Posted on 12/08/2017 10:30:14 AM PST by boycott
Did the cop see a gun? no. Was the kid wearing a gun? No? then the kids WAS making an “innocent” grab.
The officers mistake - too many conflicting commands while shouting at and threatening the civilian. Now maybe guys in the military are used to thinking while being yelled at, but you can’t expect civvies to react logically under the same circumstances, while being threatened with being SHOT.
Bottom line: the kid was totally unprepared with what was happening, his brain was shutting down, and when his shorts started to fall down his waist he did what came NATURALLY - he reached down to pull them up (it’s hard to crawl with your shorts around your ankles).
But the cop should have known ALL of this - a good cop would have.
Yeah blah blah blah is such an intellectual retort. If you are ever falsely accused of a crime, I hope you are blessed with someone who is just like you on your jury. Biased and short sighted with a closed mind. Oh I know you saw the video & that was more than enough for you to make a determination. Apparently the jury that actually heard the case were privy to something beyond just that video that swayed them to rule differently. So your proclamation that he got away with murder is nothing more than your opinion. That opinion may be right & it may be wrong. I can’t tell because I didn’t sit on that jury and hear all of the facts presented in court. I rarely take what I read in a “news” article as presenting all the facts in their story. Mainly because so many have agendas.
“If you are ever falsely accused of a crime,”
Except he wasn’t. A Grand Jury indicted him. Nothing false about that.
I’ll bet you’re all in favor of the Steinle verdict, too.
L
Could it possibly be that evidence withheld from the jury may hold the reason as to why they ruled as they did? There is no exculpatory reasoning for shooting an unarmed, innocent man, regardless. You might find this sort of heavy-handed police activity acceptable and feel “safe” because of it, but let’s just hope you’re not reduced to crawling on your hands and knees begging for your life for no apparent reason in front of a hyped-up, tatted up lesbian on a power trip someday.
“But the cop should have known ALL of this - a good cop would have.”
Of course a “good cop” would’ve known what the guy was thinking and that his shorts were falling down. After all, we all know that cop killers NEVER have shorts that are falling down. If only we could have that job for awhile, we’d show them how it’s SUPPOSED to be done!
A t-shirt was covering the waistband.
No? then the kids WAS making an “innocent” grab.
We know that from the benefit the policeman lacked at the time.
The officers mistake - too many conflicting commands while shouting at and threatening the civilian.
Again, he was very explicit. There was nothing confusing about what he told them both. After all, the girl followed him to the letter and nothing happened to her. Unfortunately he tried to pull up his pants ignoring the directive to not deviate from what he being told to do. The policeman saw him make a rapid move to his waistband that the officer mistook as a move towards a weapon.
But the cop should have known ALL of this - a good cop would have.
And you know this because you are a good cop? Or is this just your impression of what a good cop automatically does? Could it also be what good dead cops do, give someone the benefit of the doubt, and get shot for that benefit of doubt?
Bottom line here, which you are ignoring completely, is that the jury that heard the case came to a completely different verdict. Does it perhaps make sense that something was brought up in the trial that was not presented by just watching the video or reading this article that made them come to their verdict? My guess is yes, and is the reason that I expressed surprise they reached that verdict. Because based on what I saw & read it seems strange that a jury could reach this verdict. So some information must not be being presented in either the video or the article.
I'm tempted to respond "If you are ever falsely accused of a crime, I hope you are blessed with someone who is just like this officer to arrest you," but that wouldn't be very nice. Totally analogous to your own reply, but not very nice.
Absolutely not, but again you are comparing apples to oranges. We know for a fact that he was at best guilty of reckless manslaughter by his own admission.
Just so you know, any time deadly force is used by policeman a grand jury is convened to see if they feel the use of deadly force was justified or not. Just because a grand jury finds to indict a person is not the same as a conviction.
So if a prosecutor can get a grand jury to rule for an indictment, but you didn't commit the crime they accuse you of, you are falsely accused of a crime that you did not commit. But then you knew what I meant.
“We know for a fact that he was at best guilty of reckless manslaughter by his own admission.”
So was this ***hole. But cops are held to a different standard.
But you knew that.
L
Yes they are, and for good reason, and yes I knew that. However, if you think that standard is lower then you are sadly mistaken.
“However, if you think that standard is lower then you are sadly mistaken.”
Cops can shoot Boy Scouts in the face and get away with it.
They can incinerate children and get away with it.
They can burn down entire city blocks and get away with it.
