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

Oh lookie another "let's bash the police thread" on ATS...

Let's think about this logically for a moment (and I take great offense to one poster that sad they have never seen an officer protect anyone, I have more scars and the like from protecting people that were not myself over my career that it's not funny, finally had to take supervisory positions from being so beaten up)

1) The guy obviously wanted to die, one does NOT tell armed officers that you are armed and won't be taken alive unless you 're preparing to do something rash like make a political statement and try to kill them all.

2) Tasers do not always end someone's dangerous-ness (new word I made up deal with it) sometimes, they can still get upa nd get a gun and shoot back, so they must take the threat of someone having a gun seriously.

3) Every time a cop fires it's not automatically "unjustified" It will be investigated, and if the officer handled the situation improperly, WE here on ATS may never know what happens, but the majority of the time, Federal Civil RIghts charges are brought against officers, oh yes even cops, who cross the lines.. Just because it's not plastered all over the news does not mean it doesn't happen.

reply to post by vkey08


Ya know we wouldn't bash them if they would quit shooting unarmed tazered men in the back

Or kill homeless people for being homeless( very personal to me as i am homeless)

Then wonder why we are nervous when pulled over

Only to use that as an excuse to harass

After 4 beanbags and a taze he was incapacitated

Then shot in the back

Executed

Its sick and disturbing

reply to post by Xcathdra


Because a corrupt court defends corrupt police in no way makes murder ok

Once a person is incapacitated they have no right to kill

Especially when he was unarmed and shot in the back

reply to post by vkey08


1.) Did he tell the police he was armed? I thought it was allegedly said to civilians? Is there proof he actually said it? With the way cops have been acting lately (planting evidence and committing murder increasingly) I wouldn't be surprised if they just made that up. Who would know?

2.) There were several cops with their weapons trained on him, his arms were out. You know when you taze someone they may jerk involuntarily or move to try to remove the barbs instinctual. The man had given up and said so, but he wasn't given a chance. The shots came quickly after the less lethal force.

3.) No, not automatically unjustified, but it is more and more often. Off the top of my head from recent news: the two car crash victims shot while seeking health, the schizophrenic 16 year old the cops "didn't have time to deal with" after his parents called, Thomas Kelly whose killers got off after beating him to death, the 13 year old kid who cops saw walking with an airsoft gun ( they weren't called, they just saw him, reported it to dispatch and shot him dead a few seconds later, they should have left rather than shoot if they felt threatened in a situation THEY put themselves in).

As I have said before they hire cops with average and below average IQs for a reason. They want tools, not thinking men. So high IQs are given the excuse that they may become bored or burned out (even though we are in a recession and everyone is looking for a job).

People are bashing cops because cops are getting worse and worse.
Here's a good example: a whole department is corrupt - they knew about this for 4 years and let it go on and only 4 get charged. Despite the fact that a normal person would get ten years for multiple cases of rape this cop doesn't even get a sex crime charged against him and only gets 2 years. Another got a few days in jail and the other two got off with no jail time. They all received a year paid vacation. The cops in Wisconsin who did forceful ungloved, illegal, cavity searches on civilians - Read here, for another example of the epidemic.

Another_Nut
reply to post by vkey08

 

Ya know we wouldn't bash them if they would quit shooting unarmed tazered men in the back

Or kill homeless people for being homeless( very personal to me as i am homeless)

Then wonder why we are nervous when pulled over

Only to use that as an excuse to harass

After 4 beanbags and a taze he was incapacitated

Then shot in the back

Executed

Its sick and disturbing

Yeah, this. I am a member of a facebook group that tracks these incidents and there is literally 2 or 3 new cases EVERY DAY of a cop murdering or raping someone.

reply to post by Xcathdra

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


So your response would be "no" to my question posed to both of you. While you two are certainly entitled to your "opinion" you are ignoring the laws / court rulings for these situations. Simply ignoring things you don't like or don't understand does not mean they are to be ignored / have no impact on the situation nor does it make officer's actions illegal.


