NYPD murders unarmed teen in Grandmothers home

Originally posted by Laokin
What is wrong with you, god?

I have never referred to myself as God so how about you check the stereotype at the door?

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

Actually he took exception to the "technicalities" I raised, which is in fact challenging the law, contrary to what others think.

Originally posted by Laokin
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.

I said it can't if the officer waives his rights. Absent that ordering an officer to answer a guilt seeking question and then using it against him/her in court is a violation of their 5th amendment. Im not sure where your getting Amnesty from so could you please clarify. If Ia finds he violated departmental policy then he is not being terminated for taking a life, but for violating policy. From a criminal spect it means nothing however from a civil aspect it removes the civil immunity shield the officer has and allows the police department and the city to disassociate themselves with the officer. That means if a civil suit is filed it all falls on the officer.

Or are you suggesting a person should be punished regardless of court outcome?

Originally posted by Laokin
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.

Well for starters people seem to be ignoring this part of the article -

Police officials said that members of a street narcotics squad i[]broadcast over their radios that they saw the butt of a gun in Graham's waistband as he left a convenience store, under observation for suspected drug activity. The young man then fled up the block to his home after two plainclothes officers in an unmarked squad car told him to stop, officials said

Emphesis added by me. Secondly the article doesn't state how much marijuana the individual had in his possession. On the off chance you don't know anything less than 35g is a misdemeanor, and anything more is a felony. Secondly was it one big bag, smaller bags with individual amounts? If individual amounts you are looking at possession with intent to distribute, which can be a felony.

I didnt see the amount in the article. Do you have a secondary source that states the amount of weed?

Originally posted by Laokin
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.

Really? What is the suspects criminal history? Was he on Parole / probation? Assuming for the moment its a misdemeanor amount, its entirely possible any conviction on that could violate any P and P he is on, resulting in revocation and multi year prison sentence. I didnt see anything in the article addressing his crominal history so again please share if you have other info.

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

Like the one the suspect belonged to? IOh my bad, there is that pesky stereotyping again. I am providing you with the info that you and others refuse to acknowledge. You do not have all of the information and people are outright ignoring other information.

But hey, continue blindly arguing in favor of the suspect. Like any other person who has no understanding of the law, let alone the understanding of personal responsibility.

Originally posted by Laokin
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.

People hate the police because they don't understand the law. When they dont understand the law they assume the police are acting illegally. When people assume the police act illegally, they draw the wrong conclusions.

All the guy had to do was comply with the officer to stop and show his hands. Again you excuse personal accountability and try to shift blame to someone else for the suspects actions / choices.

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

I don't since the officer was charged using the exact same law and standards that are used when its a civilian who committed the action. Is there any reason you blame the police instead of the PA's office, the judge and the jury in that case, who are the ones who prosecuted, ajudicated and determined guilt?

Or do you just like to blame the police for the hell of it?

As far as not knowing the law and disagreeing with the law... If you don't know the law, and all of its "technicalities" then how can you sit here and argue your point? Its predicated on a lack of knowledge and understanding of the law. Disagreeing with a law can also mean you don't fully understand the law and how its applied, as in this case.

As far as taking a bullet for you where did you get that from? Law Enforcement is not required to act, nor are we required to protect the individual. The purpose and function of law enforcement is to protect society as a whole.

Again, not knowing makes your argument irrelevant. Its based on a lack of knowledge and understanding.

ok im over it America is lost in a sea of corruption and paranoia i feel so sad for my brothers and sisters state side i mean killing a teacher in her car in this today tops the lot since when having some blow is it a death sentence so sad my heart goes out to the family grrrrrrrrr

This cop murdered the teen point blank. What cop in their right mind follows a suspect into an unknown home? Anything could of been waiting in there for him. I know a few people that live around the area and it's not the best of neighborhoods. The police patrol constantly and harass people, but since this incident happened my friend said there hasn't been a single cop car for awhile. I guess the captain told them to ease off the people so they won't have to face anymore backlash. NYPD is out of control I must say. Being in NYC would probably be one of the worst places to be if martial law actually occurred because there's no escape.

reply to post by CaptainNemo

How many people are going to continue to lose their lives over a plant?

Just imagine how absurd this situation would seem if he was flushing alcohol down the toilet and they killed him for that.

