Posted on 07/07/2016 7:32:13 AM PDT by WayneDupreeShow
This is not good, this is not good at all. I really don't want to engage this except to make a few points.
I am sure the cops are going to say he was reaching for his gun. And it is hard to tell whether he was, or not, by the videos I have seen. But what I don't understand is why did it get to the point that he was being combative with the cops? You NEVER escalate any situation with the cops or you may end up a dead man. And what does it matter at this point if he was right or not? He's dead. Did he save his honor by resisting what he believed to be a false arrest? Was he a real man to stand up for his rights? That is why we have courts.
I am very sympathetic to the situation and to him. I hate abuse of power and I post stuff about it all the time on my Facebook. But there is a huge difference between what is right and wrong, vs acting in wisdom or foolishness. He may be 100 percent right, but acted as a fool. The cops can be guilty as sin--and from the looks of things, they probably are--but the man is still dead. That isn't going to get his life back.
[FACEBOOK VIDEO OF NEW VIDEO INSERTED HERE]
I can't see how he can be considered a threat when one officer has him "pinned" by his ankles, while the other officer is pinning his upper torso pinned down. That's where I break with everyone blaming that he owed child support as a reason to shoot him. That's ridiculous!
From CBS News:
Disturbing new video has surfaced in the police killing of a black man who authorities say had a gun when he was shot on the pavement outside a convenience store.Here is the news report:The shooting death of Alton Sterling is being investigated by federal authorities.
Sterling, 37, was confronted by police and shot on Tuesday after an anonymous caller said he had threatened someone with a gun outside the store, where he was selling homemade CDs, authorities said.
In the video, filmed by store owner Abdullah Muflahi, officers are seen pinning Sterling to the ground. Officers can be heard saying “You [expletive] move, I swear to God,” and shouting, “Gun!” before shots ring out.
Sterling can be seen bleeding from the chest on the ground.
Muflahi told CBS Baton Rouge affiliate WAFB-TV the first officer used a Taser on Sterling and the second officer tackled him. Muflahi said that, as Sterling fought to get the officer off him, the first officer shot him “four to six times.”
The owner said Sterling didn’t have a gun in his hand at the time but he saw officers remove a gun from Sterling’s pocket after the shooting.
[CBS VIDEO INSERTED HERE]
That is my 2¢ and I don't want any of my cop friends telling me the cops were right here. I blame their training which makes them see too many situations are potential lethal threats and justifiable shooting in too many instances.
[TWITTER VIDEO INSERTED HERE]
These cops will probably be found justified and THAT is why the system is wrong. The "rules of engagement" need to CHANGE. It's not really a racial thing (generally). It's police training seeing people as enemies rather than police seeing themselves as public servants protecting people's civil rights. They have it backwards.
I might get roasted for saying this: But I sometimes wonder why people can't cooperate with the police officers. These things don't need to happen like this. I feel so bad watching what happened to Alton in that video and if I was there I would have told him to "please dude stop and fight it out in the court system."
What are your thoughts?
Help support conservative news and views by sharing this post on Facebook and Twitter.
Don’t forget to follow the Wayne Dupree Show on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also listen to replays of the Wayne Dupree Show via Spreaker and iHeartRadio.
Get arrested and resist in court. . .fight the charges.
Like arguing with a traffic officer that pulled you over, take the ticket and fight it in court. You are not going to win an argument about the ticket while on the side of the road. You may win in court.
Remember, we always have jury nullification if the courts are corrupted and the laws are unreasonable.
The one video that I saw looked like an execution, pure and simple. That being said, the deceased should not have struggled with the cops. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
This is true, and yet the question remains: is this how it should be?
NH State Constitution, Article 1, Section 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. THE DOCTRINE OF NONRESISTANCE AGAINST ARBITRARY POWER, AND OPPRESSION, IS ABSURD, SLAVISH, AND DESTRUCTIVE OF THE GOOD AND HAPPINESS OF MANKIND.
I'll say; do a job of collecting the facts for a great case against a big fish (e.g. a Clinton) and your boss recommends not to prosecute.
The man in Minnesota had a concealed carry license and, according to his girlfriend, informed the officer of this immediately.
Baton Rouge man was a felon and should not have had a gun. There was a gun in his pocket, but he was not holding a gun.
Restrain the man and handcuff him. Don’t shoot him dead.
