Pinal County Sheriff Deputy kills Manuel Longoria while Longoria's hands are raised in the air.

vkey08
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Not entirely true... but close.

If there is a civil rights violation that is not investigated by the State but rather the Federal Govt.. so there are times the Feds *can* step in.. but you're right for the most part, the State Law would take precedence. ^_^ just clearing that up for our other friends here that may be scratching their heads..

I appreciate the clarification. If you see anything else I have goofed on by all means let me know and correct me.

@ Everyone else
With this being said I think I have more than explained the areas people need to reference / look at when trying to formulate an educated position in these situations. All that is left is for people to either pick up the ball on their own and learn, or watch the ball roll by and continue as they are.

If anyone has a question or wants a reference to any laws / rulings that pertain to this area by all means, shoot me a private message and I will respond.

Thanks

reply to post by Zcustosmorum


So the guy led them on a police chase...

Once they got him stopped, he stated he wasn't going to be taken alive.... (dunno the facts on this one)

He refused the commands of the police... He kept on being a thug? (bet he thought "They can't do S to me...")

His hands weren't in the air until he was shot several times....

Yup, looks like he kept up with his 'Thug' mentality. F the Police right? ...not when all of them are around you...

Title should read Pinal County Sheriff Shoots Criminal.

Here is another case, same thing. Cops shoot man with his arms in the air:

Link

ChuckNasty
reply to post by Zcustosmorum

 

So the guy led them on a police chase...

Once they got him stopped, he stated he wasn't going to be taken alive.... (dunno the facts on this one)

He refused the commands of the police... He kept on being a thug? (bet he thought "They can't do S to me...")

His hands weren't in the air until he was shot several times....

Yup, looks like he kept up with his 'Thug' mentality. F the Police right? ...not when all of them are around you...

Title should read Pinal County Sheriff Shoots Criminal.

Oh yeah, his life doesn't matter because he was a petty criminal.

His hands were on the car after he shot.
Thats the kind of ignorant thinking we don't need, that anytime the person shot is an alleged criminal (i guess you don't believe he was deserving of a trial.

You could be a criminal. All you have to do is be pulled over by the wrong cop. A cop in Louisiana was busted finall (after six years with the whole dept and sergeant aware) of sexually assaulting and by definition raping dozens of people while having other officers hold guns to their heads. He planted evidence on them. So by your definition, because they appear to be criminals, then they are.

A cop could lie, kill you, and people like you would call you a criminal and deserved to die.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


I stopped reading it at "I am a retired Federal Law Enforcement Officer (HR 218)"

HR218 was House Resolution 218, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers SAFETY Act...

reply to post by Xcathdra


I was pulled over for allegedly speeding (i was in a line of cars and saw the officer in a distance and slowed down to make sure i wasn't - you know that radar expands like a flashlight and isn't accurate at great distances). I was in my full work uniform and had my lunch in the seat. I told him I was going to be late for work. He asked for my papers. I said ill get them, but i have my gun in the glovebox so not to freak out, i had to get in there to get the gun.

He grilled me "who told you you could keep a gun there, what makes you think it's legal"
I said I know it was, "he continued asking who told me that"

He said I had to get out of the car because the gun was in there. I didn't think that was true, as i'd been pulled over before with a gun in the car and no problem.

After i got out another cop pulled up. While the officer that stopped me went to write up a paper, the second officer started to grill me. Asking if there was anything in the car. I said no. He said well if i call the dogs will anything show. I said no, it shouldn't, there is nothing illegal there; why would you search or bring a dog? He said i'm not saying i am. Then asked why i was nervous. I said I could be fired and i'm always nervous when im pulled over.

He was itching to search and threatening dogs. He said, the reason he was suspicious was because there were three small logs in my hatchback. I explained my brother had moved them out of a neighbors yard and we were going to use them when we camped (there were also hot dog sticks, and a sleeping bag in the car.

