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.

 

Kelly Thomas Video Finally Released

page: 5
85
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Just because YOU think it isn't a crime doesn't change the fact that it IS a crime.

Why not appeal to get the laws changed, instead of hating the enforcers of said laws?

Also, I ask again, why is the dad all holy now? He sure cared enough about his son when is SON WAS HOMELESS.

Hey, fifteen minutes is worth a kids life I guess. (My opinion, but it sure smells like pap wants fame.)

Hopefully the grandstand of his dead son will bring some change for us regular folks.

EDIT (To define)


crime
   [krahym] Show IPA

noun
1. an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited.

2. criminal activity and those engaged in it: to fight crime.

3. the habitual or frequent commission of crimes: a life of crime.

4. any offense, serious wrongdoing, or sin.

5. a foolish, senseless, or shameful act: It's a crime to let that beautiful garden go to ruin.

dictionary.reference.com...
edit on 5/8/2012 by adigregorio because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 8 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Ereply to post by adigregorio
 


It has nothing to do with what I think, it is a point of law that unlawful legislation cannot stand. This is why courts are empowered with the authority of judicial review. The Supreme Law of the Land in Fullerton California is the same Supreme Law of the Land that is in Los Angeles and that is the California State Constitution, which comes with a Declaration of Rights that begins with:


SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.


That combined with the latter part of Section 24:


This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.


Makes your silly little vagrancy ordinance criminal! You have the absolute right to speech and to voice your opinion. However, if you use a bogus act of legislation as an excuse to brutally murder a homeless person, or even just detain them, that makes you a criminal. I certainly hope you know better.

Edit to Respond to your Edit: The definition you posted only supports my contention and undermines your own, unless you can provide some compelling argument as to how a "vagrant" causes injury to victims.


edit on 8-5-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Appealing to ridicule will get you nowhere with me...


crime
   [krahym] Show IPA

noun
1. an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited.


The very definition of the word you are trying to use negates your argument.

And again, using a nirvanna fallacy doesn't change the fact that it IS LAW.

Again, I ask about the father. (Third time now.)

EDIT (To respond to your edit)
"That is deemed injurious to the interests of the state."

(OR that word doesn't mean AND)
edit on 5/8/2012 by adigregorio because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Out of all the words Kelly Thomas could have yelled...his instincts were to call out to the person that he saw as his protector...the person that would come to his aid if he just asked for help and he would come and save him, that's what his dad was in his mind.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


Your poor little feelings may get hurt by certain facts, but I assure I am stating the facts! Making the same argument ad nauseum does not make that argument any more valid. You cannot disregard the Constitution which empowers legislatures to legislate and declare some silly ordinance superior to that Constitution. Not as a point of law, and if you attempt to do so in a court of law, you lose, and I've come to know the membership here well enough to know that in this court of public opinion, your chances of winning are sleight.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Phantom
 


What I am asking about the father is this:

If the kid was homeless, WHERE WAS THE FATHER THEN?

Now that the kid is dead, daddy wants in on the action.

(I didn't know the dad was a cop too, guess the behavior doesn't surprise me.)

(The way he treated his son, not wanting 15 minutes of fame.)

Although, I bet he wishes he hadn't made his son be "out on the streets" now...



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by MemoryShock
 


what can i say?

i don't see any reason to use lethal force. i may be missing something here.

-subfab



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   
I do wonder why the father (Who was WEALTHY as a judge) couldn't get proper care for his son prior to the police brutality. There are halfway houses for mentally ill, who are not able to take care of themselves, but want some independence. (I used to hang out with a schizophrenic who lived in one and during the day, he would go to a metal health (sort of day care facility). Where was he or the mother, or any other people?



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


You can not disregard black and white printing of a law.

It IS law.

Whining about how it "shouldn't be a law" doesn't make that paper with the law on it go away.

So, I don't really need to win. Because there isn't a contest...

Father? Still no input there?


The nirvana fallacy is the logical error of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives.

en.wikipedia.org...

The constitution is not followed, THAT is how it is. THIS IS the law, anything else is un-realistic because it isn't real. Get the law changed, then you can be "right"...



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
I do wonder why the father (Who was WEALTHY as a judge) couldn't get proper care for his son prior to the police brutality. There are halfway houses for mentally ill, who are not able to take care of themselves, but want some independence. (I used to hang out with a schizophrenic who lived in one and during the day, he would go to a metal health (sort of day care facility). Where was he or the mother, or any other people?


Kelly Thomas didn't want it, and his family, including his father had tried. At least this is what has been reported:


Around the age of 20, Kelly Thomas was put into a mental hospital for the first time, but he did not like being confined, so Ron Thomas moved him into a board and care home for the mentally ill. He was fine if he took medications consistently, but he told his mother they made him tired and gave him nightmares, Cathy Thomas said. “Then he would stop taking his meds and he would leave the board and care houses and wander the streets,” she said.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by adigregorio
reply to post by The_Phantom
 


What I am asking about the father is this:

If the kid was homeless, WHERE WAS THE FATHER THEN?

Now that the kid is dead, daddy wants in on the action.

(I didn't know the dad was a cop too, guess the behavior doesn't surprise me.)

(The way he treated his son, not wanting 15 minutes of fame.)

