More LEOs behaving badly

Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by CATO, May 14, 2012.


  1. K....

    Believe you me! I am sooooo aware this type of thing can happen. I really didn't want to get into a meaningless debate about GZ and TM. I am of the opinion that there are few if any LEO's today that GARA about the constitution and other's rights. Here in Indiana they basically instituted a "kick the door down law." It has been met with many comments of promised resistance. Me? Stop the world I want to get off!
     
  2. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    I feel that lacking any contrary evidence you have to give the benefit of the doubt to the person who defended themselves, be it cop or civilian. There is no video evidence, but the story is corroborated by another officer. And I had a brother who was in a wheel chair and I can tell you he could roughhouse and hurt you with the thing. We used to tussle around and he would get right in there with us, myself and our other 4 brothers.

    In the Zimmerman case, barring contrary evidence you have to accept his account of the incident. He claims he was in fear for his life and acted in self defense. End of story.

    And I believe we rely too much on video "evidence" in this digital age. Video can be deceiving and the actions recorded misconstrued. With the Ersland case the video is what convicted the man. But it doesn't show the punk on the ground, you can't see what he was doing, all you see is Ersland empty his weapon into the guy. He claims, and this is what is important, that he believed the guy was getting up, he still had a backpack, and he believed that he had a gun and was still a threat. We can't read a mans mind, and in a situation like that it comes down to what was in his mind. And how many stories have we heard of trained soldiers who in the heat of battle empty their weapons and continue to "fire" an empty or jammed weapon? The man had just been shot at, one punk was still in the store, and he "believed", the key word here, that he was still a threat. Should have been the end of the story but he was convicted of murder.

    Just as I am opposed to second guessing a civilian in that situation, I have to also be opposed to second guessing an officer. We don't know what was in his mind, he "believed" the man to be a threat and he reacted. Contrary to any evidence saying otherwise I say we have to accept his version of events.
     
  3. fedorthedog

    fedorthedog Monkey+++

    20 or so years ago a man in a wheel chair shot and killed 2 officers, Riverside PD or SO, I think.
     
  4. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++

  5. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++

  6. Mountainman

    Mountainman Großes Mitglied Site Supporter+++

    I find it amazing that there is any question about what happened here. Turn this around with a civilian hitting a cop on tape like this and the person is already convicted with no more questions asked. Not to mention the taser, baton and pepper spray that would be used on you while making the arrest to get even. The only justification for this would be if the women was pulling a weapon (no mention of that), but a right cross to the face is not a SOP for dealing with that. Fire his ass and bring him up on charges!
     
    tulianr likes this.
  7. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++

    Well, just to be fair, I think someone sprayed him with "Silly String" and her face happened to be in the wrong place when his hand went though the air trying to bat it away. At least, that's what the comments on the bottom of the page said. :rolleyes:
     
  8. Mountainman

    Mountainman Großes Mitglied Site Supporter+++

    Oh yeah, the dreaded "Silly String" lethal attack that they all heard about in the academy but never thought they would have to defend against, LOL. I guess anything goes when you come up against such a lethal attack and the perp is trying to get away.
     
  9. BTPost

    BTPost Stumpy Old Fart,Deadman Walking, Snow Monkey Moderator

    Assault is assault, even if the weapon of choice is water, or any other harmless substance, including "Silly String" The lady will be convicted, unless she goes for Jury Nullification, with a Bleeding Heart Jury. She did commit an Assault, on the Officer, and he has every right to arrest her for that specific crime. Had she NOT sprayed him, with the substance, she would not be guilty of Assault. The State Assault Statute, likely does NOT differentiate between the substances used in the Simple Assault. Had it been a Harmful, or Deadly Substance then she could be charged with "Assault with a Deadly Weapon", and in most states this is a Higher Degree Felony, than Simple Assault. ..... YMMV.....
     
  10. Mountainman

    Mountainman Großes Mitglied Site Supporter+++

    Your missing the whole point of this. Yes, if she did it she is guilty of assault, but the way the officer handled it was way out of line. I think simply grabbing her arms and putting her in cuffs was in order and not decking her. I still say fired and brought up on charges for using excessive force if that's his way of making a simple arrest.
     
    Guit_fishN likes this.
  11. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    I think, but do not know, that the string constituted battery, not just assault which is committed by just threatening. Not too sure about that. Either way, she's a moron, and he might have over reacted. We don't know the whole story yet.
     
  12. Mountainman

    Mountainman Großes Mitglied Site Supporter+++

    I used "assault" because most people assume that to be assaulted means physical contact. Both should be charged with battery for what happened.
     
  13. BTPost

    BTPost Stumpy Old Fart,Deadman Walking, Snow Monkey Moderator

    MM, the Officer was there to "Keep the Peace" and to arrest those, that "Breached the Peace".... That is the Job.... If he sees someone "Breaching the Peace" it is his "Duty" to make an arrest, and "Restore the Peace"... He is allowed to use the minimum required force, to make such an arrest, and "Restore the Peace" That also is the Job. In this case it certainly can be stated that this Officer "may" have used More than the "Required Minimum Force" to "Restore the Peace" HOWEVER, those judgements are for the Civil Courts to decide, AFTER the Fact, and not to be determined, during such "Restoration of the Peace of the Community". If there was excessive force Used, then the Officer needs to OWN That. This should be determined by a JURY, of the Citizenry, In Court. That is how our System of Government, should work. This protects the Officer from any "Rush to Judgement" by Agenda pushing Parties, and gives any such Defendants, a place to state their Grievances, against the Officer, where ALL the Facts can be brought forth, for a Jury of the Citizenry, to make a determination. I, for one, would gladly sit on such a Jury, and would have little sympathy for anyone, arrested for "Breaching the Peace" of my Community. .... If you do NOT want personal trouble, Stay Home... If you want to push an agenda, you do so at your OWN Risk.... YMMV....

    Note: In a confrontation, where Assault occurs, it is generally presumed that the Person committing the First Assault, makes a "Breach of the Peace" and anyone who was assaulted in that Breach, is therefor defending their Personal Self, and therefor is NOT guilty of Assault, for such a defense.
     
    hank2222 likes this.
  14. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++

  15. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++

  16. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    Not yet, but headed that way.
     
  17. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++

  18. oldawg

    oldawg Monkey+++

  19. Mountainman

    Mountainman Großes Mitglied Site Supporter+++

  20. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++

survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary
17282WuJHksJ9798f34razfKbPATqTq9E7