For all the talk about Trayvon Martin, this story may well be even more horrific.
The Trayvon Martin story remains in national headlines this week, but little media attention has been paid to a similarly troubling case: that of Kenneth Chamberlain, Sr., a 68-year-old Marine vet killed in his home last November by police officers in White Plains, NY.
The officers were responding to a false alarm accidentally triggered by Chamberlain's medical alert pendant while he slept. Instead of helping the man, who had a heart condition, they broke down his front door, tasered him, reportedly called him the "n-word" and mocked him, then shot him dead.
Audio throughout the incident was recorded by his medical alert device. .... The officer is believed to currently be on duty, still working for the White Plains police.
The alleged shooter, Officer Anthony Carelli, is due in court later this month in an unrelated 2008 police brutality case. He is accused of being the most brutal of a group of officers who allegedly beat two arrestees of Jordanian descent and called them "rag heads." We speak to Gus Dimopoulos, attorney for Jerry and Sal Hatter. "We allege that the police officers, while in the custody of the White Plains Police Department back at the station, you know, severely beat Jerry while being restrained by handcuffs. They hit him in the face with a nightstick, they kicked, they punched, they punched him, and then essentially charged him with a crime," Dimopoulos said.
The guy pulls bullshit like that, they let him back out on the street with a gun and a badge, he straight up murders an innocent old man, and he's still on duty??? There are no words.
The Trayvon Martin story remains in national headlines this week, but little media attention has been paid to a similarly troubling case: that of Kenneth Chamberlain, Sr., a 68-year-old Marine vet killed in his home last November by police officers in White Plains, NY.
The officers were responding to a false alarm accidentally triggered by Chamberlain's medical alert pendant while he slept. Instead of helping the man, who had a heart condition, they broke down his front door, tasered him, reportedly called him the "n-word" and mocked him, then shot him dead.
Audio throughout the incident was recorded by his medical alert device. .... The officer is believed to currently be on duty, still working for the White Plains police.
The alleged shooter, Officer Anthony Carelli, is due in court later this month in an unrelated 2008 police brutality case. He is accused of being the most brutal of a group of officers who allegedly beat two arrestees of Jordanian descent and called them "rag heads." We speak to Gus Dimopoulos, attorney for Jerry and Sal Hatter. "We allege that the police officers, while in the custody of the White Plains Police Department back at the station, you know, severely beat Jerry while being restrained by handcuffs. They hit him in the face with a nightstick, they kicked, they punched, they punched him, and then essentially charged him with a crime," Dimopoulos said.
The guy pulls bullshit like that, they let him back out on the street with a gun and a badge, he straight up murders an innocent old man, and he's still on duty??? There are no words.
Could you link 2 more articles with any less information. Maybe there aren't any yet, but still, those articles seem really biased and lack any information or evidence.
On April 06 2012 06:21 Blasterion wrote: Maybe we should allow guns just in case that the people with guns (cops) decide to screw us over one day. I mean just in case.
So we can shoot the sheriff in self defense?
There has to be more to this story than what those two articles are showing.
Somehow the uncle, Kenneth Chamberlain Sr., a former Marine who had heart problems and wheezed if he walked more than 40 feet, triggered his medical alert system pendant. The system operator came on the loudspeaker in his one-bedroom apartment, asking: “Mr. Chamberlain, are you O.K.?” All of this is recorded.
Mr. Chamberlain didn’t respond. So the operator signaled for an ambulance. Police patrol cars fell in behind — standard operating procedure in towns across America. Except an hour later, even as Mr. Chamberlain insisted he was in good health, the police had snapped the locks on the apartment door.
They fired electric charges from Tasers, and beanbags from shotguns. Then they said they saw Mr. Chamberlain grab a knife, and an officer fired his handgun.
Boom! Boom! Mr. Chamberlain’s niece Tonyia Greenhill, who lives upstairs, recalls the echoes ricocheting about the hall. She pushed out a back door and ran into the darkness beneath overarching oaks. He lay on the floor near his kitchen, two bullet holes in his chest, blood pooling thick, dying....
His son recalls hearing his father say on tape: “This is my sworn testimony. White Plains officers are coming in here to kill me.” A few minutes later, a bullet tore through his rib and heart. The ambulance took him to White Plains Hospital, where he soon died.
So the officers are insisting he grabbed a knife...which doesn't exactly sound likely, given that he was 68 years old and they shot him with tasers and beanbags out of a shotgun first...nor does that answer why several cops think they would be justified in entering an old man's home in response to a medical altert, guns drawn, and then when he's spooked and confused, mock him and then assault him with tasers and beanbags.
its unfortunate that there are members of police that are like this and make it so I don't trust any police officers and I consider them collectively as a gang dressed up in blue and black
On April 06 2012 06:19 Kojak21 wrote: What a sensationalized title
Agreed, using the word "murder" assumes intent, without having been proven guilty yet. It's not a question of if it was murder or not, it sure looks like that on the surface of course, but the title shifts your perspective before you read the article.
I wonder how this will all work out? I'm sure they will say they were following procedure/He had deadly weapon and the world will gloss over the fact that they broke into a mans house brutally assualted him with a variety of weapons. Man cops make the scariest bad guys.
On April 06 2012 06:19 Kojak21 wrote: What a sensationalized title
Agreed, using the word "murder" assumes intent, without having been proven guilty yet. It's not a question of if it was murder or not, it sure looks like that on the surface of course, but the title shifts your perspective before you read the article.
Did you even watch the video? There is an audio recording from his medical place that when the police knocked on the door he said he was fine, and then they busted the door down.
On April 06 2012 06:19 Kojak21 wrote: What a sensationalized title
Agreed, using the word "murder" assumes intent, without having been proven guilty yet. It's not a question of if it was murder or not, it sure looks like that on the surface of course, but the title shifts your perspective before you read the article.
Did you even watch the video? There is an audio recording from his medical place that when the police knocked on the door he said he was fine, and then they busted the door down.
Yeah, it's not about the video though. Any normal person would look at this and say "yes obviously he murdered him", I do also, I am not defending his innocence. The word murder implies intent, I just think a better word could have been used, something less incriminating, less bias.
Just imagine if there was no recording, there would be no evidence and the cops would go completely unpunished. Sad that we can't always have an eye (or ears) on them .
On April 06 2012 07:15 Megaliskuu wrote: Just imagine if there was no recording, there would be no evidence and the cops would go completely unpunished. Sad that we can't always have an eye (or ears) on them .
What makes you so sure they'll get punished now? It seems police can freely slaughter people, lie about it and escape any form of justice.
On April 06 2012 07:15 Megaliskuu wrote: Just imagine if there was no recording, there would be no evidence and the cops would go completely unpunished. Sad that we can't always have an eye (or ears) on them .
What makes you so sure they'll get punished now? It seems police can freely slaughter people, lie about it and escape any form of justice.
By "punished" I of course mean paid vacation and being moved to a desk job, standard for cops.
Can a mod please change the title. Yeah the evidence sounds convincing, but there is something called innocent until proven guilty, and this title is just sensationalism for the sake of stirring up drama.
On April 06 2012 07:23 TheLOLas wrote: I always hate it when a police officer abuses his power. It gives cops a bad name, when in reality a lot of them want to help their communities.
The very small percentage always ruins it for everyone else .
On April 06 2012 07:23 TheLOLas wrote: I always hate it when a police officer abuses his power. It gives cops a bad name, when in reality a lot of them want to help their communities.
The very small percentage always ruins it for everyone else .
But even if it's a small percentage, the police offices move way to slow when one of their own does something wrong. They seem more likely to cover it up then to actually do anything about their officers.
On April 06 2012 06:19 Kojak21 wrote: What a sensationalized title
How?
Well let's see, the title is Cops "murder" 68 year old veteran in his own home. Then there's the tacked on veteran business, which makes no difference at all, but it's still plugged into the title to provoke emotion from the reader.
On April 06 2012 07:23 TheLOLas wrote: I always hate it when a police officer abuses his power. It gives cops a bad name, when in reality a lot of them want to help their communities.
The very small percentage always ruins it for everyone else .
the media (and public by extension) dont care about cops who do good things (for the most part). we only hear about the bad things they do.
Why aren't cops recording voice and video all the time like the marines in the aliens movie? I'm mean seriously it would calm down potential criminals, curb police brutality and would be useful evidence in the court system.
On April 06 2012 07:33 archonOOid wrote: Why aren't cops recording voice and video all the time like the marines in the aliens movie? I'm mean seriously it would calm down potential criminals, curb police brutality and would be useful evidence in the court system.
As long as it's only when they're on duty and prosecution wouldn't be overzealous, this sounds like a good idea.
There is simply no way a man in that state of health could have posed any kind of threat to those policemen, save for pointing a gun at them which, according to the policemen THEMSELVES, was not the case, there was no reason to shoot him, what was the man going to do with a knife, hm? He could hardly walk for crying out loud, a taser would have been MORE then enough to subdue him if that was even neccesary in the first place.
This is straight up murder, there's no way to defend these idiots.
On April 06 2012 07:33 archonOOid wrote: Why aren't cops recording voice and video all the time like the marines in the aliens movie? I'm mean seriously it would calm down potential criminals, curb police brutality and would be useful evidence in the court system.
On April 06 2012 07:33 archonOOid wrote: Why aren't cops recording voice and video all the time like the marines in the aliens movie? I'm mean seriously it would calm down potential criminals, curb police brutality and would be useful evidence in the court system.
As long as it's only when they're on duty and prosecution wouldn't be overzealous, this sounds like a good idea.
yeah, because (1) we arent in a recession and can barely afford to pay for cops; and (2) people dont love to complain about a police state where everything is recorded.
On April 06 2012 07:33 archonOOid wrote: Why aren't cops recording voice and video all the time like the marines in the aliens movie? I'm mean seriously it would calm down potential criminals, curb police brutality and would be useful evidence in the court system.
As long as it's only when they're on duty and prosecution wouldn't be overzealous, this sounds like a good idea.
yeah, because (1) we arent in a recession and can barely afford to pay for cops; and (2) people dont love to complain about a police state where everything is recorded.
I'd let them watch me fap if it meant less innocent people being killed nomsayin?
