Police shoot 13 year old carrying fake rifle.

reply to post by XionZap


I don't think you understand what the FBI's involvement is for.

As I stated time and again, any time an officer shoots and kills a person, they are seized under the 4th amendment. The FBI's role is not to investigate criminal wrong doing, as that is a state / local function.

The FBI will investigate the possible 4th amendment violation. They will be investigating whether or not the officers action violated the suspects civil rights. The 4th amendment does not apply to the individual but rather It applies to the Government. Before someone gets bent out of shape if you read the 4th amendment it protects an individual against the government when it comes to search and seizure - IE LE must have probable cause / warrant to search a persons residence. It places the burden on LE and not the individual.

For more info to those who may be curious the Federal Statute is 42 USC 1983. It is a component of the Civil Rights Act.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Covers all the main topics dealing with Civil rights.

42 USC 1983 - This is the section that will be used during the FBI investigation. I will break it down so it is easier to figure it out.

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia,

The above refers to Law Enforcement at all levels of government (local / county / state / federal.

subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws,

This refers to when an officer detains / makes an arrest / deadly force encounter situations (to name just a few that are relevant to this incident).

Examples:
Traffic Stop - temporary seizure under the 4th amendment. The Supreme court has ruled a motor vehicle is afforded 4th amendment protections, although those protections are less than a residence. Arizona vs. Gant is the latest ruling that further restricts LE actions during traffic stops.

Deadly Force - When a person is shot and killed by LE they are seized under the 4th.

shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

Allows a person to seek redress against government action should the governments actions violate the persons civil rights. In general it allows the party to seek financial compensation among other things.

Xcathdra

shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

Allows a person to seek redress against government action should the governments actions violate the persons civil rights. In general it allows the party to seek financial compensation among other things.

Might be hard to do being as the boy is dead. There will be no redress for the boy.
And Im pretty sure no amount of redress(payoff) will be enough for the parents, ultimately.

I appreciate you trying to explain the laws, as long as you stick to doing just that and not keep using the polices statements as fact as to what happened.

OneManArmy
Still spewing the testimony of the police that killed him as facts I see.

LOL.. Your entire position in this thread is based on the very information the Police released, which includes the suspects age and that the gun was a pellet gun.

How is it the information you get from the release is valid while at the same time say its not valid when it comes to the officers actions?

Xcathdra

OneManArmy
Still spewing the testimony of the police that killed him as facts I see.

LOL.. Your entire position in this thread is based on the very information the Police released, which includes the suspects age and that the gun was a pellet gun.

As I said, you pick the info that supports your agenda while ignoring the info that does not.


Pot..... meet kettle..

Let me clarify my WHOLE position. Its not complicated.

The boy is dead he was 13 years old. He had a toy gun.
Are you seriously telling me that any of that is false?

I can assure that if any of it wasnt true, we would know already, for the simple fact it would support the polices actions.

** Disclosure ** I changed my post to tone it down to a more neutral response. The response you have below is based on the original post and not the updated one. ***

OneManArmy

Let me clarify my WHOLE position. Its not complicated.

The boy is dead he was 13 years old. He had a toy gun.
Are you seriously telling me that any of that is false?

I can assure that if any of it wasnt, we would know already, for the simple fact it would support the polices actions.

What I have been trying to tell you is that information was not known to the officers at the time of the incident. Their actions are based on the info at that exact moment.

The officers version of events are true.
The 20/20 hindsight with the persons age and pellet gun are true.

Why is it possible to have both being right? - post hoc ergo propter hoc / cum hoc ergo propter hoc

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because of this", is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states "Since Y event followed X event, Y event must have been caused by X event." It is often shortened to simply post hoc. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, in which two things or events occur simultaneously or the chronological ordering is insignificant or unknown, also referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation, or correlation not causation.

Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection.

The bending of the truth was apparent but some people will just give that to the cops.

They are are also lying through their teeth by claiming that they couldn't "see" who or what they were shooting at - that they had no idea that it was a young kid.

Nice. They don't know who or what but, what the heck, blast it. Shoot again when it is down then we'll go see what it is.

Xcathdra


The officers version of events are true.

