"Dad! They're Killing Me!"

reply to post by The Sword


Actually a large number of officers have degrees. In many departments you have to have a four year degree to become a Lieutenant. They also require at least a two year degree for Sergeant. There is some leeway given for "equivalent" work experience. However, withe the number of college graduates in the market place it is becoming harder and harder to even be considered without some form of college education.

These are horrible incidents, but we don't need to paint all cops with their brush. I've posted the source and stats in another of Jean Paul Zodeaux's threads. Only in about 1.4% of all police encounters is force threatened or used. Plus, the number of people that have face to face encounters with officer's has been dropping for at least a decade.

The invention of the camcorder and camera phones has lead to a reduction in this kind of behavior. Plus, a lot of departments have actually increased training for dealing with "special communities." Rodney King and the LA riots taught a lot of departments that things had to change. Unfortunately in the very small and very large departments change has been hard to make. Unfortunately, you can never weed out all of the bad apples.

These guys make me sick. Every cop I know would love five minutes alone with either one of them.

reply to post by MikeNice81


I'm not sure about that when it comes to the small town cops where I grew up. They were stupid (and still are) and are rumored drug runners.

To me, they're like a real-life Spurbury Police from "Super Troopers".

I have more respect for the State Police. They are respectful, professional and they are much more human than the pigs I've dealt with.

Yesterday three policemen walked towards me, I moved out of their way, and one of them said "Thank You"

That actually suprised me! I think that says a lot about how the public views cops now, it shouldn't have suprised me.
We have to remember there are good cops out there, but of course we also can't ignore the bad cops. Nothing is as simple/black and white as we would like. Let's try to keep a balanced mind.

RIP

reply to post by lacrimosa


And you are what ... two fries short of a happy meal ?

I'm at a lack of words.

No mercy, and no forgiveness in them. They are already judged. The damned have no morals, for they are already damned.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I.......ah! Forget about it. If I write something I'm just gonna rant. This kind of stuff those kinds of cops pull piss' me off so much!!!

reply to post by ecoparity


What kind of ridiculous backpedal is this? Prudence would have demanded you either gracefully acknowledge your mistake, or just decline to post anything at all, but noooooooo! This is what you posted earlier:

Well, after carefully watching the full video I have bad news for you. None of the police in this incident will be convicted of murder or any other felony.

Now you want all to pretend you said something entirely different. Here's the deal, sport. I have all ready spoken to the insanity of a nation at large in this thread. While Kelly Thomas may have suffered from some kind of mental illness, it is way beyond insane to suggest that the law will protect these criminal thugs that inexcusably stained the uniform, disrespected the badge, and broke the oath of office they took. No amount of backpedaling on your part is going to change the fact that you've shown woeful ignorance in regards to the law.

reply to post by Cygnis


Sonny got that point, and his point should be well taken. Kelly Thomas' mental health had nothing to do with tactics those police officers used. A perfectly sane man could have taken the same attitude towards those thugs and run the risk of the same consequence.

You also understand my point, but I would take it even further and point out that more than just money, these mental health "advocates" are pushing for legislation that would compel people, against their wishes, into a mental institution. By all accounts, Kelly Thomas did not like the medication mental health "advocates" had put him on, complaining they gave him nightmares. He did not like confined spaces either, so if he were compelled to stay in a mental institution this may have been a lesser crime than the murder he suffered, but it would still be a crime.

Kelly Thomas was not a hermit, he was not misanthropic, he was known and loved by many in the community, and all one has to do is look at some of the photographs of this man to understand why he was so loved. I don't mean to use this post to lecture you, only to emphasize how tragic his death was, and to even go as far as to suggest that if he defined his own happiness as living and sleeping outdoors, who is anyone else to tell him he doesn't have this right to pursue that happiness?

Thanks for joining us.

reply to post by The Sword


While I can appreciate your own personal experience, and indeed it is not unlike my own in some ways, there are countless good cops who take their oath of office very seriously. I too grew up in a small town, and after graduation about a decade later when returning, I became aware of four people I went to high school with who were on the police force. Three of them were just as you suggested, kids who ate lunch alone in the high school cafeteria and were relentlessly bullied. This was disturbing to me, particularly because one of them was the little brother of a good friend of mine.

I looked out for this kid in high school, and did my best to protect him from the bullies. However, when I saw him a decade later he couldn't resist telling me that I should be careful now because he was a police officer. I was outraged at his attitude and didn't hesitate to remind him that I put my own ass on the line for him plenty of times in high school and that if he actually joined the force to get revenge this was unacceptable. He demurred and said he was only joking, but it did leave a bad taste in my mouth.

