Unarmed Man Charged With Wounding Bystanders (who were) Shot by Police

No justice; just us...

What can I say? The police department should be classified as a gang.

They do what gangs do- they shoot for no reason-
they kill for no reason- they try pinning their assaults on other people-
they seem not to care for the lives of other people-
they are quick on the draw for any little problem-
they answer to nobody. they dont follow the laws the rest of the people do-
they think they are above the law- they are all armed to the teeth-
they would rather kill than subdue- they dont require many braincells

Looking at this list- how are they not a big gang?

I hope those two women file civil lawsuits against those police officers.
Which IMO is exactly the reason they are trying to pin it on the 'crazy' man,
they dont want to be charged and lose their jobs.
They are trying to shed all blame.

Thug-Life.

reply to post by Liquesence


The shooter has no regard for risk/reward/threat evaluation. I'm not sure how this person passed the psych evaluation. I would hazard a guess that the low IQ test result is what got him the badge.

Nice of the court to back the decision made by LE. That they will hear this case, and not laugh until their legs crumple at presentation, is all that I need to hear.

That's...our handlers for ya. They are so intelligent, that we suffer, when they miss our gourd, and hit someone else's! That is quite a skill.

So glad they run things. The message they are sending. It's...like...deep wisdom. Why didn't I think of this?

Why do we sometimes confuse this show of intelligence, the ability to govern us, and run things, as being evil?

It just keeps getting better and better.

This one has fascist legs, tank treads in fact, some really paralyzing political ramifications.

So now we know what it all means. Act a little odd, get an attempted/murder rap when they try to kill ya.

Survive a an attempted murder, by police, and you get sentenced depending on how many bullets they sprayed, because you're STILL ALIVE! They are bound to hit something if you jerk around enough. Think of the possibilities! This story is quite simply, insane.

Yes sir, some real heavy ramifications here. Here come the warm freakin jets.

Making a disclaimer for the new wave, are they, of terror? Not just surveillance drones, but armed ones, and the little LEO with the joystick, making the decision...to kill, needs some help from the bench to quell any moral qualms. Can't miss now, if they wanted to. I guess it's pretty boring to spy on persons, if you can't kill them too. See...if they are watching you, and something goes wrong, oh, anything at all, then you are liable!

Anyone seeing this?

'We are A NATION OF LAW!'
~Barack Obama

Got it!

ETA: Just the title told me exactly what happened here, and I jumped on it like you would with your Dad's old jacket in the heap, at the tax rummage sale. I had no idea that TWO shooters were involved! Also I see that the survivor of the assassination attempt has been charged not convicted, but I see where this is going.

Bad idea, big boys. Real bad idea here. Probably been waiting for a chance to insert this one in the mix since year 1. I am afraid of what the mere mention of such a charge indicates.

Let's collect some more names here, while we are still allowed to do so.

Who signed off on this?

A crapstone cornerstone fascistic gem such as this does not just get up and start walking around, scratching the chest, and burping and farting in public, without assistance. It doesn't just start by itself. At least, not yet they don't.

The case in question is in the feeler stage. They are putting out 'feelers'.

Remember, they are listening to our response, in all places, and can even lipread. God help them to escape themselves. You must live with some things, forever.

# 128

This is just another symptom of the real disease in the law enforcement world. Policing has become a “for profit” enterprise, and as such the state will always seek to win, and avoid being sued, at any cost. Its no longer about justice, its about winning. This is why you will always see stacking charges on anyone arrested, which allows the state leverage to get a settlement to a lesser crime when it looks like they won't win on the primary charge. If they know they can't win a case, they will offer a guilty plea on the lesser "stacked" charge, or threaten to rack up a huge legal fee that they know the defendant cannot pay. Its a win by any means game, and you will see folks falsely charged because of it.

reply to post by Liquesence


Step-by-step instructions for US citizens to gain permanent residency in Australia

Clearly, the folks from Backwardsassville are running the circus. Now, I know it's only my opinion but.....

GET OUT......GET OUT NOW!!!!

Sublimecraft
reply to post by Liquesence

 

Step-by-step instructions for US citizens to gain permanent residency in Australia

Clearly, the folks from Backwardsassville are running the circus. Now, I know it's only my opinion but.....