On April 06 2012 07:33 archonOOid wrote: Why aren't cops recording voice and video all the time like the marines in the aliens movie? I'm mean seriously it would calm down potential criminals, curb police brutality and would be useful evidence in the court system.
There's your reason, without it the cops can just cover for each other(he was going for a knife), even with clear evidence I'd be very surprised to see more than a slap on the wrist if he even loses his job. Yes cops aren't all bad but the problem is the good cops will still lie to cover for the bad cops because that's just how it is loyalty to other cops always comes before the law.
How often have you seen after a bad incident happen a cop step up and point out an officer's wrong doing, compared to how often they make some obvious bullshit excuse for a fellow officer? Of course there's a reason for this, police do get a lot of hate which makes them close knit, which leads to corruption... which leads to more hate.. etc. While I have empathy for cops situation and it's not an easy job, until the standards are stepped up and cops don't look the other way for other cops they are pretty much untouchable and events like these will keep happening, both noticed and unnoticed with little punishment for the offenders while people's trust in the police further degrades.
Sadly cops who do step up are probably the ones who get fired /not hired.
Um.. cops + public are usually recorded with dashboard cams and the such. It is totally ineffective. They are usually lost or forgot to be turned on whenever criminal mischief might be observed in an officers conduct.
Fraternal order of the Police.. its a good ole boy system.
This story makes no sense at all... They tasered someone already on the ground and after they were already incapacitated they shoot him? A 68 year old?
I mean it's possible some cop is nuts but the stories sound so over the top sensational they almost read like satire.
white plains is about two hours from where i live.
that said, i would think the news station i work for would have said something about this, but i guess not. gonna have a chat with the news director...
What the fuck... this is disgusting. The fucking police department should be charged for letting that guy continue to work even after the case in 2008.
On April 06 2012 07:33 archonOOid wrote: Why aren't cops recording voice and video all the time like the marines in the aliens movie? I'm mean seriously it would calm down potential criminals, curb police brutality and would be useful evidence in the court system.
As long as it's only when they're on duty and prosecution wouldn't be overzealous, this sounds like a good idea.
yeah, because (1) we arent in a recession and can barely afford to pay for cops; and (2) people dont love to complain about a police state where everything is recorded.
Your second argument is invalid because recording only happens when they're on duty, it is no different than working in a store where there is camera watching.
On April 06 2012 07:33 archonOOid wrote: Why aren't cops recording voice and video all the time like the marines in the aliens movie? I'm mean seriously it would calm down potential criminals, curb police brutality and would be useful evidence in the court system.
As long as it's only when they're on duty and prosecution wouldn't be overzealous, this sounds like a good idea.
yeah, because (1) we arent in a recession and can barely afford to pay for cops; and (2) people dont love to complain about a police state where everything is recorded.
Your second argument is invalid because recording only happens when they're on duty, it is no different than working in a store where there is camera watching.
lol, invalid. it means there will be cameras walking around all the time, taping you in public places whether you are doing anything illegal or not.
edit: i think i understand where you are coming from. you are saying that the police will always be personally monitored, right? thats not what i was talking about. i was talking about the police videotaping everyone everywhere the police go. you may think that its good to watch the government, but dont forget it means the government will be taping everyone's moves in public. they will be watching you.
On April 06 2012 07:23 TheLOLas wrote: I always hate it when a police officer abuses his power. It gives cops a bad name, when in reality a lot of them want to help their communities.
The very small percentage always ruins it for everyone else .
the media (and public by extension) dont care about cops who do good things (for the most part). we only hear about the bad things they do.
Doing "good things" is their job. Its like the media doesn't care that I write a paper. But if I were to be caught plagiarizing it would be a big deal despite all the time I do my job correctly.
On April 06 2012 07:33 archonOOid wrote: Why aren't cops recording voice and video all the time like the marines in the aliens movie? I'm mean seriously it would calm down potential criminals, curb police brutality and would be useful evidence in the court system.
As long as it's only when they're on duty and prosecution wouldn't be overzealous, this sounds like a good idea.
yeah, because (1) we arent in a recession and can barely afford to pay for cops; and (2) people dont love to complain about a police state where everything is recorded.
Your second argument is invalid because recording only happens when they're on duty, it is no different than working in a store where there is camera watching.
lol, invalid. it means there will be cameras walking around all the time, taping you in public places whether you are doing anything illegal or not.
edit: i think i understand where you are coming from. you are saying that the police will always be personally monitored, right? thats not what i was talking about. i was talking about the police videotaping everyone everywhere the police go. you may think that its good to watch the government, but dont forget it means the government will be taping everyone's moves in public. they will be watching you.
There's no resources to be "watching you". The cop will be watching you anyway, the tape is just to provide proof and to clarify the situation after the fact (to make light of any wrongdoing, from the cop or otherwise). This is already in place in police cruisers, so I don't really see your argument.
On April 06 2012 07:33 archonOOid wrote: Why aren't cops recording voice and video all the time like the marines in the aliens movie? I'm mean seriously it would calm down potential criminals, curb police brutality and would be useful evidence in the court system.
Because it's money they don't have :<
There is enough money to spy on people, buy drones, buy assault weapons, pay pension and healthcare for cops, buy new cars, use gps systems to track people etc. But god forbid we spend some money on recording devices that could be done for maybe a $100-200/cop.
On April 06 2012 07:33 archonOOid wrote: Why aren't cops recording voice and video all the time like the marines in the aliens movie? I'm mean seriously it would calm down potential criminals, curb police brutality and would be useful evidence in the court system.
As long as it's only when they're on duty and prosecution wouldn't be overzealous, this sounds like a good idea.
yeah, because (1) we arent in a recession and can barely afford to pay for cops; and (2) people dont love to complain about a police state where everything is recorded.
Your second argument is invalid because recording only happens when they're on duty, it is no different than working in a store where there is camera watching.
lol, invalid. it means there will be cameras walking around all the time, taping you in public places whether you are doing anything illegal or not.
edit: i think i understand where you are coming from. you are saying that the police will always be personally monitored, right? thats not what i was talking about. i was talking about the police videotaping everyone everywhere the police go. you may think that its good to watch the government, but dont forget it means the government will be taping everyone's moves in public. they will be watching you.
There's no resources to be "watching you". The cop will be watching you anyway, the tape is just to provide proof and to clarify the situation after the fact (to make light of any wrongdoing, from the cop or otherwise). This is already in place in police cruisers, so I don't really see your argument.
it increases their ability to watch you because they can focus on whole areas and allows them to keep records on you.
On April 06 2012 07:33 archonOOid wrote: Why aren't cops recording voice and video all the time like the marines in the aliens movie? I'm mean seriously it would calm down potential criminals, curb police brutality and would be useful evidence in the court system.
There's your reason, without it the cops can just cover for each other(he was going for a knife), even with clear evidence I'd be very surprised to see more than a slap on the wrist if he even loses his job. Yes cops aren't all bad but the problem is the good cops will still lie to cover for the bad cops because that's just how it is loyalty to other cops always comes before the law.
How often have you seen after a bad incident happen a cop step up and point out an officer's wrong doing, compared to how often they make some obvious bullshit excuse for a fellow officer? Of course there's a reason for this, police do get a lot of hate which makes them close knit, which leads to corruption... which leads to more hate.. etc. While I have empathy for cops situation and it's not an easy job, until the standards are stepped up and cops don't look the other way for other cops they are pretty much untouchable and events like these will keep happening, both noticed and unnoticed with little punishment for the offenders while people's trust in the police further degrades.
Sadly cops who do step up are probably the ones who get fired /not hired.
Er nope.
Well at least most of the good cops don't. I can tell you from personal experience that nothing pisses the good cops off more than bad ones that do stupid shit because it gives all of us a bad name. Now the good ones have to deal with the fall out because the city has a terrible system for identifying people who just shouldn't be cops and a lot of people refuse to look at each cop as a single individual.
Police are tight nit and generally are that way because they deal with dangerous situations on a daily basis. That being said, most of the cops I know won't tolerate bullshit from the others when it's completely illegal. We are supposed to be held to higher standards after all.
As for turning off the recording devices...if the cop can turn them off it's poorly implemented. I know I can't turn off the one in my car if I wanted to and I am not technologically inept.
On April 06 2012 07:33 archonOOid wrote: Why aren't cops recording voice and video all the time like the marines in the aliens movie? I'm mean seriously it would calm down potential criminals, curb police brutality and would be useful evidence in the court system.
As long as it's only when they're on duty and prosecution wouldn't be overzealous, this sounds like a good idea.
yeah, because (1) we arent in a recession and can barely afford to pay for cops; and (2) people dont love to complain about a police state where everything is recorded.
Your second argument is invalid because recording only happens when they're on duty, it is no different than working in a store where there is camera watching.
lol, invalid. it means there will be cameras walking around all the time, taping you in public places whether you are doing anything illegal or not.
edit: i think i understand where you are coming from. you are saying that the police will always be personally monitored, right? thats not what i was talking about. i was talking about the police videotaping everyone everywhere the police go. you may think that its good to watch the government, but dont forget it means the government will be taping everyone's moves in public. they will be watching you.
I personally think it's no difference than the police car's dashboard cam, it's recording everyone it came across in public. But these video are only used when they need to go over an event.
I think it's a good idea because not only it protects the good cops, but it also deters bad cops from abusing their power. I think public can manage that sacrifice, considered it's protecting their rights, I doubt people mind getting filmed walking into stores.
On April 06 2012 07:23 TheLOLas wrote: I always hate it when a police officer abuses his power. It gives cops a bad name, when in reality a lot of them want to help their communities.
Funny story just today my friend gets pulled over for rolling through a stop sign. We go work out whatever hes driving me back to my dorm we see a cop turn on his lights and run through the 4 way stop just to catch a light -.-
That cop is a piece of shit who thinks hes a complete badass because he has a badge. Hope the world gives him a bitch slap and puts him where he belongs, in a hole or jail.
That's probably the reason why police aren't allowed to carry guns here. Also, don't they test people before becoming cops so they don't do shit like this?
How on earth does a guy like that even get a badge?
You have to do extremely rigid background checks around here for LAPD in order to even be accepted into the academy. I guess it isn't so everywhere else.