They can shoot innocent women in the head and get away with it.
So spare me.
L
Not in the least analogous. If I obey his commands completely then I should come out okay. However, if I make a sudden movement towards my waistband then I would expect the same outcome as what happened.
As for whether it is nice or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it is flawed. You totally ignore the actions that transpired, while I was talking about the mindset of someone who would be judging his (the person I was responding to which wasn't you) innocence or guilt. Because they ignored whatever might come out in court because the video formulated their verdict. Anything else was irrelevant for them to make their decision.
The mindset of the killer does not change the fact that he killed. The man had done nothing wrong. He was on his hands and knees begging for his life. This officer is not “innocent” no matter what the jury determined and you know it, otherwise you’d not be continually attempting to rationalize his actions. There’s a dead man for evidence, no one else pointed a gun at him and shot him, how many times?
As far as obeying commands, let’s see here: down on your knees, crawl, cross your legs, sit, stay, beg, roll over, bang band you’re dead.
What command did this man disobey in your estimation? Can you even bring yourself to admit that it was wrong to kill him?
For example: They can incinerate children and get away with it.
If you are referring to the child in Atlanta that got badly burned from a flashbang grenade, who exactly would you have charged? The person that threw it? The person that ordered it thrown? Perhaps the whole SWAT team? The informant who said: there were no children at the residence?
The truth is is caught the bed on fire.
Terrell said. “When they made the buy, they didn’t see any children or any evidence of children there, so we proceeded with our standard operation.”
Because of recent history with the individual involved in the alleged drug sales and knowledge of weapons in the residence, the special agent seeking the search warrant requested a “no-knock” warrant, Terrell said.
Certainly you are not trying to imply that the police wanted this outcome are you?
Now consider the cops in the Freddy Gray case in Baltimore. Did they all gt away with murder in your eyes.
You tend to see everything in terms of black & white, and I am not referring to race.
Spare you from what? That you do not hold the truth but rather just an opinion, much like myself. That those who do not hold you opinion are automatically wrong. Sorry, cannot do. If discussion that disagrees with you is forbidden then I suggest you should leave this country, because that is exactly what this country is about, or certainly used to be.
“If you are referring to the child in Atlanta that got badly burned from a flashbang grenade,”
Nope. Children is plural. Child is singular.
Waco.
But now that you brought that one up I’d have charged everyone involved in that little fiasco, including the informant.
L
“The truth is is caught the bed on fire.“
Yep. They threw a bomb on a kid and nearly burned him to death. “Sorry, we didn’t know he was there” don’t cut it.
Whether they wanted it or not is irrelevant. It’s criminal negligence. Period.
L
Yes, but only because I now have more knowledge then the policeman had at the time.
The mindset of the killer does not change the fact that he killed
I guess that is my fault, as I was talking about the juror I had wished upon him judging him against the false charges, and I take blame for not being more clear in my intent.
Apparently though you cannot get it that a sudden movement to the waistband is probably going to result in the use of deadly force, which is apparently what this person did. Granted we now know he was foolish trying to bring up his shorts. However, when you have to make a split decision which means you lose your life or the other person loses their life, then self preservation usually arises in most of us, including policemen.
As far as obeying commands, let’s see here: down on your knees, crawl, cross your legs, (none of the following were even uttered) sit, stay, beg, roll over, bang band you’re dead.
Apparently there is a reason they have developed this form of getting them into their custody. Most likely that being safety of the policemen. Nothing really all that difficult in those commands. Awkward? Probably so, as an awkward person can not move against you defensively as fast.
Surely you are not implying that our police should not be able to operate in as safe a manner as possible, for their safety, are you?
Go back and listen to that asinine individual playing Simon Says with a gun pointed at him and tell me that you could obey him, he was itching to shoot it. Total prick, he deserved to be six feet under not his victim.
No, he survived but was very badly burned.
It’s criminal negligence.
Who is the guilty party of criminal negligence? The parents for running a drug operation out of their house? Yes I agree, they were criminally negligent. Oh but that's right, cops should sacrifice themselves at every opportunity in the minds of people such as yourself.
I really think you should put your life on the line as a cop, and then come back & have this conversation. Until then I see no point in belaboring this issue.
I do not need to hear it again, as I heard it just fine the first time. So you think you can always tell when someone is being real? Go become a policeman, then perhaps you will understand that they cannot read minds or the true intent of the person they are holding at bay. Sometimes when they think the can, and they end up dead.
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.