Police brutality?

[Steve James]

"if" the officer the law did he?

Please. Reread and re-edit if you want to communicate. It demonstrates respect for the reader.

And, when you do answer, kindly do so directly instead of going off into your own agenda while ignoring the question. I asked "If the officer broke the law, shouldn't there be a reaction?" That requires a simple yes or no. If you meant what you said about him breaking the law, then the answer should be simple. If not, then I have no idea what you meant and there's no reason to go around and around in circles trying to find out. Btdt. It's not worth the effort.

[windwalker]

"if" the officer the law did he?

Please. Reread and re-edit if you want to communicate. It demonstrates respect for the reader.

And, when you do answer, kindly do so directly instead of going off into your own agenda while ignoring the question. I asked "If the officer broke the law, shouldn't there be a reaction?" That requires a simple yes or no. If you meant what you said about him breaking the law, then the answer should be simple. If not, then I have no idea what you meant and there's no reason to go around and around in circles trying to find out. Btdt. It's not worth the effort.

Sure not a problem.
Try following your own advice.

I do agree with btdt not worth the effort.
If the officer in this case was wrong he
should be charged if charges are filed against him and proven in court.

[yeniseri]

If the officer in this case was wrong he
should be charged if charges are filed against him and proven in court.

That is rarely the case. Even if there is video and the victim is unarmed (that is usually the rule) as long as the officer states he was in fear of his life, he (police) is usually set free despite evidence to the contrary )video showing victim was unarmed, he did as he was told and he was shot in the back as opposed to running away) Of course, running away is reason to shoot someone in the back as long as you are the law! The court rarely intervenes since the DA is the point of intersection where all this stuff is stopped from continuing.

[Steve James]

In a "police state," "Resistance is futile." We've been saying that since the 60s. I agree that one should just be compliant. Otoh, that does not meant that I think that the police are in the right for using the authority they are give or that they simply abuse their authority. So, I understand that civilians and police officers, being people, are equally likely to misbehave or just have a bad day. However, because we arm them, pay them, and give them authority, police officers have a much greater responsibility than civilians. An officer can pick a fight and the civilian can't fight back.

[windwalker]

If the officer in this case was wrong he
should be charged if charges are filed against him and proven in court.

That is rarely the case. Even if there is video and the victim is unarmed (that is usually the rule) as long as the officer states he was in fear of his life, he (police) is usually set free despite evidence to the contrary )video showing victim was unarmed, he did as he was told and he was shot in the back as opposed to running away) Of course, running away is reason to shoot someone in the back as long as you are the law! The court rarely intervenes since the DA is the point of intersection where all this stuff is stopped from continuing.

http://news.yahoo.com/los-angeles-polic ... 19814.html

[Steve James]

[grzegorz]

Elizabeth Hasslebeck (sp?) is claiming that a cigarette can be used as a weapon.

To me it's unfortunate that these cases, like the Treyvon Martin'Martin's, focus exclusively on race. In both cases I think reactions on FOX (for example) would have been very different if the race wasn't a factor. I think then people would see that how ridiculous both these are.

I've seen lots of people give cops attitude when getting a ticket, especially if they believed it was undeserved, heck I myself have given cops attitude in situations that could have turned ugly and nothing happened to me. Seems to me that the cop wanted to make a point when he said, "You seem annoyed." Of course she's annoyed she tried to get out of your way you idiot! Then once she answered honestly he had all the bait he needed to do what he wanted to do and make his point. Dealing with the public is hard but if you can't handle just writing a ticket to a lady running late to her first day at a new job in a summer dresses then you shouldn't be a cop.

I'm glad that these cops are getting kicked off the force I just hope that they don't get rehired in a few years once everything blows over which is usually what happens.

[grzegorz]

Police Shoot and Kill Man for Watering Lawn, Family Awarded 6.5 Million

By Matt Agorist on November 18, 20


Douglas Zerby was finishing up watering his lawn when neighbors, completely brainwashed by the police state, called the cops because they saw Zerby holding what they thought was a gun. It was actually a water hose nozzle.

Officers approached the position of Doug Zerby and without any warning whatsoever, fired upon Zerby, fatally wounding him with 12 rounds that entered his chest arms and lower legs.

Zerby’s family sued the Long Beach Police department for this horrid event and won. According to KTLA 5 News,

SANTA ANA, Calif. (KTLA) — The family of a man fatally shot by Long Beach police in 2010 was awarded $6.5 million in damages by a federal jury on Thursday.

“The money doesn’t bring my son back, which is all I really want,” Douglas Zerby’s mother, Pam Amici, said after the verdict, chocking back tears.

“I would just rather have Doug standing here next to me right now. But this is all we can hope for, and I’m very happy with the result.”

This type of violent escalation by police is now commonplace in today’s society. Only by challenging them will we win. However, the monetary award in this case is not enough, these cops should be behind bars. Punishing tax-payers for the negligence and aggressiveness of cops is NOT a solution.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/police ... 5-million/

[Teazer]

A Lawyer Gave Us the Blunt Truth About Sandra Bland's Arrest
http://www.attn.com/stories/2498/sandra-bland-arrest-lawful?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=direct-share&utm_campaign=shares

ATTN: spoke with California-based attorney John Hamasaki for his particular analysis of the video from the viewpoint of a criminal defense lawyer.....

[Steve James]

Well, the officer will say that she was put in jail because --off camera-- she kicked him; so, she was charged with assaulting an officer.

Of course, all the stuff the lawyer writes in the article is well known; i.e., it's well known that your 4th Amendment "rights" don't mean squat when it comes to the police, especially in places where people are used to a certain power dynamic. Sandra Bland's problem was that she knew her rights, but wasn't from around there, and didn't know the "rules." Those are the things that people have to follow, regardless of their alleged legal rights, er privileges. Reminds me of Emmett Till. Anyway, sometimes, it even seems like the rules are different for different people; but, that's hard for some to believe. Then again, there are those who support the rules even when they obviously conflict with rights.

[windwalker]

Then again, there are those who support the rules even when they obviously conflict with rights.

is the not the idea of a "right" a rule ?

[Steve James]

is the not the idea of a "right" a rule ?

Um, no. Though, I'm just guessing at your question.

[windwalker]

is the not the idea of a "right" a rule ?

Um, no. Though, I'm just guessing at your question.

no need to guess,.

ok,

I guess we have very different understanding of rules "laws" and rights. who makes them and where they come from.

[Steve James]

It's sad that you don't see why "is the not the idea of a "right" a rule?" is not only unintelligible, but almost silly. Yes, we "have very different understanding of rules and rights, who makes them and where they come from." Then again, you might just explain how the idea of a right is a rule, if that's what you mean.

Here's my example of a common rule: "If you run from the cops, you'll get your ass kicked if you're caught."

Here's another, "If you're black, in a drug infested neighborhood, a cop can stop you and frisk you." The difference is that the latter is legal, even though the 4th Amendment supposedly grants citizens the right not to be searched indiscriminately. However, even though 95% of the stop and frisks turn up negative, it's considered reasonable. That certainly has something to do with who makes the rules --and who decides when they're right/s.

[windwalker]