Secondly Defcon5 already answered your statements about what the suspect was doing before he was shot. He even took the screen captures and posted them. Is there any particular reason you are maintaining the "shot while arms raised" when Defcon5's post shows otherwise?

defcon5
Hands over his head?
ORLY?

Here we are a 0:19 seconds just before the first shot.
He is standing with his hands BEHIND HIS BACK...

Why did he get shot, lets see what his next move is in the next second:

here is what he is doing when the first shot goes off at 0:20:

Pointing at the cops like he has a gun....
He finally puts his hands up at 0:25 after 6 gunshots....

As for your comment about tasers - please learn how they work before making a claim. If one of the barbs does not make proper contact, then the effect on the CNS (muscle locking result) does not happen. Secondly, just like bullets, they can fail. Less lethal was attempted with the Taser, then with the beanbag rounds.

The guy had many chances to surrender and end the situation peacefully yet he opted not to. The entire incident could have been avoided had the suspect not stolen a car, not led law enforcement on a pursuit through the city, not attempted to hit the officers / marked patrol vehicle, not yell at bystanders during the pursuit about his plans, not ignored verbal commands, not complying after officers used less lethal - twice...

If you guys are just wanting to complain about law enforcement that is certainly your right however please let us know up front so time is not wasted by trying to explain / educate.

vkey08


3) Every time a cop fires it's not automatically "unjustified" It will be investigated,

I think you are missing a huge point, that these things are investigated by people with motives to support the enforcement side over the civilian side across the board, to the point of lying and covering up damning evidence.

You are essentially telling people that they have no justified opinion at all, 'nothing to see here move along', and that it is unethical to even make a judgement. Well I disagree, I am not a complete idiot. I know what "hands up" means, it means I can't shoot em legally now.
"Hands Up" was the last thing I saw before tango down.

Does the Government have the sole authority to judge the ethics of officers? And civilians are flat out unqualified to have any opinion on if something was wrongful or rightful?

Why push for ultimate unlimited powers for government to do anything they want and get away without any accountability whatsoever?
I just don't get that ideology.

Another_Nut
reply to post by vkey08

 

Ya know we wouldn't bash them if they would quit shooting unarmed tazered men in the back

Or kill homeless people for being homeless( very personal to me as i am homeless)

Then wonder why we are nervous when pulled over

Only to use that as an excuse to harass

After 4 beanbags and a taze he was incapacitated

Then shot in the back

Executed

Its sick and disturbing

Funny I was homeless for a while and not one officer ever shot me, or harassed me for being that way. I know there was an incident in New Hampshire in 2001 but that set case precedent for homeless people's rights which are now codified as par tof the Civil Rights Act, so.. (I Know the incident well btw in NH that led to the Homeless persons Act being put first through NH and then Nationwide, was involved with the department that was challenging the new regs.)

As far as this guy, watching the video I see no violations of his rights, civil or otherwise, the was belligerent, he made movements that looked rather suspect, he was argumentative, at no time did he look "incapacitated"

As far as your facebook group that tracks these things, remember this: You want to be innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers, the same goes for them, you CANNOT have it both ways.

reply to post by Xcathdra


2 months ago pot was illegal in Colorado. Just because a law exists, doesn't mean it is just. That is even more clear in instances of police crime. It was not a justified murder and you would be a liar if you said that police aren't specially insulated and protected from such crimes (with laws, courts, and fellow officers).

Do you think police are equally subject to the law and punishment, with civilians? If a cop is found guilty of the same crime as a civilian will the cop get equal punishment generally?

reply to post by Xcathdra


Also, he was surrendering. You seriously can't admit that, even though it was less than a second, not enough time was given between the less than lethal and the lethal?
You know what its like being shot with bean bags, and tazers. You aren't exactly clear headed.

If both barbs didn't make it in, it is still instinctual to pull them out. Also, we don't know if they did.