However, of the four, there was one who joined the police force who was extremely popular in high school, an outstanding athlete and over all good guy. That was true a decade later and I never had any doubt in my mind that he joined the force to protect and serve all. Tragically, he wound up walking away from that job because of disillusionment. So again, your point is valid, and this man seemingly was surrounded by the very people you are complaining of.

In the end, it is not the good cops fault this problem exists, and it is pointless to blame politicians who've cast a longing eye on political office. Getting angry with government for greedily aggregating power is akin to getting angry at a dog for barking or a scorpion for stinging. This problem exists because we allow it to. A few in this thread have pointed out that there were witnesses to the Kelly Thomas beating and there were. No one intervened. Fear ruled the day on the night of the Fifth of July and otherwise good and decent people stood by and watched six thugs beat a man to death because of fear.

We all owe it to Mikenice and other good LEO's to be just as heroic when the call to adventure dials our number. We have an obligation to all that is good and decent to stand up to tyranny in every form. Scary? You bet! The alternative, however, is scarier still.

We all get the government we deserve.

www.thenewamerican.com... em/11359-judge-sends-kelly-thomas-murder-case-to-trial

Text
Friday, 11 May 2012 04:23
Judge Sends Kelly Thomas Murder Case to Trial
Written by Raven Clabough

On Wednesday, Judge Walter Schwarm ruled that two Fullerton, California police officers — Manuel Ramos and Jay Cicinelli — will have to stand trial in the death of a schizophrenic, homeless man, Kelly Thomas, after they mercilessly beat him for over nine minutes last year. The ruling followed an emotional three-day hearing where prosecutors showed a video of the beating, and images of Thomas following the incident

No backpeddling, just a lack of understanding on your part, actually.

I said, "if" Zamos is convicted it will be due to his actions before the physical altercation took place. Minus his threats and aggression in the moments before things escalated not only would he most likely not be convicted of a felony, he probably wouldn't have even been indicted / charged.

His partner will probably get convicted of excessive force, namely for using his tazer as a club and causing the facial injuries which contributed to the cause of death. If he's convicted of more than that it will be due to the jury finding he shared responsibility for the victim's death because of that and because he did not try to stop his partner from acting so aggressively (if he could even hear what was being said at that time).

I think you're approaching this with a bit too much emotion and not enough logic.

It's hard to say what a jury will do, unfortunately I've read a lot of post trial reports that indicate most juries do not approach the law in a logical way and will react emotionally, even coming up with their own "evidence" in some cases.

Here's how I look at it from a logical position:

1. According to the coroner's report the injuries that killed the victim occurred while 5-6 officers were physically subduing him.

2. No other officers were charged in this case.

Hence, the officers are not being charged based on the attempt to subdue the victim, they are being charged because of the recorded comments the first officer made prior to the altercation and his partner's complicity and being caught on tape stating he had "slammed his tazer into the victims face over and over again" after he had discharged it.

Remove the audio recordings of those things and this would be just another of the several incidents like this that happen every day, some resulting in the death of the person being arrested in which no one is every charged with a crime (other than the arrested who is charged with resisting arrest, assault on a police officer, etc).

Does this mean I agree with what the two officers charged in the case did? No, not entirely but I also feel the victim shares some responsibility for what happened. He did just about everything wrong you could possibly do in that situation.

Do I think police should be able to take whatever action is necessary to subdue someone who is violently resisting arrest? Yes, within reason, policy and the law.

The only good to come out of this is the fact that the massive growth of video cameras (in police cars and elsewhere) along with audio recording of police will hopefully lead to less abuse of power by police. It is nice to see the prevalence of recording devices impacting the power the be for once.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ecoparity

 

What kind of ridiculous backpedal is this? Prudence would have demanded you either gracefully acknowledge your mistake, or just decline to post anything at all, but noooooooo! This is what you posted earlier:

Well, after carefully watching the full video I have bad news for you. None of the police in this incident will be convicted of murder or any other felony.

Now you want all to pretend you said something entirely different. Here's the deal, sport. I have all ready spoken to the insanity of a nation at large in this thread. While Kelly Thomas may have suffered from some kind of mental illness, it is way beyond insane to suggest that the law will protect these criminal thugs that inexcusably stained the uniform, disrespected the badge, and broke the oath of office they took. No amount of backpedaling on your part is going to change the fact that you've shown woeful ignorance in regards to the law.

reply to post by ecoparity

No backpeddling, just a lack of understanding on your part, actually.

I said, "if" Zamos is convicted it will be due to his actions before the physical altercation took place. Minus his threats and aggression in the moments before things escalated not only would he most likely not be convicted of a felony, he probably wouldn't have even been indicted / charged.

