Jump to content

When Defending Cops Becomes Impossible


Cinaruco

Recommended Posts

Charges will take time. The firing seems a good first step. BUT we also what a thorough review of all the evidence and not a knee jerk reaction like what followed Rayshard Brooks AND I'll note the politically motivated prosecution that was based on a bunch of lies. I loved how the 2nd officer (Brosnan) who had just been slammed into the ground on his head was somehow responsible for the shooting of Brooks and was a co-defendent alongside Officer Rolfe. Ultimate the entire case agaisnt both officers was dropped becuase it was entirely wrong headed. 

I don't want SOMEONE's head, I want the right head if it appropriate. 

And parallel to other points made elsewhere. Would it be reasonable for DA Howard to face criminal charges for assertions in the charges that were not founded? He argued that Brooks was only slightly impared. He was found asleep in his car and was difficult to rouse AND per the ME reports had a BAC of 0.108% as well as including cocaine, a prescription sedative, and eutylone. Howard also argued that Rolfe had stated "I got him" after shooting Brooks. The GBI disagreed with this in their analysis of audio. 

Perhaps Fanni Willis can charge him with multiple felonies for fabricated charges. Now she did work for him previously, and recused herself from the case, 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

"Remember, there are no innocents, there are only those that have not confessed yet"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A hypothetical, American Iron Felix would not have any problem finding human resources, it seems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, JWB said:

 

More Diversity Hires,  I see 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not too surprised. The deputy not only drew his handgun, he had it pointed at a COM angle before the door opened. He was essentially preparing to magdump whoever answered. In the very brief window of time between the door starting to open and the deputy's first shot, I cannot believe the deputy both saw the victim's gun (to the point of saying he could see the back face of the rear sight) and all those angry facial expressions prior to firing the first shot.

Yes, the victim should never have opened the door. AFAICT, in every state in the US, you are never required to open the door except when being served a warrant. In which case, that fact will be announced. If they don't have a warrant, don't open the door!

Smells like voluntary manslaughter to me.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DOJ finds a plethora of issues with Phoenix PD after three year investigation.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-finds-civil-rights-violations-phoenix-police-department-and-city-phoenix

Quote
  • PhxPD uses excessive force, including unjustified deadly force and other types of force.
  • PhxPD and the City unlawfully detain, cite, and arrest people experiencing homelessness and unlawfully dispose of their belongings. This is the first time the Department has found a pattern or practice of conduct that focuses on the rights of people experiencing homelessness.
  • PhxPD discriminates against Black, Hispanic, and Native American people when enforcing the law.
  • PhxPD violates the rights of people engaged in protected speech and expression.
  • PhxPD and the City discriminate against people with behavioral health disabilities when dispatching calls for assistance and responding to people in crisis.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/phoenix-police-routinely-used-excessive-force-and-violated-civil-rights-doj-says

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok. How much of that is the Obama style DOJ complaining about necessary aspects of crime suppression? The same DOJ was upset that there was disparity in misbehavior and thus punishment in schools. 

The DOJ has made it a mission to suppress local PD effectiveness across the country. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geniuses on parade;

Typical stupid fucks.

https://www.dailymoth.com/blog/deaf-austin-man-sues-police-after-tasing-incident
 

Quote

 

Alex: What happened prior to the incident? Kelley and his wife, Mary, and their three children had just gone to a restaurant and were driving when Kelley and his wife had an argument. They pulled the car over and argued outside. John then walked away to a parking lot while Mary followed in a car. A neighbor called the police because they thought the intense argument in ASL was some kind of domestic disturbance.

I asked Kelley in an interview to explain what happened that night.

John Kelley: I was signing and someone in a house called the cops. They dialed 911. The person misunderstood the situation between me and my wife. We were signing wildly. She went away and I walked away. I got frustrated again but decided to calm myself down by walking away. Then it was unexpected. The police cruiser came up very quickly and shined its bright lights on me. The officers ran to me. I said, “I’m deaf.” They tased me. It felt like, it’s hard to say, it was like a surge of shock and I collapsed. They tased me three times very quickly. They also kicked me twice on my side. I tried yelling. The officers then backed away. I was out of breath and it was the first time I’ve ever experienced this.