I think his actions were consistent with someone who was just shot with a barrage of less than lethal. Confused and dazed, and the second he begins to comply they shoot him.

His hands were visible, and he didn't have a weapon anywhere. There is no way you can really say it's justified if you use common sense.

A civilian would be facing 20 years. Prosecutors would say look, he's not a threat, his back is turned, his hands are out. Yeah it's different, but not that different.

muzzleflash

vkey08


3) Every time a cop fires it's not automatically "unjustified" It will be investigated,

I think you are missing a huge point, that these things are investigated by people with motives to support the enforcement side over the civilian side across the board, to the point of lying and covering up damning evidence.

You are essentially telling people that they have no justified opinion at all, 'nothing to see here move along', and that it is unethical to even make a judgement. Well I disagree, I am not a complete idiot. I know what "hands up" means, it means I can't shoot em legally now.
"Hands Up" was the last thing I saw before tango down.

Does the Government have the sole authority to judge the ethics of officers? And civilians are flat out unqualified to have any opinion on if something was wrongful or rightful?

Why push for ultimate unlimited powers for government to do anything they want and get away without any accountability whatsoever?
I just don't get why anyone would knowingly promote that ideology.

Actually no they aren't investigated by people that want the status quo, I have over the course of the past 15 years, arrested no less than 70 officers for civil rights violations, just because that never makes the front page or has liveleaks all over it (as those cases are normally sealed for everyone's safety) does not mean that these things go unchecked, the rather unfortunate part is that there are too FEW investigators for these sorts of incidents spread out across the nation and too many of them that aren't actually worth the time spent tracking everything down, now if the dashcam shows something suspect, fine, a video on liveleaks form someone's cell phone will not show the full chain of events that happened.

As far as "is the government the sole decider" not on your life, if someone is arrested, they find themselves in a jury trial, with the same rights as any other, trial by jury of your peers, and innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law, so the end decision a lot of times rests with either the Grand Jury (in the case of the initial indictment against an officer, if any) and the Trial Jury if it gets that far. Connecticut just had a case like this, and a jury acquitted the officer, but he was brought ot trial, and only late last year after 5 years of court were the civili rights charges dropped.

These things are rarely as cut and dry as you guys would love to make them...

reply to post by muzzleflash


If a civilian shoots and kills a person there is a criminal investigation. (Miranda Rights)

If law enforcement shoots and kills someone there is a -
* - Criminal investigation (conducted by another division / agency) (Miranda Rights)
* - Internal Affairs investigation into policy violation. (Garrity Rights)
* - Civil rights investigation. (Federal Bureau of Investigation)
* - Independent investigation (conducted by the PA's office)

As for justified opinion - there is nothing wrong with an opinion. It becomes problematic when people want to use their opinion in place of the actual laws that apply. Generally, that means people want their opinion / moral beliefs to be taken over the law, which is a problem in and of itself.

As for ethical judgment comment - Actually the Judiciary has that burden.
The flaw I see in your argument, and one that is demonstrated by others (including this thread), is the lack of knowledge on the laws that govern this area. If you don't mind me asking, how can a civilian competently judge a use of force when they are not familiar with the laws in place that govern an officer's use of force?

Why push for ultimate unlimited powers for government to do anything they want and get away without any accountability whatsoever?
I just don't get why anyone would knowingly promote that ideology.

Powers are not unlimited by any sense of the imagination. A civilian can actually act in situations where law enforcement cannot. The burden for a civilians use of force is less than that of law enforcements use of force. There are situations where a civilians use of deadly force would be valid where as if it were an officer a use of deadly force would not be justified.

Because of the additional limits placed on law enforcement, the standard is higher than that placed on civilians. Its one of the main reasons investigations into an officer's use of force takes longer than a civilians. Secondly, its the reasons the criteria for reviewing an officers use of force is extremely specific and is viewed on a case by case basis.