On April 06 2012 09:10 Vindicare605 wrote: Sick. Just sick.
How on earth does a guy like that even get a badge?
You have to do extremely rigid background checks around here for LAPD in order to even be accepted into the academy. I guess it isn't so everywhere else.
On April 06 2012 06:19 Kojak21 wrote: What a sensationalized title
From the article I'd say the title is pretty accurate. Though whether or not the article is accurate who knows. I've generally had good experiences with cops but I guess some of them are power-obsessed psychos...
The Trayvon Martin story remains in national headlines this week, but little media attention has been paid to a similarly troubling case: that of Kenneth Chamberlain, Sr., a 68-year-old Marine vet killed in his home last November by police officers in White Plains, NY.
The officers were responding to a false alarm accidentally triggered by Chamberlain's medical alert pendant while he slept. Instead of helping the man, who had a heart condition, they broke down his front door, tasered him, reportedly called him the "n-word" and mocked him, then shot him dead.
Audio throughout the incident was recorded by his medical alert device. .... The officer is believed to currently be on duty, still working for the White Plains police.
The alleged shooter, Officer Anthony Carelli, is due in court later this month in an unrelated 2008 police brutality case. He is accused of being the most brutal of a group of officers who allegedly beat two arrestees of Jordanian descent and called them "rag heads." We speak to Gus Dimopoulos, attorney for Jerry and Sal Hatter. "We allege that the police officers, while in the custody of the White Plains Police Department back at the station, you know, severely beat Jerry while being restrained by handcuffs. They hit him in the face with a nightstick, they kicked, they punched, they punched him, and then essentially charged him with a crime," Dimopoulos said.
The guy pulls bullshit like that, they let him back out on the street with a gun and a badge, he straight up murders an innocent old man, and he's still on duty??? There are no words.
I am a criminal justice student (almost done with my bachelors and working on my masters soon) and I honestly cannot stand some of these cops out in, pardon me, butt-f*** new york, etc. (50-state-wise) A lot of the standards for hiring these cops are extremely low, with that said, a long with these areas the cops are not really "watched" as much as cops in the northern Virginia area and areas closer to the capital of the United States, therefore generally speaking, the cops are hired without bachelors, grand-fathered in more, or the department has next-to-no standards for professionalism. I will tell you if any of this happened near the capital (D.C.) they would have been sued and fired.
The issue is, now it brings up questions for White Plains, NY. The question is, are the standards too low for cops staying employed and what are their policies in the department regarding the use of force, etc.
I will tell you, with the attention this has gained, the cop probably will not be with the department any longer if the department has any decency or respect.
Source: I know about this stuff through research and studying, also, I talk to professionals all the time about these issues that are brought up.
Closing: If anyone has any questions or needs maybe a better explanation, please do not hesitate to contact me via PM, I would be happy to give more insight / opinions.
On April 06 2012 09:07 Lorken wrote: That's probably the reason why police aren't allowed to carry guns here. Also, don't they test people before becoming cops so they don't do shit like this?
Yea I would never want to live in a place where cops had no guns.
That aside there are tests but how rigid it is depends on the location.
Not all police departments are the same unfortunately. The ones with high standards are basically the ones in major metropolitan areas. Los Angeles, New York, Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, Miami...places like that are NOTORIOUSLY difficult to get hired at because of how ridiculously stringent their hiring process is. You also tend to see far less corruption there Per Capita than in your small podunk towns that don't have the same stringent process on hiring.
The process I had to go through alone was by itself a six month progress. I took at least three tests, several psycological exams, IQ tests, aptitude tests, and several lie detector tests. Then came the academy which was akin to boot camp for nine months. I don't understand why someone would go through all of that, land a nice stable job, and then piss it all away doing something illegal. I never understood it.
This isn't to say that all small town police officers are bad...it's just that they have a higher chance of it. It is not uncommon for an officer there to have been fired/laid off/not make the cut (for a good reason more often than not)in one of the bigger city police forces.
On April 06 2012 07:33 archonOOid wrote: Why aren't cops recording voice and video all the time like the marines in the aliens movie? I'm mean seriously it would calm down potential criminals, curb police brutality and would be useful evidence in the court system.
There's your reason, without it the cops can just cover for each other(he was going for a knife), even with clear evidence I'd be very surprised to see more than a slap on the wrist if he even loses his job. Yes cops aren't all bad but the problem is the good cops will still lie to cover for the bad cops because that's just how it is loyalty to other cops always comes before the law.
How often have you seen after a bad incident happen a cop step up and point out an officer's wrong doing, compared to how often they make some obvious bullshit excuse for a fellow officer? Of course there's a reason for this, police do get a lot of hate which makes them close knit, which leads to corruption... which leads to more hate.. etc. While I have empathy for cops situation and it's not an easy job, until the standards are stepped up and cops don't look the other way for other cops they are pretty much untouchable and events like these will keep happening, both noticed and unnoticed with little punishment for the offenders while people's trust in the police further degrades.
Sadly cops who do step up are probably the ones who get fired /not hired.
Er nope.
Well at least most of the good cops don't. I can tell you from personal experience that nothing pisses the good cops off more than bad ones that do stupid shit because it gives all of us a bad name. Now the good ones have to deal with the fall out because the city has a terrible system for identifying people who just shouldn't be cops and a lot of people refuse to look at each cop as a single individual.
Police are tight nit and generally are that way because they deal with dangerous situations on a daily basis. That being said, most of the cops I know won't tolerate bullshit from the others when it's completely illegal. We are supposed to be held to higher standards after all.
As for turning off the recording devices...if the cop can turn them off it's poorly implemented. I know I can't turn off the one in my car if I wanted to and I am not technologically inept.
If you are supposed to be held to a higher standard why don't you actively try to change or try to remove the one's who do not fit in the "most" category with your fellow good cops, they are exactly the cops that let this type of thing happen no? That's the problem when it's only "most" won't tolerate completely illegal bullshit. So then an amount do tolerate somewhat illegal bullshit which is usually how these situations start. Somewhat illegal bullshit is tolerated, and then the civilian victims are put into a difficult situation which often leads to completely illegal bullshit happening.
You also get a situation where the good cops won't tolerate "completely illegal bullshit" but will tolerate the mediocre cops who do somewhat illegal bullshit. Then mediocre cops that do somewhat illegal bullshit tolerate the really bad ones who do completely illegal bullshit, then the "good" cops can't call out the really bad cops without also calling out the mediocre cops for tolerating the really bad ones. Sorry this the above is kinda convoluted but hopefully you get my point.
I guess then the problem is good cops who don't see a problem, or do you really think it's just specific departments? Just seems weird that there's rarely ever cops stepping up to testify against other cops in these situations and I think it's because of the situation I described earlier. I'm sure at least one person at the event feels guilty and if they could would tell the truth about what happened, but since some will cover for others they can't really without screwing over everyone else.
If you can give some examples of police brutality where one of the cops stepped up and testified against the others I'd be happy to change my outlook. If the majority are good cops and hate this type of shit how come every time it happens they instantly try to deny responsibility instead of trying to remove the bad apples who give them a bad name. They get a bad name because they don't do enough to remove or punish bad apples not because bad apples exist.
I also have a hypothetical that i'm genuinely curious about asking you, I'm sure you consider yourself to be a good cop so, what would you do if you were put into a situation where you are with 5 other fellow officers and you see 2 of them beating a defenseless man who did not resist and the other 3 looking away. It turns out the man is innocent and isn't the one they were looking for but he has been beaten and tazed to death. the 2 who assaulted him decide to make up that it looked like he reached for a gun and resisted arrest, the other three agree to go along with the story. They then turn to you and ask "you're going to go along with this story too right?"
What would you do(at the moment and later on)? Is there anything you even could do? Would you be willing to testify against them and how do you think your co-workers / department would look at you if all 5 officers lost their jobs / faced jail time afterwards. What do you realistically think their punishments would be?What are the odds your word will be believed over theirs? I realize this is a very extreme / unrealistic hypothetical and that will probably your first reaction is to say "well that would never happen" if you can come up with a more realistic , but similar scenario that you think an officer probably has been put in before that'd be great too. Maybe in your area this would never happen so feel free to imagine you are in a different area where it feasibly could as well.
Just wanted to say I personally have had no bad experiences with cops never even been stopped, I just think it seems very dangerous how these people can get away with stuff like this.
On April 06 2012 06:21 dAPhREAk wrote: so, what exactly is there to discuss about this case? the DA is holding a grand jury.
Not much to discuss perhaps, but we're fortunate to live in the electronic age, where people can be quickly informed about events like this. It's important for people to have an unbiased understanding of what is happening in our society. Regardless of what many people choose to believe in their unbridled reverence for authority, there are too many unworthy officers working for police forces all over North America, and it's important for people to be made aware when they step (way) out of line. Thanks for posting OP.
On April 06 2012 07:33 archonOOid wrote: Why aren't cops recording voice and video all the time like the marines in the aliens movie? I'm mean seriously it would calm down potential criminals, curb police brutality and would be useful evidence in the court system.
As long as it's only when they're on duty and prosecution wouldn't be overzealous, this sounds like a good idea.
yeah, because (1) we arent in a recession and can barely afford to pay for cops; and (2) people dont love to complain about a police state where everything is recorded.
There is a move towards this in a lot of jurisdictions. Many police cars have videocameras that record everything that happens in front of them and in the back seat. Also, many police forces equip officers with shoulder mics that record everything. The video recording by a camera on a helmet or a shoulder doesn't work very well because it's incredibly jerky and you can't see shit, but they are working on making it better.
It's true that it costs money. But good cops recognize that it protect them as well as others. Cops have to deal with tons of bullshit accusations that they beat someone up or whatever, so having a video of their behaviour should be a good thing. I think officers are a bit intimidated about recording because they have to make snap decisions in dangerous situations and then see a judge or a review board spend weeks dissecting what they did in a courtroom a year later -- which can be pretty unfair. But that's the way things are going, like it or not.
I haven't formed any opinion about the case in the OP, but I work with a lot of police officers and I see the technology that they're putting into effect in Calgary. It costs a lot of money and it takes a lot of time to implement, but I think at least here police agree that it's better to have everything recorded.