Oh you were backpedaling, and you're doing so still. You said nothing of the sort. This is exactly what you said:

There's a small chance the original officer who was dealing with Kelly while he was still sitting on the bench will be reprimanded, possibly even fired, maybe charged with official oppression but beyond that there's not a snow ball's chance in hell of the rest of the cops being convicted.

Though the first officer acted in an unprofessional manner and probably provoked much of what followed, once Kelly jumped to his feet, ran and began fighting back I don't see any of the officers doing anything they are not allowed to do by policy and law. Sorry, I know it looks brutal as hell but this is no Rodney King incident with 6 officers standing over a prostrate or handcuffed victim, kicking him to death and beating him with clubs.

Far from being charged with "official oppression" Zamos (sic), as you put it, was charged with murder. Manuel Ramos was charged with the crime of murder because his actions, as you put it, were not in any way within policy or law. So, while in your backpedaling, you pretend I misunderstood what you said, let anyone else reading this thread, and particularly this post, understand that the profoundly ignorant view of law you've presented is just not, in way shape or form, how the law in this nation, in the State of California, and in Fullerton works. Manuel Ramos has much more than a snowballs chance in hell of being convicted, and all ready his attorneys have shown legal ineptness, foolishly attempting to deflect the charges by accusing paramedics of killing Kelly Thomas.

Juries are not as stupid as so many attorneys have tried so hard to convince people. The argument is that only the stupid or uneducated couldn't get out of jury duty, so only the stupid and uneducated serve as jury members. Even if this broad generalization has any truth to it at all, even the stupid and uneducated understand that what happened was an unlawful act of a brutal beating that killed an innocent man. Kelly Thomas was not guilty of any crimes, not in that fateful night of the 5th of July, and there is seemingly no record of him being guilty of any crimes prior to this. There was no lawful authority to even stop and question Kelly Thomas, let alone make it clear before beating the man that...well, in Ramos' own words:

"You see these fists? These fists are about to..."

No jury is so stupid as to buy into your arguments that the actions of Manuel Ramos, Jay Cicinelli and subsequently four other police officers acted within policy and law. If your argument had any validity at all it is reasonable to suggest the defendants attorneys would have made that argument in those pretrial hearings instead of the hopeless argument they made, attempting to blame the death of Kelly Thomas on paramedics. The defendants attorneys clearly have no clue how to defend these two accused of murder, and beyond that, the Fullerton District Attorney's Office desperately need these convictions.

There is reason to believe a cover up was underway when the inevitability of the story broke. I will state this again, there is no evidence to support the initial excuse of an anonymous phone call made complaining of someone breaking into vehicles at a parking lot near the Metro station. This is not just some minor fact, it is an important fact that wise prosecuting attorneys understand, that wise Fullerton police officials understand, that by using this excuse that there is no evidence of this shows that officials high up understood that this murder of Kelly Thomas was not anywhere near within policy or law.

A Fullerton police chief retired in shame, the D.A.'s office itself moving too slowly to bring charges against any of the officers, four other police officers who have not been cleared of any wrongdoing, and an outraged community are the backdrop here. The Fullerton D.A.'s office desperately needs these convictions, and wise defense attorneys would negotiate some sort of plea bargain, but the wise prosecutor will go for the conviction they can no doubt, to hell with snowballs, undeniably win.

Originally posted by lacrimosa
those police officers should all be given a pat on the back.
they didnt do anything wrong.
if anything, they were overly nice.

Originally posted by lacrimosa
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

no body was murdered, a schizophrenic homeless person died.
those police did nothing wrong. they were overly nice imo.
anyway, the outcome was positive.

Sad thing is that no matter what, you will find things like this there, wich you may not call humans, defending them.

reply to post by ecoparity


Or like that thing there.

Yes, and at the time I posted that I also posted:
1. I had not had a chance to watch the video yet
2. I had not had a chance to read up on the case yet.

My next post, where you accuse me of "back peddling" starts off with "after watching the video...."

Then, I watched the video again, with my headphones on.

Read the entire post next time. Or, drop the political BS type tactics.

As for your theory there is some kind of conspiracy to focus on mental health vs. the actions of the police, unfortunately that's one of those conspiracy theories that's almost impossible to prove. Short of obtaining documents or recordings of conversations by people in local government and media conspiring to push that agenda, it just makes for a low grade conspiracy and a 4-5 page thread on ATS.

Or, it could be that a lot of people in the mental health field honestly think this guy would still be alive had he been in treatment and taking his meds. "If" his mental illness is the reason why he kept fighting the police for so long then I can empathize with them feeling that way.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

reply to post by ecoparity


No you hadn't, and the exact link I posted in my last post is the exact same link I am posting now where you in fact said the exact opposite:

Well, after carefully watching the full video I have bad news for you. None of the police in this incident will be convicted of murder or any other felony.