There you go again!

Sorry but the truth or fallacy of the police statements are still under investigation.

So in your own words.. "when did you become psychic?"

OneManArmy

Xcathdra


The officers version of events are true.

There you go again!

Sorry but the truth or fallacy of the police statements are still under investigation.

So in your own words.. "when did you become psychic?"

Hmmm... so you are saying the police statements are under investigation? If so why are you accepting the age and gun then? That info comes from the police press releases / comments.

OneManArmy

Xcathdra

shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

Allows a person to seek redress against government action should the governments actions violate the persons civil rights. In general it allows the party to seek financial compensation among other things.

Might be hard to do being as the boy is dead. There will be no redress for the boy.
And Im pretty sure no amount of redress(payoff) will be enough for the parents, ultimately.
I appreciate you trying to explain the laws, as long as you stick to doing just that and not keep using the polices statements as fact as to what happened.

I understand what you're saying, but actually, he's not not trying to "explain" anything - what he's up to with his droll, boringly detailed legalese is known as "inundating the reader" with useless bloviations. What's more - he telling us things that most of us already know about, and in so doing he's trying to elevate himself as a "cut above the crowd" and as a tad smarter than the rest of us "ignorant ones" by feigning intelligence. I was on to this guy as a .gov shill and 'frontie' (a 'cut and paste' one at that) from the git go.

I warned others about him and his 'Cass Sunstein' cognitive infiltration strategy early on and I repeat it here and now - pay it no mind. Most of us 'right thinking' people here have common sense, and a fairly good intuition when it comes to matters such as these, particularly in the area of rampant police brutality - now escalated to "police state" proportions being perpetrated against the general population.

Xcathdra

OneManArmy

Xcathdra


The officers version of events are true.

There you go again!

Sorry but the truth or fallacy of the police statements are still under investigation.

So in your own words.. "when did you become psychic?"

Hmmm... so you are saying the police statements are under investigation? If so why are you accepting the age and gun then? That info comes from the police press releases / comments.

The boys age comes from his parents.
His state of life or death is proven by the fact he is not breathing.
The fact it is a toy gun is obvious, because if it wasnt a toy we would sure as hell know about it as it would support the polices actions in killing the boy.

This is very easy deduction, in the words of the immortal fictional Sherlock Holmes..."Its elementary my dear Watson".

OneManArmy

Xcathdra

OneManArmy

Xcathdra


The officers version of events are true.

There you go again!

Sorry but the truth or fallacy of the police statements are still under investigation.

So in your own words.. "when did you become psychic?"

Hmmm... so you are saying the police statements are under investigation? If so why are you accepting the age and gun then? That info comes from the police press releases / comments.

The boys age comes from his parents.
His state of life or death is proven by the fact he is not breathing.
The fact it is a toy gun is obvious, because if it wasnt a toy we would sure as hell know about it as it would support the polices actions in killing the boy.

This is very easy deduction, in the words of the immortal fictional Sherlock Holmes..."Its elementary my dear Watson".

edit on 201310America/Chicago10am10amSun, 27 Oct 2013 08:54:18 -05001013 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)

And if you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

XionZap

OneManArmy

Xcathdra

shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

Allows a person to seek redress against government action should the governments actions violate the persons civil rights. In general it allows the party to seek financial compensation among other things.

Might be hard to do being as the boy is dead. There will be no redress for the boy.
And Im pretty sure no amount of redress(payoff) will be enough for the parents, ultimately.
I appreciate you trying to explain the laws, as long as you stick to doing just that and not keep using the polices statements as fact as to what happened.

I understand what you're saying, but actually, he's not not trying to "explain" anything - what he's up to with his droll, boringly detailed legalese is known as "inundating the reader" with useless bloviations. What's more - he telling us things that most of us already know about, and in so doing he's trying to elevate himself as a "cut above the crowd" and as a tad smarter than the rest of us "ignorant ones" by feigning intelligence. I was on to this guy as a .gov shill and 'frontie' (a 'cut and paste' one at that) from the git go.