On April 06 2012 07:33 archonOOid wrote: Why aren't cops recording voice and video all the time like the marines in the aliens movie? I'm mean seriously it would calm down potential criminals, curb police brutality and would be useful evidence in the court system.
There's your reason, without it the cops can just cover for each other(he was going for a knife), even with clear evidence I'd be very surprised to see more than a slap on the wrist if he even loses his job. Yes cops aren't all bad but the problem is the good cops will still lie to cover for the bad cops because that's just how it is loyalty to other cops always comes before the law.
How often have you seen after a bad incident happen a cop step up and point out an officer's wrong doing, compared to how often they make some obvious bullshit excuse for a fellow officer? Of course there's a reason for this, police do get a lot of hate which makes them close knit, which leads to corruption... which leads to more hate.. etc. While I have empathy for cops situation and it's not an easy job, until the standards are stepped up and cops don't look the other way for other cops they are pretty much untouchable and events like these will keep happening, both noticed and unnoticed with little punishment for the offenders while people's trust in the police further degrades.
Sadly cops who do step up are probably the ones who get fired /not hired.
Er nope.
Well at least most of the good cops don't. I can tell you from personal experience that nothing pisses the good cops off more than bad ones that do stupid shit because it gives all of us a bad name. Now the good ones have to deal with the fall out because the city has a terrible system for identifying people who just shouldn't be cops and a lot of people refuse to look at each cop as a single individual.
Police are tight nit and generally are that way because they deal with dangerous situations on a daily basis. That being said, most of the cops I know won't tolerate bullshit from the others when it's completely illegal. We are supposed to be held to higher standards after all.
As for turning off the recording devices...if the cop can turn them off it's poorly implemented. I know I can't turn off the one in my car if I wanted to and I am not technologically inept.
If you are supposed to be held to a higher standard why don't you actively try to change or try to remove the one's who do not fit in the "most" category with your fellow good cops, they are exactly the cops that let this type of thing happen no? That's the problem when it's only "most" won't tolerate completely illegal bullshit. So then an amount do tolerate somewhat illegal bullshit which is usually how these situations start. Somewhat illegal bullshit is tolerated, and then the civilian victims are put into a difficult situation which often leads to completely illegal bullshit happening.
You also get a situation where the good cops won't tolerate "completely illegal bullshit" but will tolerate the mediocre cops who do somewhat illegal bullshit. Then mediocre cops that tolerate somewhat illegal bullshit tolerate the really bad ones who do completely illegal bullshit, then the "good" cops can't call out the really bad cops without also calling out the mediocre cops for tolerating the really bad ones. Sorry this the above is kinda convoluted but hopefully you get my point.
I guess then the problem is good cops who don't see a problem, or do you really think it's just specific departments? Just seems weird that there's rarely ever cops stepping up to testify against other cops in these situations and I think it's because of the situation I described earlier. I'm sure at least one person at the event feels guilty and if they could would tell the truth about what happened, but since some will cover for others they can't really without screwing over everyone else.
If you can give some examples of police brutality where one of the cops stepped up and testified against the others I'd be happy to change my outlook. If the majority are good cops and hate this type of shit how come every time it happens they instantly try to deny responsibility instead of trying to remove the bad apples who give them a bad name. They get a bad name because they don't do enough to remove or punish bad apples not because bad apples exist.
I also have a hypothetical that i'm genuinely curious about asking you, I'm sure you consider yourself to be a good cop so, what would you do if you were put into a situation where you are with 5 other fellow officers and you see 2 of them beating a defenseless man who did not resist and the other 3 looking away. It turns out the man is innocent and isn't the one they were looking for but he has been beaten and tazed to death. the 2 who assaulted him decide to make up that it looked like he reached for a gun and resisted arrest, the other three agree to go along with the story. They then turn to you and ask "you're going to go along with this story too right?"
What would you do? Is there anything you even could do? Would you be willing to testify against them and how do you think your co-workers / department would look at you if all 5 officers lost their jobs / faced jail time afterwards. What do you realistically think their punishments would be? I realize this is a very extreme / unrealistic hypothetical and that will probably your first reaction is to say "well that would never happen" if you can come up with a more realistic , but similar scenario you'd rather answer to that's fine too.
You know when I read over my post I saw the "completely illegal bullshit" part and I kinda figured someone would jump on it as some sort of code that people tend to let the not so illegal shit go by. Well that's not what I meant.
As much as i'd actively like to purge the police department of all horrible cops I can't actually do that. It... doesn't work that way. I have seen exactly ONE ILLEGAL thing occur in my three years so far as a police officer that was committed by another Officer. He was summarily fired and is doing who knows what right now...and yes I did testify if that matters. Do you know how often Police get complained on for every little thing? Every single time a citizen complains on an Officer it gets investigated in this department. Everything from something inane like "rudeness" to serious issues like sexual harassment.
Again people get called out on a regular basis in this department so I'm not sure where you're going. The cops are taught from the get go what's acceptable behavior and what isn't acceptable behavior and that's really it. Nothing in this world is black and white and this goes for it too. If there is actually something that appears that cops are covering for one another there is very likely more to it than the media portrays...and if there isn't the cops are already in jail. The reason it's big news whenever a cop "slides" is because people jump over that shit like rabid dogs. It is always important to evaluate a situation in its TOTALITY before making any rash judgements.
I can honestly tell you that I don't know what the hell happened with this case. With the information we have from the media it's clear the cops were in the wrong. Is that the whole story though? While there is never an excuse to call anyone the n-word that does not equate to the reason the man was shot. Why was he shot? Did he have a weapon? Was he not cooperating? From the outside what you should be thinking is clear...but we don't have the whole story. The chances are relatively high that there is more to this than just a cop breaking into a house and killing a man because he's black. The cop is likely a whack job because he has a history and all but this just seems so...there just seems to be parts missing. What the fuck is the motive?
As for your extreme hypothetical situation...I would fucking testify in a heartbeat. In fact, I have already done so for an offense that was far less than murder. My job, my oath, and my life in general is worth more to me than protecting other police officers that are doing something completely wrong. If they tazed the guy and killed him for no reason I'm going to say exactly what happened. I'm also fairly certain that you'll find it far more difficult than you expect that an event occurs where FIVE officers just "look the other way." No...in custody deaths are heavily investigated and aside from that I have ethics...If a man was killed for no reason I will say something. As for the reaction from my co-workers? I'm actually confident I wouldn't be ostracized. There is already a full investigation underway regardless and people aren't going to think less of you because you outed a coworker that MURDERED someone.
Even if by some freak of circumstances I was fired for it I would not have an issue with it. I have to sleep at night...I have a wife...I have a daughter. They are more important than anything else in the world to me. That's it.
There is a thin blue line...but I assure you that it is not indestructable.
I feel as if police are just a bunch of loyal friends. To what extent would you cover for your best friend, who routinely puts his life on the line with you, in crazy situations. I would go pretty far for a "brother in arms." I'm sure some would push even farther and to others there are no limits.
Much like NCO's in the Army. If its one on one you know you can't get dicked around, but if its one on two or more, well they will all agree on what you said/did without truth being a part of it.
On April 06 2012 06:21 dAPhREAk wrote: so, what exactly is there to discuss about this case? the DA is holding a grand jury.
Not much to discuss perhaps, but we're fortunate to live in the electronic age, where people can be quickly informed about events like this. It's important for people to have an unbiased understanding of what is happening in our society. Regardless of what many people choose to believe in their unbridled reverence for authority, there are too many unworthy officers working for police forces all over North America, and it's important for people to be made aware when they step (way) out of line. Thanks for posting OP.
you say we should have an "unbiased understanding." the op does not give us that. it doesnt really give us anything. we dont know what happened. we dont know the officer's side of the story; we havent seen (or read an article summarizing) the evidence; we know jackshit. yet, people are jumping to conclusions about the police officers involved being murderers.
On April 06 2012 10:31 Silidons wrote: cops never lose court cases. sad.
I tend to agree that this is a horrible case, but you do realize you're not likely to hear about the obvious injustice cases, because they dont make interesting news stories. I'm sure there are plenty of cases like this where the cop just gets fired/imprisoned and we NEVER hear about it.
On April 06 2012 10:31 Silidons wrote: cops never lose court cases. sad.
I tend to agree that this is a horrible case, but you do realize you're not likely to hear about the obvious injustice cases, because they dont make interesting news stories. I'm sure there are plenty of cases like this where the cop just gets fired/imprisoned and we NEVER hear about it.
You'd assume so, but why would there be so many cases where that doesn't happen? It seems bizarre that both could happen. One where he goes to prison and another where they get paid vacation.
Its time police are reviewed every couple of years. Things like this would not happen if they reviewed each case and decided to hire or fire them based on that.
On April 06 2012 10:31 Silidons wrote: cops never lose court cases. sad.
Cops involved in Katrina just recently got served justice, so it happens ever so often. But not often enough. This is less grey than that, but it will probably take just as long if they need to be punished.
On April 06 2012 06:19 Kojak21 wrote: What a sensationalized title
What about it is sensationalized?
Calling someone a Murderer before they are guilty? Nothing sensational about that ; )
I was about about to comment on this post and say that it was wrong. Putting "murder" in the title is sensationalist. But I guess he just forgot to put /sarcasm at the end of his post.
On April 06 2012 06:19 Kojak21 wrote: What a sensationalized title
What about it is sensationalized?
Calling someone a Murderer before they are guilty? Nothing sensational about that ; )
I was about about to comment on this post and say that it was wrong. Putting "murder" in the title is sensationalist. But I guess he just forgot to put /sarcasm at the end of his post.
Also adding "veteran" incites pro-military emotions that are common to americans, when the crime is just as serious whether the victim is an ex-marine or a pencil pusher.
On April 06 2012 08:22 LeeDawg wrote: white plains is about two hours from where i live.
that said, i would think the news station i work for would have said something about this, but i guess not. gonna have a chat with the news director...
News Stations have journalism standards - it's the same reason why CNN and ESPN choose not to report on some stories if there isn't sufficient evidence (eg. the basketball coach rape accusations). Because such stories can ruin a person's reputation and career, these stations should only report if there is sufficient evidence to suggest that a crime could have occurred. Doesn't have to be beyond reasonable doubt, but it does have to be reasonable.