That is how you begin this post. You cannot even be bothered to go back and get the facts straight on what and when you said what you said. It is laughable you continue to expect anyone to take what you have to say seriously.

Then, I watched the video again, with my headphones on. Read the entire post next time. Or, drop the political BS type tactics.

Tragically for you, I have read your entire posts and apparently more times than you've read them yourself. If you want to call clear an undeniable refutation of your bogus claims political BS, go right ahead. It doesn't help your arguments now.

As for your theory there is some kind of conspiracy to focus on mental health vs. the actions of the police, unfortunately that's one of those conspiracy theories that's almost impossible to prove. Short of obtaining documents or recordings of conversations by people in local government and media conspiring to push that agenda, it just makes for a low grade conspiracy and a 4-5 page thread on ATS.

Uh-huh. This coming from the poster who just accused me of not reading entire posts. I never used the word conspiracy, although such a word is appropriate given the documentation and links I've all ready provided, which do not require any more than that, and certainly do not require obtaining recorded conversations, the quoted text is provided in the articles I linked. What are trying to suggest that the articles I linked in the O.P. are purposely misquoting mental health "advocates" in order to make it appear as if some conspiracy is happening and we cannot trust the articles as being genuine and earnest attempts to frame this as a mental health issue because I've failed to supply recordings of conversation by people in local government. Really? This is the best you can do?

Or, it could be that a lot of people in the mental health field honestly think this guy would still be alive had he been in treatment and taking his meds. "If" his mental illness is the reason why he kept fighting the police for so long then I can empathize with them feeling that way.

Sure, that's the ticket! It was ("if) mental illness that caused Kelly Thomas to desperately fight for his life. As if no sane person would want to flee two thugs who've just made it clear they are going to...well, as Manuel "Zamos" put it:

"See these fists? I'm about to...."

In a court of law, in front of a jury, this is precisely what a good prosecuting attorney will do to any arguments even remotely similar to yours. That prosecuting attorney will simply get up and remind the jury that this is what Manuel Ramos said to Kelly Thomas before he fled:

"See these fists? I'm about to...."

And in a court of law, that prosecutor will not have to deal with automatic censors and will remind the jury of the full threat Manuel Ramos left and not leave it as an ellipses tease...

The arguments you make are all the prosecution needs to convince a jury to put those two thugs in prison.

Couple a days ago 3 state troopers pulled out of a car wash on my way to McDonalds 2 of them about ran in to me the so what was their rush?

To go give a seatbelt ticket no lights no sirens just off like a bat out of hell are all cops stupid? are they all on power trips?

Nope.

That that was the biggest bunch of crap i ever seen personally.

reply to post by neo96


Some departments only allow lights and siren if there is an imminent fear of death in the call to which they are responding. Some only allow lights when there is significant chance of traffic impeding travel. People complained so much about cops "abusing" the lights and sirens that many departments have all but eliminated the use of either. The flip side is, now cops are blamed for speeding without reason every time someone sees them speeding.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I don't know why it's so difficult for you to understand, maybe just more convenient.

I started off saying I hadn't watched the entire video and didn't know much about the case.

Then I watched the video, not even knowing which cops / how many were being charged.

Then I read up on the case, coroner's notes, etc and watched the video again with sound.

I'll stick with my conclusions, which you support in your last statement. The only reason these two cops are being charged is because of what the first cop said before the altercation, and the second stating how he used his tazer.

Minus the audio, none of these cops would have been charged with a crime. You seem to miss that point and work really hard to avoid it.

Why weren't all the cops involved charged? That's the single most important element of this entire case and you continue to ignore it. If the actions taken to subdue the victim were illegal then we should have half a dozen defendants. If I can figure that out I'm sure the defense attorneys can too and may be able to convince a jury.

Depending on the jury, they still have a decent chance of being found not guilty of the more severe charges. If they are convicted it will be because of the statements the one cop made before the altercation took place, period.

"Fighting for your life" is not going to end well for you when you're resisting arrest.

reply to post by ecoparity


Look! You are lying. The post I have linked twice now has you claiming you just watched the video and from here it is where you declared that these police officers acted within "policy and law". Your backpedaling is tiresome, and I get that you understand how badly you look because of this, but attempting to pass it off as a misunderstanding on my part is only making you look worse.

Your lying goes as far as to claim I "support" your arguments. If you do not want to accept responsibility for claiming the police officers acted within "policy and law" don't, but stop lying it doesn't help you.