In fact if you look at the stats you'll see drunkards cause MUCH MORE public damage than any marijuana users ever cause, and they costs states MUCH MORE more because of those damages. If you look at the stats you'll see that MUCH MORE people die and get hospitalized due to alcohol poisoning compared to marijuana, in fact no one has ever died from using marijuana. If you look at the facts, you see that alcohol contains MUCH MORE harmful man made substances and has virtually no healing effects what so ever, while marijuana grows naturally in the ground and is used for many different medicinal purposes. I'm not endorsing anything, simply stating the facts as they are.

Now, everyone take another look at this story and realize how SICK AND TWISTED IT IS.

Emdin also questioned an initial police account describing the shooting. In statements to reporters the day of Graham's death, chief NYPD spokesman Paul J. Browne said that Graham "struggled" with Haste in the bathroom before the fatal shot.

But at a press conference the next day, Kelly, the NYPD commissioner, answered 'no' when asked whether investigators still believed a struggle had taken place.

"Who told them that? Why did they retract that one day later?" Emdin said.

Not only did they invade his home without a warrant, they've even been caught LYING about what happened in the house. How anyone can defend this is beyond my understanding.

This cop obviously made a terribly bad call, let's hope it was because he lacked the proper training and not because he was a sadistic power abuser. And for all those "I'll shot any cop that comes near me-types" don't overlook that the NYPD does has officers that do their job honorably...
NYPD rescues suspect
NYPD rescues dog from frigid Hudson River
NYPD and Queens D.A. Shutdown Major Heroin Ring
NYPD Arrest Alleged Subway Attacker

but in doing a quick search for these positive articles there were many more articles of police officers committing crimes...is it because there are more bad cops than criminals? No, I say it's because the media spotlights bad cops (as they should) and only report on high profile criminals being arrested/sentenced.

reply to post by CaptainNemo


That is what the second amendment was written for.

First they take your guns. (Can't remember when it started)
Then they take your rights. (patriot act)
Then they take your property. (Mortgage meltdown, illegal land grabs)
Then they take you. (NDAA)

To our resident Jack Booted Thug:

Since you love to talk about the supreme court, legal technicalities etc...

Posted by Xcathdra[

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.

Let say that I "PERCEIVE" that a cop is going to kill me, even if said cop does not have a gun drawn. Should I just kill him while screaming "GUN, GUN!"?

Can I take a bat to his head repeatedly while screaming "STOP RESISTING!" to said cop?

Let see what the many laws have said about protecting ourselves from rogue cops...

Magna Carta Related:

The Magna Carta protected an individual right to employ lethal force to prevent an illegal arrest. In fact, in the latter decision the English High Court described an attempt to carry out an unlawful arrest as a criminal abduction, and expressed the view that bystanders have the legal authority to use whatever force is required to prevent the consummation of that crime.

Hopkin Hugget’s Case (1666)

COURTS

In the 1999 decision Victoria Price Brown v. Commonwealth of Virginia, that state’s Court of Appeals vindicated the claim that a woman assaulted and arrested by police in a case of mistaken identity “had the right to resist upon self-defense principles. The Commonwealth cannot expunge that right even by showing the officers acted in `good faith.’”

As you can see, just because the officer perceived in good faith a situation, she had the right to resist by all means necessary.

The Louisiana Supreme Court, in a 1994 decision entitled State v. Stowe, ruled: “The right of personal liberty is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen, and any unlawful interference with it may be resisted. Every person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest, and in preventing such illegal restraint on his liberty, he may use such force as necessary.”

Such force as necessary!

Without a right to resist, we have a duty to submit. And submission to unlawful police violence too frequently results in injury, sexual assault, and death.

Now, let's see what the TECHNICALITIES say about taking an arresting officer's life.....

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306.

This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

As you can see my friend, the court's technicalities have affirmed over and over the people's right to protect themselves from rogue officer. Let's take a look at some other technicalities...

An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

Or

An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

and

Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a 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.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

What do you think about these 'technicalities"?

Xcatheter- I am just waiting for the day when you stop playing Star wars in your mothers basement crawl out into the sunlight and by chance don't have your get out of jail free card are on the receiving end of the brutality that you so endorse, defend and applaud every-single-time on these threads.

Having just read this entire thread I advise you, Xcathdra, to stop now for every post of yours only
adds to the conviction that you are indeed a brainwashed uniformed would be killer !!
Police enter into a dangerous job knowing their life may be taken....that kid didn't buy a dime bag
KNOWING he might be shot to death by a cop!

I hope you guys realize it's all a part of the "Big Plan" to slowly eliminate & control the population. Any chance they can get they will take a person out. It's just something we have to accept.