Not saying that reasonable evidence does or doesn't exist in this case since we don't know, but based on what I've read, no credible media company should be reporting this article because it is simply lacking evidence.
It's no surprise the source is some random website and not a real news source.
On April 06 2012 06:21 dAPhREAk wrote: so, what exactly is there to discuss about this case? the DA is holding a grand jury.
Not much to discuss perhaps, but we're fortunate to live in the electronic age, where people can be quickly informed about events like this. It's important for people to have an unbiased understanding of what is happening in our society. Regardless of what many people choose to believe in their unbridled reverence for authority, there are too many unworthy officers working for police forces all over North America, and it's important for people to be made aware when they step (way) out of line. Thanks for posting OP.
you say we should have an "unbiased understanding." the op does not give us that. it doesnt really give us anything. we dont know what happened. we dont know the officer's side of the story; we havent seen (or read an article summarizing) the evidence; we know jackshit. yet, people are jumping to conclusions about the police officers involved being murderers.
Indeed. The facts are that a police officer arrived at a house occupied by a man with a heart condition who has a medical alert device. That man was then tazered and then shot. The recoding device recorded taunts and racist remarks. Those facts are unbiased. Is the officer guilty of murder? No, not until he is proven of it. The fact remains, however, that a man is dead and a police officer will be charged on this basis and will have to defend his actions in a court. I'd rather the public be made aware of this now and keep an eye on how this unfolds. Why is that bad?
Many people are biased and believe that people in law enforcement are heroes who are apparently incapable of doing horrible things like this. I'd rather they get a good look at it when it happens.
On April 06 2012 06:21 dAPhREAk wrote: so, what exactly is there to discuss about this case? the DA is holding a grand jury.
Not much to discuss perhaps, but we're fortunate to live in the electronic age, where people can be quickly informed about events like this. It's important for people to have an unbiased understanding of what is happening in our society. Regardless of what many people choose to believe in their unbridled reverence for authority, there are too many unworthy officers working for police forces all over North America, and it's important for people to be made aware when they step (way) out of line. Thanks for posting OP.
you say we should have an "unbiased understanding." the op does not give us that. it doesnt really give us anything. we dont know what happened. we dont know the officer's side of the story; we havent seen (or read an article summarizing) the evidence; we know jackshit. yet, people are jumping to conclusions about the police officers involved being murderers.
Indeed. The facts are that a police officer arrived at a house occupied by a man with a heart condition who has a medical alert device. That man was then tazered and then shot. The recoding device recorded taunts and racist remarks. Those facts are unbiased. Is he guilty of murder? No, not until he is proven of it. The fact remains, however, that a man is dead and a police officer will be charged on this basis and will have to defend his actions in a court. I'd rather the public be made aware of this now and keep an eye on how this unfolds. Why is that bad?
On April 06 2012 06:19 Kojak21 wrote: What a sensationalized title
Just watched the majority of this video, and from what I'm hearing, this is a very accurate title, although the Democracy Now video doesn't go into the military record of the victim very much.
On April 06 2012 06:21 dAPhREAk wrote: so, what exactly is there to discuss about this case? the DA is holding a grand jury.
Not much to discuss perhaps, but we're fortunate to live in the electronic age, where people can be quickly informed about events like this. It's important for people to have an unbiased understanding of what is happening in our society. Regardless of what many people choose to believe in their unbridled reverence for authority, there are too many unworthy officers working for police forces all over North America, and it's important for people to be made aware when they step (way) out of line. Thanks for posting OP.
you say we should have an "unbiased understanding." the op does not give us that. it doesnt really give us anything. we dont know what happened. we dont know the officer's side of the story; we havent seen (or read an article summarizing) the evidence; we know jackshit. yet, people are jumping to conclusions about the police officers involved being murderers.
Indeed. The facts are that a police officer arrived at a house occupied by a man with a heart condition who has a medical alert device. That man was then tazered and then shot. The recoding device recorded taunts and racist remarks. Those facts are unbiased. Is he guilty of murder? No, not until he is proven of it. The fact remains, however, that a man is dead and a police officer will be charged on this basis and will have to defend his actions in a court. I'd rather the public be made aware of this now and keep an eye on how this unfolds. Why is that bad?
why was he tazered and shot?
If you read my post, you'll notice that I say the police officer isn't guilty of murder until this is established. The facts remain, however, that the man was tazered and shot. And you're missing the point. Why he was tazered and shot is irrelevant to my point, which is that I'm glad society can be made aware of these events and monitor them.
On April 06 2012 06:21 dAPhREAk wrote: so, what exactly is there to discuss about this case? the DA is holding a grand jury.
Not much to discuss perhaps, but we're fortunate to live in the electronic age, where people can be quickly informed about events like this. It's important for people to have an unbiased understanding of what is happening in our society. Regardless of what many people choose to believe in their unbridled reverence for authority, there are too many unworthy officers working for police forces all over North America, and it's important for people to be made aware when they step (way) out of line. Thanks for posting OP.
you say we should have an "unbiased understanding." the op does not give us that. it doesnt really give us anything. we dont know what happened. we dont know the officer's side of the story; we havent seen (or read an article summarizing) the evidence; we know jackshit. yet, people are jumping to conclusions about the police officers involved being murderers.
Indeed. The facts are that a police officer arrived at a house occupied by a man with a heart condition who has a medical alert device. That man was then tazered and then shot. The recoding device recorded taunts and racist remarks. Those facts are unbiased. Is he guilty of murder? No, not until he is proven of it. The fact remains, however, that a man is dead and a police officer will be charged on this basis and will have to defend his actions in a court. I'd rather the public be made aware of this now and keep an eye on how this unfolds. Why is that bad?
why was he tazered and shot?
If you read my post, you'll notice that I say the police officer isn't guilty of murder until this is established. The facts remain, however, that the man was tazered and shot. And you're missing the point. Why he was tazered and shot is irrelevant to my point, which is that I'm glad society can be made aware of these events and monitor them.
we have no idea what happened. so, im not sure why this is something that the world needs to know about. all this thread is leading to is a bunch of people making uninformed assumptions about the guilt of the officers involved based on basically no evidence at all.
On April 06 2012 06:21 dAPhREAk wrote: so, what exactly is there to discuss about this case? the DA is holding a grand jury.
Not much to discuss perhaps, but we're fortunate to live in the electronic age, where people can be quickly informed about events like this. It's important for people to have an unbiased understanding of what is happening in our society. Regardless of what many people choose to believe in their unbridled reverence for authority, there are too many unworthy officers working for police forces all over North America, and it's important for people to be made aware when they step (way) out of line. Thanks for posting OP.
you say we should have an "unbiased understanding." the op does not give us that. it doesnt really give us anything. we dont know what happened. we dont know the officer's side of the story; we havent seen (or read an article summarizing) the evidence; we know jackshit. yet, people are jumping to conclusions about the police officers involved being murderers.
Indeed. The facts are that a police officer arrived at a house occupied by a man with a heart condition who has a medical alert device. That man was then tazered and then shot. The recoding device recorded taunts and racist remarks. Those facts are unbiased. Is he guilty of murder? No, not until he is proven of it. The fact remains, however, that a man is dead and a police officer will be charged on this basis and will have to defend his actions in a court. I'd rather the public be made aware of this now and keep an eye on how this unfolds. Why is that bad?
why was he tazered and shot?
If you read my post, you'll notice that I say the police officer isn't guilty of murder until this is established. The facts remain, however, that the man was tazered and shot. And you're missing the point. Why he was tazered and shot is irrelevant to my point, which is that I'm glad society can be made aware of these events and monitor them.
we have no idea what happened. so, im not sure why this is something that the world needs to know about. all this thread is leading to is a bunch of people making uninformed assumptions about the guilt of the officers involved based on basically no evidence at all.
There needs to be sufficient grounds to charge a man with murder. So it's not like this is baseless. We have no idea what happened? A man was shot and killed! This isn't some nebulous phenomenon, we literally have a corpse. This isn't something to bother ourselves with?
On April 06 2012 06:21 dAPhREAk wrote: so, what exactly is there to discuss about this case? the DA is holding a grand jury.
Not much to discuss perhaps, but we're fortunate to live in the electronic age, where people can be quickly informed about events like this. It's important for people to have an unbiased understanding of what is happening in our society. Regardless of what many people choose to believe in their unbridled reverence for authority, there are too many unworthy officers working for police forces all over North America, and it's important for people to be made aware when they step (way) out of line. Thanks for posting OP.
you say we should have an "unbiased understanding." the op does not give us that. it doesnt really give us anything. we dont know what happened. we dont know the officer's side of the story; we havent seen (or read an article summarizing) the evidence; we know jackshit. yet, people are jumping to conclusions about the police officers involved being murderers.
Indeed. The facts are that a police officer arrived at a house occupied by a man with a heart condition who has a medical alert device. That man was then tazered and then shot. The recoding device recorded taunts and racist remarks. Those facts are unbiased. Is he guilty of murder? No, not until he is proven of it. The fact remains, however, that a man is dead and a police officer will be charged on this basis and will have to defend his actions in a court. I'd rather the public be made aware of this now and keep an eye on how this unfolds. Why is that bad?
why was he tazered and shot?
If you read my post, you'll notice that I say the police officer isn't guilty of murder until this is established. The facts remain, however, that the man was tazered and shot. And you're missing the point. Why he was tazered and shot is irrelevant to my point, which is that I'm glad society can be made aware of these events and monitor them.
we have no idea what happened. so, im not sure why this is something that the world needs to know about. all this thread is leading to is a bunch of people making uninformed assumptions about the guilt of the officers involved based on basically no evidence at all.
There needs to be sufficient grounds to charge a man with murder. So it's not like this is baseless. We have no idea what happened? A man was shot and killed! This isn't some nebulous phenomenon, we literally have a corpse. This isn't something to bother ourselves with?
other than the fact that the media tagged "Trayvon Martin" to this case, I see no reason why the media is covering it at all outside of the local area. people are shot and killed all of the time, including by police. this is just sensationalism of an issue that is apparently not well understood even by the media.
Theres no proof anywhere as of yet. And no one was charged with murder so technically no one was murdered, same with the Trayvon case.