FTFY.
I seem to recall tales of ROEs similar to that for troops in Afghanistan.
If it's good enough for our troops operating overseas it should be more than good enough for domestic law enforcement.
Combat isn’t about “fair”, its about surviving.
“Remember, we always have jury nullification if the courts are corrupted and the laws are unreasonable.”
Not really. Judges strictly instruct juries anymore and threaten them.
So, if the law says you have to wear a chocolate frog on your head, and you refuse to do so, then get arrested and the jury says “that’s a stupid law,” and refuses to convict. . .the judge can make the jury convict?
If a judge can direct the jury so strongly as to compel them to convict, then why have a jury?
Isn’t a jury supposed to be one of the last defenses against a tyrannical government?
Drilled? Its simply common sense. The officer freaked out. He saw a thug looking, urban type black guy, reaching back for something. He knows the guy has a gun. And he freaked out. You can paint this however you want, but I dont need to make that reach. Not needed in this case. Cop freaks out when armed black man reaches back to grab something. Simple as that.
IBTF"TCPTGIHP"
In Before The First "The Cop Put The Gun In His Pocket".
...no it's not.
If you're stationed in a warzone you don't go flying off the handle because your fellow-soldiers are armed, you don't go flying off the handle if you see armed soldiers not of your nation, if you do you will cause friendly fire. (eg. your fellow squadmates, and allied troops, respectively.)
If it's common sense
then they're already thinking that person X is the enemy. If person X is the enemy, then there is no reason to deescalate the situation.
The officer freaked out.
A sign of either (a) lack of training, (b) poor training, or (c) training that encourages a freak out
.
He saw a thug looking, urban type black guy, reaching back for something.
Granted, that's the first piece of evidence you've cited. Does it warrant an untried execution by the police?
He knows the guy has a gun.
And we know the police have guns. Does that make the police people we should immediately classify as enemies?
And he freaked out.
Again, inadequate training.
Cop freaks out when armed black man reaches back to grab something. Simple as that.
I'm not doubting/criticizing that; what I am doubting is the legitimacy of the shooting, the adequacy of out LEO training, and indeed the general philosophies that LEOs use to operate.
Once upon a time they were called peace officers, now they are law enforcement officers -- do you think that the name change could reflect a difference in the philosophies they are taught in their training? Could it be that they were intentionally changed from being about keeping the peace
into an authoritarian enforcement operation?
It seems to me that a peace officer is part of the community, while an enforcement officer is held apart and placed over the community.
Thank you. Reality IS harsh. And my analysis is also correct.
Please, don't be stupid. I don't agree with what happened here at all. But I know your type, I've been here a long time, and see it too often. Adieu.
“the judge can make the jury convict?”
They do all the time. Time and time again juries have said, “Well, the judges orders made us convict.”
Why? Because judges limit the jury’s instructions and many times that includes, “If the State has proved the case you must convict regardless of what you think of the law.”
This isn’t new information. I thought you knew this already.
I understand the entire purpose of the jury is to ensure the law is fair and not just to device true/false if the State has proven the case, but that isn’t what is going on in the courts.
What type of weapon did the police carry?
If semi-auto you slide the action to chamber a round, then for carry de-cocking is done (1911 for exception, to name one). No one runs around with the hammer back with the “standard” semi-auto side-arms police usually carry. Double-action is standard.
Don’t think revolvers are carried by uniformed officers.
I understand but I was making my case that if the judge instructs the jury on a law that is unjust, then why have a jury if the judge “makes” the jury decide the way he wants them to decide? Cannot the jury say, “I hear ya, but I’m not convinced” (one way), or by saying “this law is unjust” and refuse to convict. (Civil disobedience).
That goes back to what I was saying earlier, that juries are there not only to determine guilt or innocence, but serve as a check on an unreasonable law the “king” decides to enact/enforce.
Or, perhaps, like obummer deciding to use prosecutoral discretion on deciding to enforce immigration or drug laws, do not the citizens have that same right? After all, the criminal complaint is the “state” (meaning The People) is prosecuting, so The People may decide not to enforce/convict?
I find this interesting to examine. Not poking you or looking for a fight, just noodling a few thoughts.
I totally agree with you. That was the exact purpose of the jury system: Let the King make all the laws he wants but we the people don’t have to hold each other to them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.