[Yes, I'm being sarcastic]

Nobody has the right to kill. Its simple. But in this case, this is beyond murder. The kid runs away to the toilet! Ya i see the threat there! Why does the coward have to shoot the guy in the back? Guess its too hard for them to aim for limbs. What happened to hand to hand combat? Cops should be handed non lethal only. They have lost their privledges.
They need to have really high requirments for law enforcement. None of this minimal bs. They have guns and more power an most people. But tptb need puppets and those that dont question anything are perfect for this job.
Look at the news, who is on it? Politicians and police.

Maybe it's time to put some R&D into a real life Robocop program, that movie broke policing down to it's core...

Robocop prime directives:
1. Serve the public trust
2. Protect the innocent
3. Uphold the law
4. (classified)

...on second thought ... that #4 could be a problem....

I can't believe the amount of ignorance and out right refusal I am seeing on ATS recently. I see a bunch of people turning this into an all out "witchhunt" when it is clear all the evidence is not known even within the PD of the officer. It is rediculess to try to pass judgement on this officer by using an articale from the MSM, which on any other day the same posters would be screaming about inaccuracies and out right lying.

reply to post by mileysubet


No gun, and no drugs were discovered, and he was in his Grandmother's home. They weren't pursuing a possible kidnapping, nor a violent wanted felon. They had a mere suspicion, and now a man is dead.

In the US, people are not supposed to die over mere suspicions.

I'm all for kicking down a door and blasting the hell out of a kidnapper or escaped felon, but I'll never approve of pursuing a drug suspect and escalating a non-violent situation into a violent one. Many cities have even stopped high-speed chases for this reason. The police should never be the ones to escalate a situation, that is counter-productive to their existence as a force.

Very sad.

I think that it's time to legalize drugs here in the US.

Take the profit motive out of drugs. Take the gangs out of drugs. Let the police find criminals and not people who use drugs recreationally.

Originally posted by greenovni
Let say that I "PERCEIVE" that a cop is going to kill me, even if said cop does not have a gun drawn. Should I just kill him while screaming "GUN, GUN!"?

Well since you see he has no gun drawn the answer would be no. Was the officer in the article and the suspect directly facing each other? When you find the answer to that, get back to me.

Originally posted by greenovni
Can I take a bat to his head repeatedly while screaming "STOP RESISTING!" to said cop?

No because you arent empowered to enforce the law in the State of New York. As a civilian you cannot escalate the encounter.

Originally posted by greenovni
Let see what the many laws have said about protecting ourselves from rogue cops...

Be sure to check the many other laws that prohibit certain actions. You should also check the laws that govern a civilians use of force. You should familiarize yourself with the fact the courts and not the police or the people determine if a persons actions were justified or not.

You say rogue cop, I say civilian ignorance.

Originally posted by greenovni
Magna Carta Related:

Which is all fine and dandy but not applicable to current US Federal law or State / Local laws in the United States.

Originally posted by greenovni
COURTS

In the 1999 decision Victoria Price Brown v. Commonwealth of Virginia, that state’s Court of Appeals vindicated the claim that a woman assaulted and arrested by police in a case of mistaken identity “had the right to resist upon self-defense principles. The Commonwealth cannot expunge that right even by showing the officers acted in `good faith.’”

As you can see, just because the officer perceived in good faith a situation, she had the right to resist by all means necessary.
Feel free to read the entire decision and point out where it states all means necessary. The US Supreme Court, which trumps Virginia courts, have ruled the use of force must be in proportion to the situation at hand. Police are required to use the least amount of force necessary and end the encounter in the fastest possible and safest manner.

A false arrest is not a deadly force encounter, so a civilian using deadly force to resist has no defense since the law doesn't support the action. Secondly the civilian / innocent bystander / police aren't the ones to determine if an act is illegal or legal -. That resides with the court.

If you check Virginia State Law a person does not have a right to resist an unlawful arrest, and the courts have consistently supported that.

Originally posted by greenovni

The Louisiana Supreme Court, in a 1994 decision entitled State v. Stowe, ruled: “The right of personal liberty is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen, and any unlawful interference with it may be resisted. Every person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest, and in preventing such illegal restraint on his liberty, he may use such force as necessary.”

Again curtailed by US Supreme Court rulings. Secondly Louisianna doesnt use Englsih common law as their base.

Originally posted by greenovni
Such force as necessary!