That is incorrect. Murder is technically killing someone with prior intent. It has nothing to do with being charged. Your definition is actually that of a convicted murderer.
The thing in this case is, that the police was just totally stupid. They didnt involved a lot of help that was offered to them (by family and the health care company). They didnt let the man alone in his home they just felt pushed around by a "black" dude and wanted revenge. They were out for blood, deal with it.
We have rights at our homes and this rights involve to say to a police officer that they should go away. He knew he gonna get shot and said his prayers shortly before the police entered. The police cut of the audio and video records shortly before they shot him and they did it intentionally. No Officer knew that there was another audio record running all the time becouse of the medical alert.
This wasnt a act of a single police officer it was the act of a group of police officers who refused to take other non harmfull and non lethal possibilitys they obviously had. Already Tasering a guy who has serious heart issues is lethal force.
Still you guys wanna wait for the audio files? They probably never get released becouse its the police who has control of the evidence. They now sacrifice a single police officer who has already a backround story and will be fired anyway. WP Police
I know i get a bid emotional but still this case just tops it all.
Yeah there it is. They had a warrent thinking that he was a drug dealer and instead of either party identifying themselves they just slowly find eachother until someone pulls the trigger and the swat team kills the guy. He had the civilian version of the m-16 and was ready to hose down the cops himself.
Don't try to be sensationalist about things. that's why the whole trayvon case went to shit. If you have a problem with cops or how they operate then say so. Don't say that they murder everyone that threatens them.
Second reading its a different case but its really more of the same. The op doesn't have anything new other then a new news post. There are plenty of threads that are about police policy already we don't need a new thread for every news story out there. Just post this in the trayvon thread and talk about it there. Its hard to ever know what really happens in these situations. It was an interesting point that police's voice and vision should be recorded when serving search warents and stuff. would be really expensive for an already cash strapped precincts.
Its a bad world but no ones found a way to make a better one.
Yeah there it is. They had a warrent thinking that he was a drug dealer and instead of either party identifying themselves they just slowly find eachother until someone pulls the trigger and the swat team kills the guy. He had the civilian version of the m-16 and was ready to hose down the cops himself.
Don't try to be sensationalist about things. that's why the whole trayvon case went to shit. If you have a problem with cops or how they operate then say so. Don't say that they murder everyone that threatens them.
On April 06 2012 06:21 dAPhREAk wrote: so, what exactly is there to discuss about this case? the DA is holding a grand jury.
Not much to discuss perhaps, but we're fortunate to live in the electronic age, where people can be quickly informed about events like this. It's important for people to have an unbiased understanding of what is happening in our society. Regardless of what many people choose to believe in their unbridled reverence for authority, there are too many unworthy officers working for police forces all over North America, and it's important for people to be made aware when they step (way) out of line. Thanks for posting OP.
you say we should have an "unbiased understanding." the op does not give us that. it doesnt really give us anything. we dont know what happened. we dont know the officer's side of the story; we havent seen (or read an article summarizing) the evidence; we know jackshit. yet, people are jumping to conclusions about the police officers involved being murderers.
Indeed. The facts are that a police officer arrived at a house occupied by a man with a heart condition who has a medical alert device. That man was then tazered and then shot. The recoding device recorded taunts and racist remarks. Those facts are unbiased. Is he guilty of murder? No, not until he is proven of it. The fact remains, however, that a man is dead and a police officer will be charged on this basis and will have to defend his actions in a court. I'd rather the public be made aware of this now and keep an eye on how this unfolds. Why is that bad?
why was he tazered and shot?
If you read my post, you'll notice that I say the police officer isn't guilty of murder until this is established. The facts remain, however, that the man was tazered and shot. And you're missing the point. Why he was tazered and shot is irrelevant to my point, which is that I'm glad society can be made aware of these events and monitor them.
we have no idea what happened. so, im not sure why this is something that the world needs to know about. all this thread is leading to is a bunch of people making uninformed assumptions about the guilt of the officers involved based on basically no evidence at all.
This is creating something called awareness. Using public awareness one can create pressure for the government to do what the people want. It's how our democratic system works here. Awareness is good. That's what this thread is about.
On April 06 2012 06:21 dAPhREAk wrote: so, what exactly is there to discuss about this case? the DA is holding a grand jury.
Not much to discuss perhaps, but we're fortunate to live in the electronic age, where people can be quickly informed about events like this. It's important for people to have an unbiased understanding of what is happening in our society. Regardless of what many people choose to believe in their unbridled reverence for authority, there are too many unworthy officers working for police forces all over North America, and it's important for people to be made aware when they step (way) out of line. Thanks for posting OP.
you say we should have an "unbiased understanding." the op does not give us that. it doesnt really give us anything. we dont know what happened. we dont know the officer's side of the story; we havent seen (or read an article summarizing) the evidence; we know jackshit. yet, people are jumping to conclusions about the police officers involved being murderers.
Indeed. The facts are that a police officer arrived at a house occupied by a man with a heart condition who has a medical alert device. That man was then tazered and then shot. The recoding device recorded taunts and racist remarks. Those facts are unbiased. Is he guilty of murder? No, not until he is proven of it. The fact remains, however, that a man is dead and a police officer will be charged on this basis and will have to defend his actions in a court. I'd rather the public be made aware of this now and keep an eye on how this unfolds. Why is that bad?
why was he tazered and shot?
If you read my post, you'll notice that I say the police officer isn't guilty of murder until this is established. The facts remain, however, that the man was tazered and shot. And you're missing the point. Why he was tazered and shot is irrelevant to my point, which is that I'm glad society can be made aware of these events and monitor them.
we have no idea what happened. so, im not sure why this is something that the world needs to know about. all this thread is leading to is a bunch of people making uninformed assumptions about the guilt of the officers involved based on basically no evidence at all.
This is creating something called awareness. Using public awareness one can create pressure for the government to do what the people want. It's how our democratic system works here. Awareness is good. That's what this thread is about.
The problem in spreading "awareness" in the modern world is that the level of misinformation or blind ignorance isn't questions or checked but instead repeated and retold until people start fighting over different warped versions of events and no one cares anymore about what really happened but try and hammer down the rhetoric of their side.
On April 06 2012 06:21 dAPhREAk wrote: so, what exactly is there to discuss about this case? the DA is holding a grand jury.
Not much to discuss perhaps, but we're fortunate to live in the electronic age, where people can be quickly informed about events like this. It's important for people to have an unbiased understanding of what is happening in our society. Regardless of what many people choose to believe in their unbridled reverence for authority, there are too many unworthy officers working for police forces all over North America, and it's important for people to be made aware when they step (way) out of line. Thanks for posting OP.
you say we should have an "unbiased understanding." the op does not give us that. it doesnt really give us anything. we dont know what happened. we dont know the officer's side of the story; we havent seen (or read an article summarizing) the evidence; we know jackshit. yet, people are jumping to conclusions about the police officers involved being murderers.
Indeed. The facts are that a police officer arrived at a house occupied by a man with a heart condition who has a medical alert device. That man was then tazered and then shot. The recoding device recorded taunts and racist remarks. Those facts are unbiased. Is he guilty of murder? No, not until he is proven of it. The fact remains, however, that a man is dead and a police officer will be charged on this basis and will have to defend his actions in a court. I'd rather the public be made aware of this now and keep an eye on how this unfolds. Why is that bad?
why was he tazered and shot?
If you read my post, you'll notice that I say the police officer isn't guilty of murder until this is established. The facts remain, however, that the man was tazered and shot. And you're missing the point. Why he was tazered and shot is irrelevant to my point, which is that I'm glad society can be made aware of these events and monitor them.
we have no idea what happened. so, im not sure why this is something that the world needs to know about. all this thread is leading to is a bunch of people making uninformed assumptions about the guilt of the officers involved based on basically no evidence at all.
This is creating something called awareness. Using public awareness one can create pressure for the government to do what the people want. It's how our democratic system works here. Awareness is good. That's what this thread is about.
The problem in spreading "awareness" in the modern world is that the level of misinformation or blind ignorance isn't questions or checked but instead repeated and retold until people start fighting over different warped versions of events and no one cares anymore about what really happened but try and hammer down the rhetoric of their side.
On April 06 2012 06:21 dAPhREAk wrote: so, what exactly is there to discuss about this case? the DA is holding a grand jury.
Not much to discuss perhaps, but we're fortunate to live in the electronic age, where people can be quickly informed about events like this. It's important for people to have an unbiased understanding of what is happening in our society. Regardless of what many people choose to believe in their unbridled reverence for authority, there are too many unworthy officers working for police forces all over North America, and it's important for people to be made aware when they step (way) out of line. Thanks for posting OP.
you say we should have an "unbiased understanding." the op does not give us that. it doesnt really give us anything. we dont know what happened. we dont know the officer's side of the story; we havent seen (or read an article summarizing) the evidence; we know jackshit. yet, people are jumping to conclusions about the police officers involved being murderers.
Indeed. The facts are that a police officer arrived at a house occupied by a man with a heart condition who has a medical alert device. That man was then tazered and then shot. The recoding device recorded taunts and racist remarks. Those facts are unbiased. Is he guilty of murder? No, not until he is proven of it. The fact remains, however, that a man is dead and a police officer will be charged on this basis and will have to defend his actions in a court. I'd rather the public be made aware of this now and keep an eye on how this unfolds. Why is that bad?
why was he tazered and shot?
If you read my post, you'll notice that I say the police officer isn't guilty of murder until this is established. The facts remain, however, that the man was tazered and shot. And you're missing the point. Why he was tazered and shot is irrelevant to my point, which is that I'm glad society can be made aware of these events and monitor them.
we have no idea what happened. so, im not sure why this is something that the world needs to know about. all this thread is leading to is a bunch of people making uninformed assumptions about the guilt of the officers involved based on basically no evidence at all.
This is creating something called awareness. Using public awareness one can create pressure for the government to do what the people want. It's how our democratic system works here. Awareness is good. That's what this thread is about.
The problem in spreading "awareness" in the modern world is that the level of misinformation or blind ignorance isn't questions or checked but instead repeated and retold until people start fighting over different warped versions of events and no one cares anymore about what really happened but try and hammer down the rhetoric of their side.