I warned others about him and his Cass Sunstein strategy early on and I repeat it here and now - pay no mind. Most of us right thinking people here have common sense, and a fairly good intuition when it come to matters such as these, particularly in the are of rampant police brutality - now escalated to "police state" proportions being perpetrated against the general population.

edit on 27-10-2013 by XionZap because: (no reason given)

It is a fair point you make, I have also already called him out as working for the police PR machine.
I was just trying to cut him a "little" slack, as I have been pretty aggressive towards him so far. Im not an arse and dont want to come across that way.
That being said, im with you 100%.

reply to post by XionZap

reply to post by OneManArmy


Feel free to attack me all you want. Its about the only thing you can do since you are not able to refute the info I provided. Less paranoia on your part and more education.

Are you guys that scared of a person explaining how things work? Are you guys that scared to view the other side of the coin?

I am assuming you are an adult.. You really should act like one instead of pulling the conversation off topic.

Xcathdra
reply to post by XionZap

 

reply to post by OneManArmy

 

Feel free to attack me all you want. Its about the only thing you can do since you are not able to refute the info I provided. Less paranoia on your part and more education.

Sorry im one of the unwashed masses. Your contempt for us "citizens" is highly apparent.
All I have been doing is refuting your information and the way you are using it.
Because I think the execution of an innocent child is wrong, I need education?
Im getting that feeling of wanting to be sick again.
I ask you.. Is it a requirement for all jury members to be schooled in law for 2 years before deciding a suspects fate in a court of law?

Are you guys that scared of a person explaining how things work? Are you guys that scared to view the other side of the coin?

Im only scared that a self confessed "man of the law" can defend illegal actions by police officers. Using their own testimony as PROOF. While at the same time declaring to the world how things are supposed to be done.

I am assuming you are an adult.. You really should act like one instead of pulling the conversation off topic.

Im 38 years old. You should stop trying to blind people with bullsh*t.

reply to post by Xcathdra


@ Xcathdra, do the police lose any credibility when they choose to employ deception?

Is lying different than deception? What if the police lie, do they lose credibility?

In your expert opinion what does it mean to point a gun at some one?

Does having a person in your sights qualify as pointing a gun at some one? Does it qualify as aiming a gun at someone?

Is aiming a gun at someone different than pointing a gun at someone and if they are different which creates the greatest danger?

Xcathdra
reply to post by XionZap

 

I don't think you understand what the FBI's involvement is for.

As I stated time and again, any time an officer shoots and kills a person, they are seized under the 4th amendment. The FBI's role is not to investigate criminal wrong doing, as that is a state / local function.

The FBI will investigate the possible 4th amendment violation. They will be investigating whether or not the officers action violated the suspects civil rights. The 4th amendment does not apply to the individual but rather It applies to the Government. Before someone gets bent out of shape if you read the 4th amendment it protects an individual against the government when it comes to search and seizure - IE LE must have probable cause / warrant to search a persons residence. It places the burden on LE and not the individual.s.

You have no way of knowing what are the motivations on the part of the FBI as pertains to their decision to inject themselves into the case, or if they are even considering invoking a IV Amendment violation. There are more than likely at least a dozen legitimate reasons why they (the FBI) might have chosen to do so, not the least of which would have fallen into the violation of one's "Civil Rights" category of racial and/or ethnic profiling leading to outright discrimination against a particular individual, which you failed to include in your highly presumptive take on the situation.

This was obviously a decision made at the highest echelon of the Department of Justice, namely AG Holder himself, and he surely had been prompted to do so by none other than the president of the United States. As stated - this is no ordinary case and from the looks of it the president sees it as a top priority because of the absolutely heinous nature of the crimes committed against this young man in particular, and against society as a whole.
----------------------------------------
AND: you totally ignored my earlier posting that pointed to the rarity of an intrusion such as this on the part of the FBI. AND you also ignored the comments respecting the fact that the: the FBI called it "a civil rights-type of case" insofar as you were very insistent that you knew that it was a IV Amendment "inquiry by default." I'll tell you straight up that there is nothing in the record (so far) that would serve as a back-up to your presumptive claims based on what you implied was a kind of an "inside track" sort of info.