GET OUT......GET OUT NOW!!!!

Feel it in your bones yet?

I am shivering from this.

I concur with your opinion, and I love this country.

I am sure Australia is very nice. But at this point, let's face it, they are doing this to the world, one borough at a time. If they did it to the states, they can do it anywhere. Australia has had it's exact parallel counterparts to some of the same psy-ops that happen(ed) here. And let's not forget that they just discovered untold reserves of oil producing land in your country, said to be larger than SA. You guys do not have a chance!

No place is safe from the vermin. They are feeling us out, looking for us to react, to prove we have had more than enough. ALL this data, and nothing is insignificant, is sent to the Utah file cabinet, for future use.

Their Friend/Foe list. Believe it. Everything has been perverted. There is no way that they are not forming hit lists, for the day when we draw their wrath.

Anytime they take something away, you can be certain that they have it, in abundance. They spy on us, not because they love us, you know. They are allowed to hate even! Collateral damage of all their automated weaponized political hate sprees, covered by law!

Can you believe it!

# 129

Sublimecraft
reply to post by Liquesence

 

Step-by-step instructions for US citizens to gain permanent residency in Australia

Clearly, the folks from Backwardsassville are running the circus. Now, I know it's only my opinion but.....

GET OUT......GET OUT NOW!!!!

N O !

This is my country,
and I'm taking it back.
Even when I'm only one lone
conspiracy nut, this is my country,
and they are the one's who can leave.








The ignorant can consider themselves on notice.

reply to post by Liquesence


In other news, US is invading Iran because they missed a target with one of their drone attacks. All completely supported by the international community as fair and just cause for invading a nation.

(Does this work if you scale it up?)

reply to post by defcon5


Yes, I've also notice the stacking of charges to the nth degree, and this also fits in with something else I've noticed: when a crime is committed (at least on the ordinary citizen level), someone must pay and be charged, which sometimes results in the wrong (innocent) person being charged and/or a minor crime being over-zealously prosecuted just so that someone is prosecuted. Of course, this is more the fault of prosecutors than cops, so it's also a judicial problem. It seems little to matter at getting the true perpetrator (sometimes) rather than just making someone pay for the crime. This is not something that happens that often, i don't think, but it happens enough to mention.

Going back to what you said, though, yes they have to "keep winning," to justify their existence and actions.

projectbane

amazing
The police opened fire believing the man could pull a gun.

And here lies the problem. They believed, (if that is what you believe) but they had no proof, no action, no basis to substantiate their belief. I can believe all sorts of things but that doesn't make them valid or true. This believing can be strewd all day long.

whitewave
reply to post by 3u40r15m

 

True but they are trained to use the least amount of force necessary to restrain the person and shooting a gun twice into a crowded area is just reckless endangerment and extremely poor judgment. That, and then trying to charge him with THEIR crime seems to me to be a pre-emptive lawsuit and a deflection of who's actually at fault for the injury done.

I agree. Where's perspective? The same thing occurs when a speeder is racing on the freeway and turns into the city. The cops could risk other citizen's lives who will be in the path of the speeder or they can choose to exercise some judgment and stop the pursuit. They should not shoot in a crowd unless they're certain.

Remember cops can't be perfect. Don't expect them to be. If a suspect reaches in their pocket, more often than not, it has to be assumed it's a gun.

reply to post by Liquesence


What would happen if the two women choose to sue the cops for shooting them?

Was it the choice of the women to sue that man? or is the D.A just doing it because they want to?
What happens if those women want to sue the cops for shooting them?

This is a total cover up. Great Thread!!

reply to post by snypwsd


I don't think it is the women suing the man, it's prosecutors charging the man. I mean, in the judicial mind, "someone," has to be help responsible...just not the people who are actually responsible.

the Manhattan district attorney’s office persuaded a grand jury to charge Mr. Broadnax with assault, a felony carrying a maximum sentence of 25 years. Specifically, the nine-count indictment unsealed on Wednesday said Mr. Broadnax “recklessly engaged in conduct which created a grave risk of death.”

I argue it was the officers who engaged it conduct which created a grave risk of death BECAUSE THEY HAD THE GUNS, THEY FIRED, MISSED, AND THEY HIT INNOCENT BYSTANDERS.