If you dont like to discuss this topic than just dont do it. You are actually just posting a rethoric opinion without INFORMING yourself at all. You seem to be desensitised for anything related to this, and you should think twice before posting here in my opinion.
On April 06 2012 06:19 Kojak21 wrote: What a sensationalized title
What about it is sensationalized?
Calling someone a Murderer before they are guilty? Nothing sensational about that ; )
I was about about to comment on this post and say that it was wrong. Putting "murder" in the title is sensationalist. But I guess he just forgot to put /sarcasm at the end of his post.
Haha yeah I try and lay my sarcasm on thick so even the interwebs can get it.
Not really big news. The police complain about releasing a name of a involved officer. The family demands the release of the recorded files of the health care company.
The son seem to have written this statement he also has started the petition.
This petition is regarding the upcoming grand jury hearing in the case of Kenneth Chamberlain Sr., an unarmed elderly black citizen who was shot to death by the White Plains Police Department.
This case not only brings into question the policies and practices of this department; but it is an open question whether it was inevitable, particularly in light of the audio tapes and video tapes witnessed by Mr. Chamberlain's family members and attorneys where racial slurs and expletives were used before ultimately shooting him twice in the chest and killing him.
It is imperative that those tapes be made available to the grand jury, and that all other evidence be presented as well. I am concerned that secrecy so far—for example, the names of officers involved have not been released—bodes badly for transparency in this case as it moves forward. Nor am I aware of any public statements about the case from elected officials calling for openness.
Members of Mr. Chamberlain's family and community—and a much wider circle of people who need to know there is fairness in the criminal justice system—seek reassurance that, no matter what the verdict, the process has been open, honest, and just.
We, the undersigned, implore Westchester County District Attorney Janet DiFiore to no longer allow police misconduct, brutality, or criminality to happen in this community and ask that these officers be indicted and charged with murder and civil rights violations.
On May 06 2012 03:58 archonOOid wrote: seems like racism is not dead or will it ever be?
Racism is human nature it will never end unfortunately. The world is definitely not perfect. I just think it is awkward that if you kill a police officer, you go to death row. A police officer kills you, they get a slap on the wrist and a verbal warning.
This has nothing to do with racism, have u watched the video? he was being a senile old man who all he had to do was open the door and say he was okay. instead he pulled a knife on them and acted very agitated. what do you expect the police to do. they were called into an emergency and they were doing there job.
This reminds me of that skit Dave Chappelle did. " This twisted son of a bitch broke into the house, and put up pictures of himself everywhere. " lol
On further investigation I found this to be a disturbing incident. He should have cooperated with police. A conversation would have defused the situation, open the fucking door and calmly tell them whats going on.
One of the many reasons I keep a loaded magazine next to my Beretta. Pretty upsetting that people can show such horrible prejudice and still hold government positions.
Well still kinda strange incident anyway lets see how its gonna resolve.
holy shit that was some crazy stuff. i wonder what medication he was on because he was acting weird as hell. also weird that the video cut out right before the shooting. i wonder how it escalated since it seemed they had already shot him with the taser.
On May 06 2012 04:17 Mondieu wrote: So the elder man threatened them with a knife and they decided to shoot him in the chest?
You got to do what you have to do. Cops could'nt do anything versus this highly trained veteran. Remember how many cops Rambo killed with no equiment, these guys are killing machine. I'm sure the only logical thing to do was to shot him dead before it was too late.
On May 06 2012 04:17 Mondieu wrote: So the elder man threatened them with a knife and they decided to shoot him in the chest?
You got to do what you have to do. Cops could'nt do anything versus this highly trained veteran. Remember how many cops Rambo killed with no equiment, these guys are killing machine. I'm sure the only logical thing to do was to shot him dead before it was too late.
On May 06 2012 04:17 Mondieu wrote: So the elder man threatened them with a knife and they decided to shoot him in the chest?
You got to do what you have to do. Cops could'nt do anything versus this highly trained veteran. Remember how many cops Rambo killed with no equiment, these guys are killing machine. I'm sure the only logical thing to do was to shot him dead before it was too late.
On May 06 2012 04:17 Mondieu wrote: So the elder man threatened them with a knife and they decided to shoot him in the chest?
You got to do what you have to do. Cops could'nt do anything versus this highly trained veteran. Remember how many cops Rambo killed with no equiment, these guys are killing machine. I'm sure the only logical thing to do was to shot him dead before it was too late.
On May 06 2012 04:17 Mondieu wrote: So the elder man threatened them with a knife and they decided to shoot him in the chest?
You got to do what you have to do. Cops could'nt do anything versus this highly trained veteran. Remember how many cops Rambo killed with no equiment, these guys are killing machine. I'm sure the only logical thing to do was to shot him dead before it was too late.
he was 68. you seriously comparing him to rambo?
you from romania?
wtf? no.
Come on man, classic team liquid joke. SARCASM + ROMANIA does not compute. (according to the joke =D)
Well still kinda strange incident anyway lets see how its gonna resolve.
That video is highly disturbing.
To me it seems that the police deliberately escalated that situation. Like... what the hell. You don't rush into someones home, gun drawn after he and his family tell you for like 20 minutes that he's fine and that he does not want the police there. What was their plan? Rush in, give him handcuffs and force him to the hospital for a check up?
Edit:
On May 06 2012 04:09 Kojak21 wrote: This has nothing to do with racism, have u watched the video? he was being a senile old man who all he had to do was open the door and say he was okay. instead he pulled a knife on them and acted very agitated. what do you expect the police to do. they were called into an emergency and they were doing there job.
It is the polices JOB to rush along with a medical alert and once the emergency turns out to be false it is also their job to force entry anyway (against the persons will), taser an almost 70 year old man and then shoot him a few minutes later?
I thought their job was to make sure the person who called the emergency (and the medical team) is fine. Silly me. =/
The guy pulls bullshit like that, they let him back out on the street with a gun and a badge, he straight up murders an innocent old man, and he's still on duty??? There are no words.
same thing happened with an old man holding his grandson here in arizona around the same time as this
maybe not as horrific, but same bs with a violent cop being let back on duty after shooting an unarmed old man
There really should be some major restraints put on cops to prevent or discourage things like this. Hell even prevent cops from pulling me over for "not having a seat belt on" when it is clearly on....
On May 06 2012 08:19 knOxStarcraft wrote: It's a shame there is no death penalty in NY...
It's a shame that he might not even face trial. It's an even bigger shame that these kinds of tactics have been causing unnecessary deaths for decades and there seems to be no political will to tone them down.
I mean, I understand the anger, but the same anger is fueling the kind of tougher policing that will inevitably lead to these tragedies.
I don't care whether this man was black, white, or purple.
From what I see an innocent veteran was killed. This saddens me.
I hope the police force takes steps to both try and repair damages done because of this action, and also administers justice to the responsible officers in a way that will not put their families in danger.
I got through all 6 parts of the "America's Largest Street Gang" series and let me say, I'm totally terrified now. I always had a sort of distrust of cops, but after reading through this case and watching that series, I'm downright scared of them. Gonna go out of my way to avoid them at all costs now, and I'm gonna read on up on my rights. I hope they don't rape my girlfriend or murder me for doing nothing
On April 06 2012 06:21 Blasterion wrote: Maybe we should allow guns just in case that the people with guns (cops) decide to screw us over one day. I mean just in case.
So we can shoot the sheriff in self defense?
There has to be more to this story than what those two articles are showing.
We should really stop generalizing the word Cops. the entire police force didn't barge into his house and killed him. one person did. its extremely sensationalized when you over generalize things like that IMO.
I don't think the police just showed up to kill this war veteran for no apparent reason. Obviously, there is more to this story than is being reported. Maybe we should wait before jumping to conclusions.
Just goes to show that no matter what line of duty or job there are always horrible people. Doesn't matter if they are police officers, military, or doctors etc there are still going to be terrible people in the world.
On May 07 2012 05:19 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: Don't worry the facts will come out at trial...
oh that's right there's not even going to be one.
funny how we have this constitution and laws that dont force defendants to go through a potentially bankrupting trial when there is not even enough evidence to convince a grand jury that the defendant did something wrong under greatly lessened evidentiary burdens.
i'm sure you (and the rest of the people who are upset about no indictment) knew more about the facts than the grand jury though. you are obviously omniscient and knew what evidence the prosecutor would present at trial better than the people the prosecutor actually presented the evidence to.
On May 07 2012 05:19 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: Don't worry the facts will come out at trial...
oh that's right there's not even going to be one.
funny how we have this constitution and laws that dont force defendants to go through a potentially bankrupting trial when there is not even enough evidence to convince a grand jury that the defendant did something wrong under greatly lessened evidentiary burdens.
i'm sure you (and the rest of the people who are upset about no indictment) knew more about the facts than the grand jury though. you are obviously omniscient and knew what evidence the prosecutor would present at trial better than the people the prosecutor actually presented the evidence to.
There's no evidence because the cops can do whatever the fuck they want with it. North America has as backwards ass justice system. A cop basicly has to snitch on another cop with a shit ton of evidence for anything to happen to the police officer.
On May 07 2012 05:19 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: Don't worry the facts will come out at trial...
oh that's right there's not even going to be one.
funny how we have this constitution and laws that dont force defendants to go through a potentially bankrupting trial when there is not even enough evidence to convince a grand jury that the defendant did something wrong under greatly lessened evidentiary burdens.
i'm sure you (and the rest of the people who are upset about no indictment) knew more about the facts than the grand jury though. you are obviously omniscient and knew what evidence the prosecutor would present at trial better than the people the prosecutor actually presented the evidence to.
There's no evidence because the cops can do whatever the fuck they want with it. North America has as backwards ass justice system. A cop basicly has to snitch on another cop with a shit ton of evidence for anything to happen to the police officer.
yep, they sure hid the evidence in this case:
District Attorney Janet DiFiore, who referred to the shooting as a tragedy, said Thursday that the grand jury heard from 42 witnesses, including Police Officer Anthony Carelli, who fired the fatal shots.
After seeing that video, i am fuming. My blood is boiling. I know this must happen everywhere around the world. Power gives people the false sense of superiority. Argh so angry!
After skimming through 8 pages so far, I've only seen like four posts saying "calm down, innocent 'till proven guilty, relax and put down the pitch forks".