Again governed by Supreme Court rulings that cover the use of force to end an encounter. Also, I refer you back to the individual state laws that define a civilians use of force. Some states utilize "duty to retreat" standards. A civilian MUST retreat from the encounter if they can do so. If they act and had a clear way to retreat, the action is illegal.

Originally posted by greenovni
Without a right to resist, we have a duty to submit. And submission to unlawful police violence too frequently results in injury, sexual assault, and death.

And again you as a civilian, me as a police officer, or joe schmoe civilian don't decide what actions are legal or illegal, the courts do. Also you are ignoring the fact those laws dont apply to actions taken by law enforcement.

Originally posted by greenovni
Now, let's see what the TECHNICALITIES say about taking an arresting officer's life.....

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306.

The court case you cited above is from 1893 and does not account for the current laws. The John Bad Elk v. United States - 177 U.S. 529 (1900) is from 1900 and does not account for current law.

As you can see my friend, the court's technicalities have affirmed over and over the people's right to protect themselves from rogue officer. Let's take a look at some other technicalities...

Again if you did research the ruling is not a blanket civilians can resist any arrest by using deadly force. It is governed by the Supreme Court ruling that deals with use of force and deadly force. A person does not have a right to use deadly force when there is not imminent threat to life / extreme bodily harm. The ruling by the court upheld the state ruling. It does NOT apply to all states.

Secondly, trying to make an argument to the courts because you think the cop is rogue is not based on any legal base. As I stated, and the court rulings support, the use of force must be consistent to the actions at hand. The courts decide if an action is illegal or not, not you.

3rd, asI pointed out, your citations are from the late 1890's and 1900 and do not account for current law. Both cases were State level enforced by the Supreme Court. The 1893 case was the Indiana State Supreme Court.

Originally posted by greenovni

An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one .. **********snipped for room**********

What do you think about these 'technicalities"?

Well for starters you dont understand them.

Secondly citing case law / state statutes from one state do not apply to other states. Only Federal circuit / appeals and SCOTUS rulings are reverse applied in their respective areas and only if they make a ruling on a matter of law. Upholding lower court decisions does not apply them to all states nor does over turning a conviction and remanding it back down for a new trial.

Third you still aren't comprehending the Supreme Court rulings that prohibit the use of deadly force when no threat of death existed.

Fourth, if you did more research you will find that states have laws exempting law enforcement from the laws you are citing because of the very nature of the job. Any arrest based on your cited laws make the arrest illegal. Hence the laws on the books that pertain to law enforcement actions that you are ignoring.

There is a difference between the required actions of law enforcement and the required actions of a civilian.

I would learn those differences before taking action. Based on your argument thus far you would be in jail for life.
Quoting laws and case law is easy, however its pointless when you dont understand how they apply to the situation. You gave a shining example of that by using 2 cases from 1890's and 1900.

Finally, to drive the point home that you must understand how the law works and case law applications.
The case you cited from 1900, the courts ruling made the charge of manslaughter available to a person who resisted an arrest and killed an officer in the process.

They are saying the suspects trial was flawed because the trial judge did not allow the possibility of a lesser finding based on the actions of the police.

They stated if a person resists and arrest and kills an officer in the process while arguing the officers actions were illegal, allows a jury to consider a lesser crime and punishment.

It did NOT allow a person to lawfully kill a police officer.

Yeah.. how bout them technicalities you ignored?

reply to post by Xcathdra


So, what about the other story, with the cop in Walmart harassing a woman in the checkout line. Hubby comes back to find a man in his wife's face, he pushes man away, man draws gun and claims to be a police officer, but to all outward appearances he is an aggressive man, in plain clothes, pointing a gun at a pregnant wife for no reason whatsoever. If the hubby shoots him dead, does the hubby go to jail? Because, so far, the only one with charges against him is the hubby!! If that had been me in the store, that cop would have been dead, and ya'll would be discussing my case!

So, we know what the law says, and we know what is supposed to happen, but then we also know what happens the majority of the time in practical application, and we know the boys in blue are going to circle the wagons, and the civilian is going to jail no matter what the situation.

reply to post by getreadyalready


The man in the incident you are talking about was charged with battery, not assault on law enforcement. The charge was valid because the individual shoved the deputy, and stated as much. Even if the deputy was not an officer and was just a civilian, the husband would have been charged just the same.

When he returned his wife was agitated and the deputy was yelling at her, close to her face according to the account I read.

There was no fear of life, again according to the article and the husbands account. he escalated the encounter by pushing him.

With that being said the officer in that scenario, based on the article, is a moron.