He asked me when i last smoked. No reason to ask, since i don't smoke. Finally I said i will let you look in the trunk if you just let me get to work. He looked under the sleeping bag and found only random stuff. After 30 min or so, no dogs, they finally admitted my gun was correctly stored and let me go. The ticket he handed me (which he hand not told me the clocked speed because he got hung up on my gun) was WAAAY over what was possible.

They acted like dicks in other ways too, but that's just one incidents. I could list the officers name and location, but dont know how that fits with TOS.

It was a bull# ordeal. I was pollute, if a little frustrated, the entire time.

vkey08
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

I stopped reading it at "I am a retired Federal Law Enforcement Officer (HR 218)"

HR218 was House Resolution 218, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers SAFETY Act...

That doesn't make any sense. I am starting to understand the term cop out after this thread.
It doesn't change that it happened. I suggest you start reading police state USA daily. It is like a running record of police misconduct.

They also posted the story of the parking violation that ended in an unwarranted raid where an offier stomped on a pet parakeet.

Everything posted there is a true story.

reply to post by Xcathdra


They do. I even showed you examples.

You don't think the officer in the Grant case received a lighter sentence than a civilian? The cop that sexually assaulted dozens (dozens we know about, but most likely hundreds since it took 6 years to catch up with him), you don't think his 2 years was less than a civilian would get? He wasn't even made a registered sex offender.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Makes a lot of sense, and not everything is true if it's not the court transcripts and full investigative details.. just remember that..

GogoVicMorrow

ChuckNasty
reply to post by Zcustosmorum

 

So the guy led them on a police chase...

Once they got him stopped, he stated he wasn't going to be taken alive.... (dunno the facts on this one)

He refused the commands of the police... He kept on being a thug? (bet he thought "They can't do S to me...")

His hands weren't in the air until he was shot several times....

Yup, looks like he kept up with his 'Thug' mentality. F the Police right? ...not when all of them are around you...

Title should read Pinal County Sheriff Shoots Criminal.

Oh yeah, his life doesn't matter because he was a petty criminal.

Life does matter....that is why the cops kept telling him to cooperate. That petty criminal was the one who thought that life did not matter.

His hands were on the car after he shot.
Thats the kind of ignorant thinking we don't need, that anytime the person shot is an alleged criminal (i guess you don't believe he was deserving of a trial.

His hands weren't on the car until a few rounds made it his way. He should've let himself be taken into custody so he could get a trial. He made his choice.

You could be a criminal. All you have to do is be pulled over by the wrong cop. A cop in Louisiana was busted finall (after six years with the whole dept and sergeant aware) of sexually assaulting and by definition raping dozens of people while having other officers hold guns to their heads. He planted evidence on them. So by your definition, because they appear to be criminals, then they are.

To judge a group of people by actions of a few within their group is prejudice. I am not prejudice. This thread isn't about a POS guy or his alleged POS dept.

A cop could lie, kill you, and people like you would call you a criminal and deserved to die.

Anyone can do that.

reply to post by ChuckNasty


Everything you said there is nonsense.
You don't know his state of mind. He wasn't making threatening gestures to the cops. His hands were on the roof before he was murdered. That's what matters.

If his hands were ther a second or an hour before he was shot. Makes no difference.

and for your last comment. No, not anyone. I wouldn't lie. You on the other hand would apparently, and are going out of your way to support a stranger and defend him for murder simply because of his position.

GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by ChuckNasty

 

Everything you said there is nonsense.

So you don't believe those police officers should have given that man a chance? I don't think that is nonsense, I think they really tried. You can only do so much.

You don't know his state of mind.

No I don't. Neither do you. Given we don't know, we can only gauge a person on their actions.

He wasn't making threatening gestures to the cops.

The 40minute car chase is no threat - you are correct....

His hands were on the roof before he was murdered.

His hands should have been on the roof once he left his vehicle...surrounded by cops. I'm no brainsurgen, but even I know when I am caught.

That's what matters.

What matters got him killed it seems - from your logic. My logic is doing the proper thing at the appropriate time.

If his hands were ther a second or an hour before he was shot. Makes no difference.