A male Officer who is 6'1 190lbs who is dealing with a person who is 6'3 225 solid muscle will have a different threshold than if the officer is female 5"8 130 pounds, will have a different threshold if there are 2 officers present, etc etc.

I have no issues with civilian oversight. I take exception though when the civilians don't bother to learn the law while at the same time they scream about law enforcement violating a law / civil rights.

GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

2 months ago pot was illegal in Colorado. Just because a law exists, doesn't mean it is just. That is even more clear in instances of police crime. It was not a justified murder and you would be a liar if you said that police aren't specially insulated and protected from such crimes (with laws, courts, and fellow officers).

and should a person legally obtain marijuana in Colorado, who then takes a trip across a state line, they are in fact in violation of the law when it comes to criminal possession of marijuana.

GogoVicMorrow
Do you think police are equally subject to the law and punishment, with civilians? If a cop is found guilty of the same crime as a civilian will the cop get equal punishment generally?

Actually Law Enforcement are held more accountable than civilians, not less. As I stated in another post to Muzzle, the investigations and laws that govern an officer's use of force are more complicated than that of a civilians use of force. Our actions can go beyond being a criminal investigation.

A civilian is not subject to Garrity.
A civilian is not subject an internal affairs investigation.
A civilian is not subject to a 42 USC 1983 (civil rights) investigation.

If a civilian shoots and kills a person, they are investigated purely on a criminal violation.
If an officer shoots and kills a person - the act of shooting and stopping the threat is a 4th amendment issue (hence civil rights investigation).

Because of the job law enforcement is required to do the laws that govern that area are different. SCOTUS has made very specific rulings in this area and has set the burden of proof / accountability higher than that of civilians - and for good reasons to.

As for punishment - I have seen it go both ways. Your ignoring the fact that law enforcement is not a part of the judicial system. A judge has discretion when it comes to sentencing, which is refined by state law / federal law or case law / precedent.

Police can go to prison just like civilians. Police who are sent to prison can be placed into protective custody (not always) in the exact same manner a civilian can. Police can also be subjected to civil law easier than a civilian can (IA investigation results / Garrity).

reply to post by Xcathdra


Actually law enforcement are DEFINITELY not held more accountable.
What are you even talking about?

The cop that murdered Oscar Grant in the subway (shot him in the back handcuffed) a few years ago, he's already out.
The cop that illegally cavity searched people in Wisconsin, and by under the definition of law should have been charged with multiple counts of rape, he didn't even get a single sex crime and only got two years even though it was deemed intentionally humiliating and fit the definition of a sex crime (any civilian similar would not). Cops that pull up and shoot a 12 year old with a plastic ak - after just seeing him and not getting a complaint - no charges..

Cops aren't held more accountable. Do you agree that cops get less severe punishment when convicted of a serious crime? Often they just lose their job (even though that is a given for a civilian and not considered part of the punishment).

They aren't help more accountable, their brothers in blue cover it up for them. Just like the sergeant and fellow officers of officer finger bang he didn't use gloves, was so rough he tore people's anal cavities causing them to bleed, and planted evidence.

You are flat out lying now.

Do cops generally get less severe punishments for serious crimes than civilians, answer me that.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Do cops found guilty of serious crimes generally get lighter sentences than civilians charged with the same crimes?

That is what I want to hear you answer. It's practically rhetorical, but I want to hear your answer.

reply to post by Xcathdra


You sir are a liar

1 i know how tazers work . And you admitted they work the way i describe (locking muscles) you are assuming they didn't make proper contact

2 he was not tazered then bagged. I have gone over this ad nausium

This is the correct order of events as shown in the posted vid

Clear cross fire
Bag
Bag
Bag
Bag
Tazed
Turns puts hands on roof
Bullet (in back)
Bullet (in back)
Ded

Trying to say he was tazed then bagged then shot is not true in the slightest

You an a murders apologists

And (like the investigations done after the shoot) have no concern for anyone other that officers

Last reply to your bloodless

Good day








Eta
www.cops.usdoj.gov...