I think the women, if they chose, could very easily bring a lawsuit against the officers. And I believe they should. The cops, through their actions, are directly responsible for the women's injuries. Case in point:

Mariann Wang, a lawyer representing Sahar Khoshakhlagh, one of the women who was wounded, said the district attorney should be pursuing charges against the two officers who fired their weapons in a crowd, not against Mr. Broadnax. “It’s an incredibly unfortunate use of prosecutorial discretion to be prosecuting a man who didn’t even injure my client,” she said. “It’s the police who injured my client.”

projectbane
Another wildly inaccurate statement by another member of the conspiracy crowd! Cops lives are ever more in danger with the ease to which a criminal can obtain a gun. Therefore, even with training a police officer must at all time protect themselves.

Yet instances of on the job casualties of police officers has been on a decline for well over a decade, and is at per capita record lows currently.

Any chance they can fit small cameras to their guns so the truth in situations like this can be seen?

Here in SA, our cop's tazers are fitted with cameras that only senior police can access the footage.

NuclearPaul
Any chance they can fit small cameras to their guns so the truth in situations like this can be seen?

Here in SA, our cop's tazers are fitted with cameras that only senior police can access the footage.

Well we actually have some departments requiring their officers to wear a "Go-pro" style camera on their shoulder but just like the dash cam videos those films have a nasty habit of disappearing. Maybe I am wrong and its just the cameras suddenly stop working when something bad is done by the officers.
Just like a lot of things it sounds good till you actually put it in the field and the end "users" find a way to break it.

Liquesence

Basically, what this says is that if you are suspected in ANY type of crime, real or imagined, and anyone gets hurt because of the actions of the police (regardless if you're committing a crime because the police acted in due faith of their duties), you are responsible for damages to person and property caused by the police. Sound precedent. I look forward to the outcome.

What say you, denizens of ATS?

edit on 11-1-2014 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)

No justifying the actions of the police in this particular case, but holding a criminal responsible for any damage caused by his actions, either directly or indirectly, is a old and well reasoned principle. If someone kidnaps a child, for example, and a police car gets into an accident with a citizen while chasing after him, he can and should be held responsible for that accident as it would not have happened had he not committed a crime in the first place.

reply to post by NavyDoc


The way I see it, the decision to pursue or to apprehend at reckless costs is a conscious one made by the cops. Unless there is an immediate threat, i don't see pursuit or reckless endangerment as an option.

Your argument seems to suggest that whatever means the cops have to take to apprehend a "criminal," however small the "crime" might be, any resultant collateral damage should rest on the "suspect," which I reject. "Sorry we destroyed three houses in our attempt to catch a guy, but it's his fault at forcing us to do this." No.

In this case, however, TWO cops BOTH missed after firing, without even trying to use less than lethal force to start with, and the less than lethal force was actually what subdued the suspect. That makes the cops negligent.

This would never have happened in the U.K. as the police on the street are not armed..They would have just beaten him into a coma instead with extendable batons. He would then be charged with wasting police time.

Liquesence
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

The way I see it, the decision to pursue or to apprehend at reckless costs is a conscious one made by the cops. Unless there is an immediate threat, i don't see pursuit or reckless endangerment as an option.

Your argument seems to suggest that whatever means the cops have to take to apprehend a "criminal," however small the "crime" might be, any resultant collateral damage should rest on the "suspect," which I reject. "Sorry we destroyed three houses in our attempt to catch a guy, but it's his fault at forcing us to do this." No.

In this case, however, TWO cops BOTH missed after firing, without even trying to use less than lethal force to start with, and the less than lethal force was actually what subdued the suspect. That makes the cops negligent.

No, that's not my point. It has been a standard part of law for years that injuries and damage inflicted due to a criminal act are part and parcel of the criminal act and the responsible party is the criminal. Now this does not absolve the police for neglect or malfeasance...the "reasonable man" or "in the normal scope of one's duties" apply. I would expect the police to engage in hot pursuit if some man pulled my kid into a car and ran off with her and a car crash may be part of that no matter how careful they are being. I would not expect them to shoot off RPG's at a speeder and would certainly not expect RPG explosions in the neighborhood as a standard result. Certainly there is a subjective portion and this is where a jury comes in. However, it is not as black and white as you make it out to be.