 


 

Quote

 

Alex: KSAT News reported that there was no kind of discipline given out to the officers. Their names are Andrew Wisener, Basil Pierce and John Dehkordi.

Kelley sued the city of San Marcos and the three officers alleging violations of his civil rights and that he was discriminated against in violation of the ADA. The suit also accuses the officers of using excessive force. He is being represented by attorneys Rebecca Webber and Scott Hendler. The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, is asking the court to provide recovery for damages inflicted on the Kelleys in an amount to be determined by the jury.

 

Kelley dropped his federal civil rights suit in exchange for a $125k settlement.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, rmgill said:

Ok. How much of that is the Obama style DOJ complaining about necessary aspects of crime suppression? The same DOJ was upset that there was disparity in misbehavior and thus punishment in schools. 

The DOJ has made it a mission to suppress local PD effectiveness across the country. 

There's one complaint where I'm actually sympathetic towards Phoenix PD and that's the one in regards to how they handle individuals with mental breakdowns.  That's an issue that many police departments struggle with because there is no one else out there that can be brought in and such matters default to police who have no training.

Otherwise, the rest of the report is just Phoenix PD being bad at what they do.  For years they've been either at the top or near the top in officer-involved shootings.  Some of those incidents and Phoenix PD's poor handling have been highlighted in this very thread. 

I linked the PBS discussion because they touch on some other blatant issues facing Phoenix PD.  For example Phoenix police have for years apparently been given a lot of leeway and freedom with how they handle traffic violations... and that resulted in police discriminating against minorities (in particular Blacks living in Phoenix which is kind of weird... the Black population in Phoenix is way lower than the national average).  This is a problem of police agencies across the country and some civil rights leaders are now calling for police to no longer handle traffic violations because there's a repeated pattern of harassment and discrimination against minorities.

The bullet points highlight unlawful actions by the department and the PBS discussion touches on more (in particular their treatment of minors where apparently the department is overly rough and routinely fails to read minors their Miranda rights).

All in all... it's not good and Phoenix PD has a lot to be ashamed of.  I'm not holding my breath that they have the decency and professionalism to look at themselves and address the problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering the DOJ's stance on the Texas Case with the child sex change operations, I'm a bit skeptical of the DOJ's even-handedness in this. 

I'm open to convincing, but frankly, given the number of very clear case that the DOJ has taken up on the liberal side that were not in fact bad shoots, while ignoring their own (J6 shooting) I'm exceedingly skeptical. And that comes, again I'll note, from seeing decades of the DOJ not policing their own, like the FBI's method of 'recording' statements OR dealing with their own attorneys who violate the canon of ethics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/3062558/former-uvalde-school-police-chief-indicted-charges-child-endangerment/
 

Quote

 

The former chief of the school district police for Uvalde, Texas, was indicted over his actions during the Robb Elementary School shooting.

Pete Arredondo was arrested on Thursday and charged with 10 felony counts of abandoning or endangering a child. His arrest is the culmination of two years of intense scrutiny toward the police response to the mass shooting that killed 19 students and two teachers.

“Mr. Arredondo is currently in our custody,” Uvalde County Sheriff Ruben Nolasco told the New York Times.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

Given SCOTUS' history of ruling that police don't have an obligation to protect I don't see how this will go anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that, I don’t know how any democrat can remotely argue for gun control and victim disarmament zones, let alone state level or city level controls that they have stood behind for decades. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, rmgill said:

Given that, I don’t know how any democrat can remotely argue for gun control and victim disarmament zones, let alone state level or city level controls that they have stood behind for decades. 

Well, they do. That should say something about their reasoning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, rmgill said:

Given that, I don’t know how any democrat can remotely argue for gun control and victim disarmament zones, let alone state level or city level controls that they have stood behind for decades. 

 The main aim of gun control is not to control the gun, but to control the people with the gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well obviously. But they still make noises about 'safety'. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...