Read the order of force use

Impact

The could have rushed him. He was obviously un armed except for that pointy finger

GogoVicMorrow
Also, he was surrendering. You seriously can't admit that, even though it was less than a second, not enough time was given between the less than lethal and the lethal?

He had the opportunity to surrender from the very start however he opted to not pull over for police. From that moment up until the end the suspect had the ability to surrender and refused to do so.

GogoVicMorrow
You know what its like being shot with bean bags, and tazers. You aren't exactly clear headed.

Being ive been in law enforcement for a decade + yes, I know what it is like being tased (barbs (CNS) and with a drive stun (pain compliance). I have seen the bruises a beanbag round causes as well. Both of which were used on the suspect and did not seem to affect him to the point of surrender.

GogoVicMorrow
If both barbs didn't make it in, it is still instinctual to pull them out. Also, we don't know if they did.

Its not instinctual to pull them out. What is instinctual from my experience is for the person to maneuver to break the wire to prevent the taser from being effective - not to pull it out in a methodical manner. Secondly, if the taser was not effective then we have our answer on whether or not the barbs deployed correctly and made contact correctly.

GogoVicMorrow
I think his actions were consistent with someone who was just shot with a barrage of less than lethal. Confused and dazed, and the second he begins to comply they shoot him.

I see his actions being consistent with a person who is going to force a deadly encounter and who is not going to comply. He had every opportunity to surrender and failed to do so. His actions / statements support that conclusion.

GogoVicMorrow
His hands were visible, and he didn't have a weapon anywhere. There is no way you can really say it's justified if you use common sense.

No his hands were not. See Defcon5's post about the video. The guy kept refusing to comply by showing his hands. He kept moving them around, fidgeting etc. the suspect already made statements about being armed. Just because there is no gun in his hand does not mean he doesn't have one. An officer does not have to wait for a person to pull a gun, aim at the officer and pull the trigger in order to justify a shoot to stop the threat. Secondly he had already assaulted law enforcement by ramming at patrol cars / officers.

Again the suspect opened the door for the deadly use of force by those very actions.
The suspect opened the door for the deadly use of force by committing those actions in the general public on a public road.

GogoVicMorrow
A civilian would be facing 20 years. Prosecutors would say look, he's not a threat, his back is turned, his hands are out. Yeah it's different, but not that different.

Im not sure how you are making the comparison being civilians are not authorized to act under color of law, they are not allowed to initiate a traffic stop. The use of force is different only in the manner that law enforcement can in fact force a confrontation where as a civilian should not and in some states cannot.

With that said the same standard applies - If the civilian can articulate that his life / life of a 3rd party is in danger, he can use lethal force (contingent upon state laws). Some states have a "duty to retreat" law for civilians specifically to prevent a civilian from forcing a lethal encounter. With that said those states still allow for deadly force if the person cannot safely retreat and their life / 3rd party life are still in jeopardy.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I saw Defcons post. I pointed out that he used still from before the less than lethal were deployed, let alone the fatal shots.

Another_Nut
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

You sir are a liar

1 i know how tazers work . And you admitted they work the way i describe (locking muscles) you are assuming they didn't make proper contact

2 he was not tazered then bagged. I have gone over this ad nausium

This is the correct order of events as shown in the posted vid

Clear cross fire
Bag
Bag
Bag
Bag
Tazed
Turns puts hands on roof
Bullet (in back)
Bullet (in back)
Ded

Trying to say he was tazed then bagged then shot is not true in the slightest

You an a murders apologists

And (like the investigations done after the shoot) have no concern for anyone other that officers

Last reply to your bloodless

Good day

edit on pm120143101America/ChicagoMon, 27 Jan 2014 13:57:47 -0600_1000000 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

Yes. This is the proper sequence of events.

Xcath, it's not like we here in this discussion were the first to watch it and determine what happened. It was clear to all, and the article writers that he had his hands up.

It wasn't justified.