Makes night-and-day difference whether or not his hands were there an hour before he was shot. If his hands were there an hour before he was shot, he wouldn't have been shot.

and for your last comment. No, not anyone. I wouldn't lie. You on the other hand would apparently, and are going out of your way to support a stranger and defend him for murder simply because of his position.

edit on 29-1-2014 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

I will not go out of my way to support a stranger and defend him for murder - that is crazy talk. I WILL go out of my way to support anyone doing their job. Maybe I can put it into words that you might understand:

If you have a dog that keeps-on biting the mailman, do you blame the mailman for the dogs reaction - or do you finally tie up the dog? The mailman is just doing his job, the dog is just being a pest protecting an imaginary boundary set by the dog's imagination. The mailman just wants to deliver mail, nothing malicious about that. It is only a matter of time before the dog gets put-down for attacking the mailman (because you got tired of tie'n up the dog). Even the dog will whine before his life is finished... It is a sad outcome, but one that had to be done with the given circumstances.

The dog is a thug. The mailman is the police. Tie'n up the dog is the judicial system. The rest, hopefully you can understand. If not - good day.

reply to post by ChuckNasty


Sir you still can't figure out the difference between being shot with four bean bags and tazed vs 2 gun shot in the back

Like defcon you think 6 shots were fired

6 were not fired

2 were

And those two came after surrendering.

It was the bags and tazers that stopped this man in his tracks and got him to give up

Back turned with hands on car was when the two shots were fired

If you don't get that then

Good day

Another_Nut
reply to post by ChuckNasty

 

Sir you still can't figure out the difference between being shot with four bean bags and tazed vs 2 gun shot in the back

Like defcon you think 6 shots were fired

6 were not fired

2 were

And those two came after surrendering.

It was the bags and tazers that stopped this man in his tracks and got him to give up

Back turned with hands on car was when the two shots were fired

If you don't get that then

Good day

edit on am120143108America/ChicagoThu, 30 Jan 2014 08:39:13 -0600_1u by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

Ooohhhhh ok, that makes more sense..

The many verbal warnings to give up before being shot had nothing to do with the police actions? His 40min car chase had nothing to do with the outcome?

If he was so innocent, why did it take him so long to finally put up his arms. I mean his arms were in the air for like 5 minutes before he was shot right? No, that man was dumb. It was a split second from his hands being up and him crumpling to the ground.

He was too slow and too late. He made all the choices that day - the police just had to put up with them.

reply to post by ChuckNasty


See that's why i said you think it's alright to kill him for his prior actions.

he was stopped and surrendered when murdered. i don't care if he filleted someone. He was surrendered at the time he was murdered.

We have trials for a reason. Not likely, but this guy might have had a sympathetic reason for doing what he did.
We ill never know because he was murdered.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


And you think all cops get off easy...

San Bern County Deputy Convicted on 17 Sex Charges..

HA! Been involved in this one, justice will be served..

reply to post by vkey08


more bs

here

articles.courant.com...

305k bail vs 1.95 mil

17 years vs 44

care to appologize and admitt you are wrong yet?

or here 500 years
www.denverpost.com...

or here 270 years
www.wjbdradio.com...

i await your excuse

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


His actions was the reason he was killed. We all have to be responsible for ourselves. But you keep focusing on a split second decision, that was a split second too late. If he made his decision 30 seconds sooner, he would be alive. If he would have pulled over initially instead of doing the 40min chase, he would be alive.

But we are to all blame the evil police who should've waited 5 more minutes!

Please..

reply to post by Another_Nut


using Dr Westbrook's case is a bit like using an Orange and calling it a juicy Cantaloupe. Unless you lived in Connecticut (and I assume you do not since you're just pulling a case out of air) You wouldn't understand why the jury was so hard on him. The guy was a mental moron, and without question the cockiest person to ever walk through courtroom doors.

He even DARED the Jury to sentence him to a long term.. Well they gave him what he wanted...

He was a (how do I put this so the censors won't strike me down) major orifice that needed to be plugged..

This is why I say unless you know all the particulars of a case, you don't' always know (as Paul Harvey used to say) The REST of the story..