Although, I bet he wishes he hadn't made his son be "out on the streets" now...


He probably tried to help his son, the only option he probably had was to take away his freedom and put him in a hospital. Kelly obviously saw his father as a person that would protect him if he asked for it. His father probably knew his son could live free and survive without forcing him to live like a prisoner...I doubt he factored in the possibility that he may not be safe because the cops would kill him.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   
What gets me is the cops are yelling "turn over" the whole time they are Tasering the poor guy!
He's screaming "God help me" until he sounds like he's in agony and screams "daddy help me" when he is probably about to pass out and the cops expect him to turn over all the while they are tasering him and beating him with flashlights.
Come on, he was a 140 pound (at the most) hippy against 200+ pound (6) cops at the end and they couldn't get him in a position to cuff anything on him?
Case of assholes with badges since they think if they shake a fist that everyone should tremble in fear at their sight.
Reminds me of that episode of COPS where they yank some poor guy out of a car while it's moving and start to beat the guy down into the curve, you hear teeth break on the pavement until the Ambulance shows up and it turned out the poor guy was unconscience the whole time from a Diabetic coma! The whole time the "COPS" were saying loudly "STOP RESISTING! STOP RESISTING!!!"
WTH...



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
and I've come to know the membership here well enough to know that in this court of public opinion, your chances of winning are sleight.


HA!

Well due to this "haughtyness" I will not be responding to you. For I have been in "the membership" at least 4 years longer than you.

Seriously?

"Your chances of winning are sleight."

Are you serious? You can't "win" a debate...



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by adigregorio

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
and I've come to know the membership here well enough to know that in this court of public opinion, your chances of winning are sleight.


HA!

Well due to this "haughtyness" I will not be responding to you. For I have been in "the membership" at least 4 years longer than you.

Seriously?

"Your chances of winning are sleight."

Are you serious? You can't "win" a debate...


Jean Paul Zodeaux is owning this debate.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


Again, you keep ignoring the black and white printing of the Constitution for the State of California. I am not even going to waste my time arguing with you that legislation is no more law than a map of Fullerton is Fullerton, or the word vehicle can be driven, or a picture of a pipe is a pipe. Clearly you're entrenched in your insanity and embrace it fiercely.

As a point of law, your a woefully mistaken, and again, if you even attempt to supersede the State Constitution with a stupid ordinance as an excuse to murder someone, you are just a murderer, that's all.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   
To everyone who is questioning Ron Thomas' motivations here...he rejected a proposed settlement (settlement offer was never made official).



Although Ron Thomas, father of Kelly Thomas, said that a $900,000 out-of-court offer was presented to him by attorney Bruce Praet, it was unofficial. Thomas says Praet told him that he needed to make a decision by August 2 so the council could review it during closed session that day. If the council approved it, the offer would become official at that time, Thomas said.

The paper given to Thomas shows how $900,000 would be paid to the family over the next 25 years. Each of Kelly Thomas’ siblings would get about $97,000, and Ron and Cathy Thomas would each get about $160,000. Other relatives of Kelly Thomas were also slated to get money in the unofficial offer. Also, the foundation Ron Thomas intends to set up in his son’s name to benefit the homeless community would get $125,000 – in annual payments of $5,000.

Source
 

The Jurisdiction argument makes sense to me; if no phone call was made then what the hell reason do they have to target him? Sounds like they were making up their jurisdiction based on an assumption that they would never be called on their white lie...which could be further considered as maliced intent regardless of whether or not murder was intended.

Edit to add - Jean Paul owned the debate from the get go. Seriously, that guy doesn't know what the opposite feels like...

edit on Tue, 08 May 2012 21:35:11 -0500 by MemoryShock because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   
My brother (proof by authority, sorry) has special needs.

If he would not stay in a "mental hospital" then I would have him move in with me, espcially if I had money...

Just sayin'

This smells like a fame grab for me, especially since it has all but died down around here. (Remember, I am right downtown...)

The cops were hiding for a few months, but they are all back in full force.

If the pickets come back, I will go back. But I doubt it, due to that construction I keep mentioning...

EDIT (To Add)
Take note readers, not once did I insult another member of this discussion. Again, just sayin' for being "insane" I am pretty well rounded socially!
edit on 5/8/2012 by adigregorio because: Aw snap!



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by adigregorio
My brother (proof by authority, sorry) has special needs.

If he would not stay in a "mental hospital" then I would have him move in with me, espcially if I had money...

Just sayin'

This smells like a fame grab for me, especially since it has all but died down around here. (Remember, I am right downtown...)

The cops were hiding for a few months, but they are all back in full force.

If the pickets come back, I will go back. But I doubt it, due to that construction I keep mentioning...

EDIT (To Add)
Take note readers, not once did I insult another member of this discussion. Again, just sayin' for being "insane" I am pretty well rounded socially!
edit on 5/8/2012 by adigregorio because: Aw snap!


And if he didn't want to move in with you...then what?



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Phantom
 


Then he didn't want my help, and the people here are claiming that the victim wanted his fathers help...

Can't have both sides, either he wanted his fathers help or not.

EDIT (Sidenote)
I do find it sad that the insult riddled posts are recieving praises.

Libel and slander is against the law too...
edit on 5/8/2012 by adigregorio because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
85
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join