character and playing games.

Most threads you go into, you don't even bother to discuss anything without first trying to incite a thread-riot by insulting people, or insulting the entire thread. We all do this on occasion, after all we are only human, but you seem to do it with regularity.. and you're starting to become an embarrassment to this site in general.

I really love how no moderators will edit your posts either, even though a good lot of them are flagrant violations of the site Terms and Conditions.




top topics



 
22
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join