It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by Xcathdra
@ second video absolutely justified he was obviously armed and pointingsaid weapon ( and it looks like he fired a shot)
@first video absolutely unjustified he obviously had no weapon and only pointed his finger
Still waiting on examples of citizens getting the same sentences as an officer
You two can provide all this stuff but it seems you still can't find 3 examples to my request
Eta see how in the first vid his hands were up back turned with no weapon. No different angle will change that.
Now who is comparing apples to oranges?edit on pm120143109America/ChicagoFri, 31 Jan 2014 21:53:09 -0600_1u by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)
Yes thats exactly my point. They were charged with illegal cavity searches. But first they dont even have legal ones. In that state those searches can only be done by a medical professional with a warrant. Now the definition of rape BY LAW which you stand by is the unwanted and forced penetration of the vagina or anus. Doesnt matter what with penis, finger, or broom. Also he did it so forcefully that it caused rectal bleeding in several of the victims (and he didnt use gloves in all cases).
So of course, and proving my point yet again, he received lighter charges. He got illegal cavity search.. there is no legal cavity search. There was no reason of him to do it. So what was his motive? It is by definition rape and at the very least sexual assault. He held these people down and raped them, he fingered them while subdued and did tinting least one person while another officerbheld a gun to their head.
So tell me.. why was he charged with a lesser offense when a normal civilian wi kid have been charged with rape or sexualnassault?
You may come up with some words and call them an excuse because you won't admit you are wrong, but you and I both know why.
See there you go again. Making assumptions. You said I didnt do my research or know what I was talking about, but it was you that was wrong and talking about a different case.
I didnt even know about the case where the cop killed the biker. Im glad he got ten years (most civilians would probably get 25 to life).
I was talking about the motorcycle driver who had an undercover cop get out and pull a weapon on him. He didnt fire a shot, but he tried to get the biker in trouble for filming him and pressed against cops being filmed.
You got all high and might thinking I didnt do my homework but in reality yiu just looked up the wrong case.
You should actually read about that mother. She ran because she was fired on. She accidentally drove through a checkpoint where the guards were slacking. They tried to paint her as mentally ill etc.
I know she ran she was being threatened with guns with her child. She was an unarmed mother and they shot her to death. A slow speed pursuit of a scared woman that made a mistake is justified to you?
You seem to misunderstand each situation. I know what happened in these cases. The point is in every case the cop gets off light while the regular citizen would go away for life.
Do you think the mother needed to be shot to death? Do you think Kelly deserved to be beat to death?
You dont seem to understand that cops are a big street gang with the same traits and mentalities, but they have the legal system on their side.
I would like to note that rather than admit to any wrong doing for police you skipped the cases where they were obviously inexcusable with no circumstances you could use to beat around the bush. Like the two car wreck victims the officers shot. They were just seeking help.
I intentionally included a nice mix of resolved and current so you can see the officers light sentences.
The one about the biker was a different incident, but yours could be added to the list because that officer murdered a man and got teen years and will be out in three.
All I see is a long list of horrible actions by officers being defended or explained away by another officer.
Not one case did you say "that was horrible, he deserved more" or "they shouldnt have killed that woman."edit on 1-2-2014 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)
Here is the case of the burned man.
He was completely naked, with no weapons or place to keep one. He was burned so severely his skins was hanging off.
The cop later tried to make up a story that he climbed on top of the car and was poised to jump off. Eyewitness accounts conflict. Likely he was too damaged to do anything. They found him sitting indian style.
Th officer shot and killed him when he approached for help.
The officer admitted in interview and said to his partner "I dont want him to touch me."
In th end, this severely injure man was murdered because the officer was disgusted and afraid the man would touch him.
The officer was cleared of charges.
reply to post by Xcathdra
Nope. In Wisconsin a body cavity search must be done by a medical professional. So had he found anything it would have been technically inadmissible.
Meaning he was just assaulting people.
Im not using my definition. That is t he LAW's definition of rape. You just twist and wriggle to get away from it when it goes against protecting cops. You wouldn't have one positive word for this guy if he wasnt a cop. You'd gladly admit it was sexual assault and rape.