You answered a lot of my post, but the only thing i want an answer to is:

Do you think that police officers charged with violent crimes generally get lighter sentences than civilians charged with the same crimes?

GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Actually law enforcement are DEFINITELY not held more accountable.
What are you even talking about?

As a matter of fact they are and I listed them for you as examples in my post to Muzzle.

GogoVicMorrow
The cop that murdered Oscar Grant in the subway (shot him in the back handcuffed) a few years ago, he's already out.

Was charged, tried and convicted.

GogoVicMorrow
The cop that illegally cavity searched people in Wisconsin, and by under the definition of law should have been charged with multiple counts of rape, he didn't even get a single sex crime and only got two years even though it was deemed intentionally humiliating and fit the definition of a sex crime (any civilian similar would not).

Case in point - Again when you make claims you should understand what you are saying. While you personally may think the officer committed rape, in reality, under Wisconsin law, they did not. Sexual intercourse is one of the key requirements. The officer was held accountable and has been charged for those searches.

You have to look at the law in question, then you must see how the law defines the wording used. as an example in the Wisconsin case the officers actions did not violate the rape law because of how they define sexual intercourse.

This is why it is important to understand how laws work and how they apply. This also drives home the importance of using laws in place of ones own moral beliefs. Your morals are different than someone else's morals is different than the next person etc etc etc. If you were to commit an act and it offended someone elses morals but not the law, are you going to be ok with being arrested and charged when you didn't violate a law?

I would wager you wouldn't not be happy. Your argument / position is a 2 way road so before you insist on continuing to use personal over law, keep in mind on how that position affects you.

GogoVicMorrow
Cops that pull up and shoot a 12 year old with a plastic ak - after just seeing him and not getting a complaint - no charges..

Shooting was justified under law. again, laws and not your personal morals / belief on what should have occurred.

GogoVicMorrow
Cops aren't held more accountable. Do you agree that cops get less severe punishment when convicted of a serious crime? Often they just lose their job (even though that is a given for a civilian and not considered part of the punishment).

Cops are in fact more accountable and I believe cops do get more serious punishment where law allows. I have also seen the law punish law enforcement for taking an action where as if they were a civilian they would have never been charged.

Why? Higher standard / burden for justification of actions.

GogoVicMorrow
They aren't help more accountable, their brothers in blue cover it up for them. Just like the sergeant and fellow officers of officer finger bang he didn't use gloves, was so rough he tore people's anal cavities causing them to bleed, and planted evidence.

The level of ignorance and hypocrisy you demonstrate in your comment here is ridiculous. You seem to maintain the all members of all law enforcement are crooked, which is in fact a lie. That mindset is no better than law enforcement thinking every person they deal with is a criminal, which is also, in fact, a lie.

Its that mindset that causes problems. Its the mindset that your personal views should trump laws which is a problem. Your continued diatribe when dealing with and any all law enforcement completely and totally undermines your argument / position.

Its sad you cannot see that.

As for your covered up comment - When an officer is not charged, it does not mean there is a coverup. What it means is the reviewing authorities determined no law violation occurred, which again goes back to a specific stature / law, the elements of that law being broken in a manner as to be in violation of said law / statute.

A person cannot be charged simply because you want them to based on your moral / ethical standards. It has to occur under law, not your personal opinion.

The sooner you and some of the others understand that the better off you will be able to make your argument as to why you want to see change. Putting your fingers in your ears while keeping your eyes closed because you don't like what you see / hear is not an action that creates change.

GogoVicMorrow
You are flat out lying now.

Not at all sir. I am explaining to you how the law works and the criteria involved. Again just because you don't like something does not mean an action is illegal. simply calling people a liar in a vain attempt to prove your point does nothing to further your position, aside from sinking it.

GogoVicMorrow
Do cops generally get less severe punishments for serious crimes than civilians, answer me that.

I did, several times now. respectfully maybe you should read my replies before asking the same question over and ove4r that has already been answered.