"

(Newser) – Investigations into the fatal shooting of 13-year-old Andy Lopez by a sheriff’s deputy in Santa Rosa, Calif., have stepped up a notch, with the FBI now launching its own probe. This is a rare move by the agency, notes the the Press Democrat—the last time it investigated a shooting by a local officer was 1997. Santa Rosa police will still continue their own investigation of the incident, in which the deputy apparently fired eight rounds at the eighth-grader after spotting him holding a BB gun. A spokesman for the FBI called it "a civil rights-type of case" and says the agency will look at the "incident itself (and) the deputies' response." Both the local sheriff and police chief say they welcome the investigation, and will cooperate fully.

Arguing the person was within their right or position to kill someone still doesn't mean it was the correct thing to do or had to be done. It might show that the person made a poor decision, was cowardly or unfit. Lying support those actions.

Xcathdra
The FBI's role is not to investigate criminal wrong doing, as that is a state / local function.

The FBI will investigate the possible 4th amendment violation. They will be investigating whether or not the officers action violated the suspects civil rights.

Is that what the FBI were doing when they started chucking NOPD officers in prison left and right after the post-Katrina investigation? Cause it looked a lot like a corruption investigation going on there at the federal level.

The FBI can and does investigate police corruption under the aegis of the Hobbs Act, which can range as far as, say, tossing a cop in the pen for falsifying a police report - it's not just for bribes. See also: NOPD, Baltimore PD.

OneManArmy

Xcathdra
reply to post by XionZap

 

reply to post by OneManArmy

 

Feel free to attack me all you want. Its about the only thing you can do since you are not able to refute the info I provided. Less paranoia on your part and more education.

Sorry im one of the unwashed masses. Your contempt for us "citizens" is highly apparent.
All I have been doing is refuting your information and the way you are using it.
Because I think the execution of an innocent child is wrong, I need education?
Im getting that feeling of wanting to be sick again.
I ask you.. Is it a requirement for all jury members to be schooled in law for 2 years before deciding a suspects fate in a court of law?

Are you guys that scared of a person explaining how things work? Are you guys that scared to view the other side of the coin?

Im only scared that a self confessed "man of the law" can defend illegal actions by police officers. Using their own testimony as PROOF. While at the same time declaring to the world how things are supposed to be done.

I am assuming you are an adult.. You really should act like one instead of pulling the conversation off topic.

Im 38 years old. You should stop trying to blind people with bullsh*t.

edit on 201310America/Chicago10am10amSun, 27 Oct 2013 09:16:36 -05001013 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)

What you make no sense and showing a severe lack of how a democracy works. Of course a police officer can use his own testimony as a defense so can anyone else in any criminal prosecution. Its called testimony and when your accused of a criminal act you get to tell your side of the story unless you live in a country where your presumed guilty then the state just puts on evidence of your guilt and your sentenced. So i think i prefer being able to defend your actions just a little better then punishment all ready being decided and the proceeding a formality.Unfortunately i see there are alot of people on here that think someone is guilty until proven Innocent funny these same people are claiming the governments all powerful taking away rights.Then want to take away the rights of the officer involved you really cant have it both ways.

dragonridr

What you make no sense and showing a severe lack of how a democracy works. Of course a police officer can use his own testimony as a defense so can anyone else in any criminal prosecution. Its called testimony and when your accused of a criminal act you get to tell your side of the story unless you live in a country where your presumed guilty then the state just puts on evidence of your guilt and your sentenced. So i think i prefer being able to defend your actions just a little better then punishment all ready being decided and the proceeding a formality.Unfortunately i see there are alot of people on here that think someone is guilty until proven Innocent funny these same people are claiming the governments all powerful taking away rights.Then want to take away the rights of the officer involved you really cant have it both ways.

Democracy = 2 wolves and a sheep voting for dinner.
What has democracy got to do with any of this?
This is a freedom vs oppression argument.
This is a racial profiling argument, its about civil liberties vs police liberties.
Its about police operating procedure. Its about the constitution and the bill of rights.

Democracy has NOTHING to do with it.

Sometimes things are open and shut, a boy lying dead armed only with toy guns is pretty open and shut IMO.
Call me crazy.