968.255 Strip searches.
(1) In this section:
(a) "Detained" means any of the following:
1. Arrested for any felony.
2. Arrested for any misdemeanor under s. 167.30 (1), 940.19, 941.20 (1), 941.23, 941.237, 941.24, 948.60, or 948.61.
3. Taken into custody under s. 938.19 and there are reasonable grounds to believe the juvenile has committed an act which if committed by an adult would be covered under subd. 1. or 2.
4. Arrested for any misdemeanor not specified in subd. 2., any other violation of state law punishable by forfeiture or any local ordinance if there is probable cause to believe the person is concealing a weapon or a thing which may constitute evidence of the offense for which he or she is detained.
(b) "Strip search" means a search in which a detained person's genitals, pubic area, buttock or anus, or a detained female person's breast, is uncovered and either is exposed to view or is touched by a person conducting the search.
(2) No person may be the subject of a strip search unless he or she is a detained person and if:
(a) The person conducting the search is of the same sex as the person detained, unless the search is a body cavity search conducted under sub. (3);
(b) The detained person is not exposed to the view of any person not conducting the search;
(c) The search is not reproduced through a visual or sound recording;
(d) A person conducting the search has obtained the prior written permission of the chief, sheriff or law enforcement administrator of the jurisdiction where the person is detained, or his or her designee, unless there is probable cause to believe that the detained person is concealing a weapon; and
(e) A person conducting the search prepares a report identifying the person detained, all persons conducting the search, the time, date and place of the search and the written authorization required by par. (d), and provides a copy of the report to the person detained.
The reason the officers were not charged with sexual assault, as you are trying to argue, is listed below.
(3) No person other than a physician, physician assistant or registered nurse licensed to practice in this state may conduct a body cavity search.
(4) A person who intentionally violates this section may be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than 90 days or both.
(5) This section does not limit the rights of any person to civil damages or injunctive relief.
(6) A law enforcement agency, as defined in s. 165.83 (1) (b), may promulgate rules concerning strip searches which at least meet the minimum requirements of this section.
(7) This section does not apply to a search of any person who:
(a) Is serving a sentence, pursuant to a conviction, in a jail, state prison or house of correction.
(b) Is placed in or transferred to a juvenile correctional facility, as defined in s. 938.02 (10p), or a secured residential care center for children and youth, as defined in s. 938.02 (15g).
(c) Is committed, transferred or admitted under ch. 51, 971 or 975.
(d) Is confined as a condition of probation under s. 973.09 (4).
History: 1979 c. 240; 1981 c. 297; 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 17; 1993 a. 95, 105; 1995 a. 77, 154; 1997 a. 35; 1999 a. 9; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 344; 2011 a. 35.
A visual body cavity search is more intrusive than a strip search. It is not objectively reasonable for police to conclude that consent to a strip search includes consent to scrutiny of body cavities. State v. Wallace, 2002 WI App 61, 251 Wis. 2d 625, 642 N.W.2d 549, 00-3524.
Intrusive searches of the mouth, nose, or ears are not covered by sub. (3). However, searches of those body orifices should be conducted by medical personnel to comply with the 4th and 5th amendments. 71 Atty. Gen. 12.
See more garbage from you. It is not a Wikipedia knock off. It is wikipedia. Link worked fine for me.
Never straight talk from you.
I cherry picked nothing. I have read and watched more on the case. There are allegedly witnesses that support the police story, but most do not.
When you are roasted with third degree burns covering your body.. do you really think youbare thinking about police commands? No. More likely thinking about the excruciating pain that is your existence.
The cop said himself on camera with the words coming out of his mouth that he shot the guy because he was afraid he would touch hi im and he described how terrible he looked.
Of course he was cleared. You seem to miss the point im making. Cops get cleared for things they hould rot for.
Wiuld you shoot a man with his skin slouching off because he wouldn't/couldnt lay on the ground? Would you shoot a man in shock?
This guy did.
You have just proven you guys aren't worth a penny.
edit on 1-2-2014 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)