What's even crazier is that I've known for a while now that many users of TL laugh about how people fall prey to sensationalism, yet when there's a thread like "North Korea to test launch missile" or "The Shooting of Trayvon Martin" or "Student tortured, sues for 20 million", the ignorance and uneducated opinions just pour out like the Daybreak waterfall. It's hypocritical hell.
Then you get the people who don't even live here pretending like they know the justice system or the constituents or the Star Spangled Banner based on Google or Wikipedia, linking BS sources and YouTube videos, because they've seen American TV shows or movies or some other random American media, and throwing words like "constitution" or "amendment" or "patriot act" around, and thinking they know shit like the exact figure of the US debt or exactly how powerful the US Army is. It's just sad.
"There won't even be a case" - like shit, I'm a huge pessimist, and I've had bad run-ins with cops too, and I know how dirty they can get having grown up in Queens (you have NO idea what the term dirty cop means if you've never lived in New York City - lol), but is it the 'cool' thing now to hate on cops? Everyone hates on the "moralfags" and shit? I wonder when the non-conformists start switching to the other side...
On May 07 2012 05:19 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: Don't worry the facts will come out at trial...
oh that's right there's not even going to be one.
funny how we have this constitution and laws that dont force defendants to go through a potentially bankrupting trial when there is not even enough evidence to convince a grand jury that the defendant did something wrong under greatly lessened evidentiary burdens.
i'm sure you (and the rest of the people who are upset about no indictment) knew more about the facts than the grand jury though. you are obviously omniscient and knew what evidence the prosecutor would present at trial better than the people the prosecutor actually presented the evidence to.
There's no evidence because the cops can do whatever the fuck they want with it. North America has as backwards ass justice system. A cop basicly has to snitch on another cop with a shit ton of evidence for anything to happen to the police officer.
District Attorney Janet DiFiore, who referred to the shooting as a tragedy, said Thursday that the grand jury heard from 42 witnesses, including Police Officer Anthony Carelli, who fired the fatal shots.
Why are you so nieve? You think an honest unbiased investigation is going on right now? Any witnesses who don't corroborate the cops story are going to have their statement thrown out. The department will do anything and everything to put the blame somewhere else or come up with some bogus self defense story. Your telling me multiple officers cant detain a 68 year old man without lethal force? You must be family or something the way your defending these guys.
On May 07 2012 05:19 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: Don't worry the facts will come out at trial...
oh that's right there's not even going to be one.
funny how we have this constitution and laws that dont force defendants to go through a potentially bankrupting trial when there is not even enough evidence to convince a grand jury that the defendant did something wrong under greatly lessened evidentiary burdens.
i'm sure you (and the rest of the people who are upset about no indictment) knew more about the facts than the grand jury though. you are obviously omniscient and knew what evidence the prosecutor would present at trial better than the people the prosecutor actually presented the evidence to.
There's no evidence because the cops can do whatever the fuck they want with it. North America has as backwards ass justice system. A cop basicly has to snitch on another cop with a shit ton of evidence for anything to happen to the police officer.
yep, they sure hid the evidence in this case:
District Attorney Janet DiFiore, who referred to the shooting as a tragedy, said Thursday that the grand jury heard from 42 witnesses, including Police Officer Anthony Carelli, who fired the fatal shots.
Why are you so nieve? You think an honest unbiased investigation is going on right now? Any witnesses who don't corroborate the cops story are going to have their statement thrown out. The department will do anything and everything to put the blame somewhere else or come up with some bogus self defense story. Your telling me multiple officers cant detain a 68 year old man without lethal force? You must be family or something the way your defending these guys.
not defending them. i dont know what happened, so i dont make uneducated opinions about whether they are guilty or not. i leave that up to the justice system, including grand juries. when i read posts like yours, i say "bullshit" because you have no basis for your statements other than your own prejudice.
edit: and please, when you want to insult someone's intelligence and call them naive, at least do it without having multiple spelling and grammar errors in your insult. it just makes you look silly.
On May 07 2012 05:19 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: Don't worry the facts will come out at trial...
oh that's right there's not even going to be one.
funny how we have this constitution and laws that dont force defendants to go through a potentially bankrupting trial when there is not even enough evidence to convince a grand jury that the defendant did something wrong under greatly lessened evidentiary burdens.
i'm sure you (and the rest of the people who are upset about no indictment) knew more about the facts than the grand jury though. you are obviously omniscient and knew what evidence the prosecutor would present at trial better than the people the prosecutor actually presented the evidence to.
There's no evidence because the cops can do whatever the fuck they want with it. North America has as backwards ass justice system. A cop basicly has to snitch on another cop with a shit ton of evidence for anything to happen to the police officer.
yep, they sure hid the evidence in this case:
District Attorney Janet DiFiore, who referred to the shooting as a tragedy, said Thursday that the grand jury heard from 42 witnesses, including Police Officer Anthony Carelli, who fired the fatal shots.
Why are you so nieve? You think an honest unbiased investigation is going on right now? Any witnesses who don't corroborate the cops story are going to have their statement thrown out. The department will do anything and everything to put the blame somewhere else or come up with some bogus self defense story. Your telling me multiple officers cant detain a 68 year old man without lethal force? You must be family or something the way your defending these guys.
not defending them. i dont know what happened, so i dont make uneducated opinions about whether they are guilty or not. i leave that up to the justice system, including grand juries. when i read posts like yours, i say "bullshit" because you have no basis for your statements other than your own prejudice.
edit: and please, when you want to insult someone's intelligence and call them naive, at least do it without having multiple spelling and grammar errors in your insult. it just makes you look silly.
Wow you seem too robotic to even be human. Keep placing your faith in a justice system that has failed us multiple times in the same situation. I'm envious of you, the world you live in seems way nicer then reality.
On May 07 2012 05:19 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: Don't worry the facts will come out at trial...
oh that's right there's not even going to be one.
funny how we have this constitution and laws that dont force defendants to go through a potentially bankrupting trial when there is not even enough evidence to convince a grand jury that the defendant did something wrong under greatly lessened evidentiary burdens.
i'm sure you (and the rest of the people who are upset about no indictment) knew more about the facts than the grand jury though. you are obviously omniscient and knew what evidence the prosecutor would present at trial better than the people the prosecutor actually presented the evidence to.
yeah bro, we have a 100% transparent legal system, and cops always get fair trials.
On May 07 2012 05:19 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: Don't worry the facts will come out at trial...
oh that's right there's not even going to be one.
funny how we have this constitution and laws that dont force defendants to go through a potentially bankrupting trial when there is not even enough evidence to convince a grand jury that the defendant did something wrong under greatly lessened evidentiary burdens.
i'm sure you (and the rest of the people who are upset about no indictment) knew more about the facts than the grand jury though. you are obviously omniscient and knew what evidence the prosecutor would present at trial better than the people the prosecutor actually presented the evidence to.
There's no evidence because the cops can do whatever the fuck they want with it. North America has as backwards ass justice system. A cop basicly has to snitch on another cop with a shit ton of evidence for anything to happen to the police officer.
District Attorney Janet DiFiore, who referred to the shooting as a tragedy, said Thursday that the grand jury heard from 42 witnesses, including Police Officer Anthony Carelli, who fired the fatal shots.
find me one police officer who snitched on another. i'll mail you $20.
On May 07 2012 05:19 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: Don't worry the facts will come out at trial...
oh that's right there's not even going to be one.
funny how we have this constitution and laws that dont force defendants to go through a potentially bankrupting trial when there is not even enough evidence to convince a grand jury that the defendant did something wrong under greatly lessened evidentiary burdens.
i'm sure you (and the rest of the people who are upset about no indictment) knew more about the facts than the grand jury though. you are obviously omniscient and knew what evidence the prosecutor would present at trial better than the people the prosecutor actually presented the evidence to.
There's no evidence because the cops can do whatever the fuck they want with it. North America has as backwards ass justice system. A cop basicly has to snitch on another cop with a shit ton of evidence for anything to happen to the police officer.
yep, they sure hid the evidence in this case:
District Attorney Janet DiFiore, who referred to the shooting as a tragedy, said Thursday that the grand jury heard from 42 witnesses, including Police Officer Anthony Carelli, who fired the fatal shots.
Why are you so nieve? You think an honest unbiased investigation is going on right now? Any witnesses who don't corroborate the cops story are going to have their statement thrown out. The department will do anything and everything to put the blame somewhere else or come up with some bogus self defense story. Your telling me multiple officers cant detain a 68 year old man without lethal force? You must be family or something the way your defending these guys.
not defending them. i dont know what happened, so i dont make uneducated opinions about whether they are guilty or not. i leave that up to the justice system, including grand juries. when i read posts like yours, i say "bullshit" because you have no basis for your statements other than your own prejudice.
edit: and please, when you want to insult someone's intelligence and call them naive, at least do it without having multiple spelling and grammar errors in your insult. it just makes you look silly.
Your faith is well placed. No one in the justice system has any external incentives other than to see law prevail. [/sarcasm]
On May 07 2012 05:19 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: Don't worry the facts will come out at trial...
oh that's right there's not even going to be one.
funny how we have this constitution and laws that dont force defendants to go through a potentially bankrupting trial when there is not even enough evidence to convince a grand jury that the defendant did something wrong under greatly lessened evidentiary burdens.
i'm sure you (and the rest of the people who are upset about no indictment) knew more about the facts than the grand jury though. you are obviously omniscient and knew what evidence the prosecutor would present at trial better than the people the prosecutor actually presented the evidence to.
There's no evidence because the cops can do whatever the fuck they want with it. North America has as backwards ass justice system. A cop basicly has to snitch on another cop with a shit ton of evidence for anything to happen to the police officer.
yep, they sure hid the evidence in this case:
District Attorney Janet DiFiore, who referred to the shooting as a tragedy, said Thursday that the grand jury heard from 42 witnesses, including Police Officer Anthony Carelli, who fired the fatal shots.
Why are you so nieve? You think an honest unbiased investigation is going on right now? Any witnesses who don't corroborate the cops story are going to have their statement thrown out. The department will do anything and everything to put the blame somewhere else or come up with some bogus self defense story. Your telling me multiple officers cant detain a 68 year old man without lethal force? You must be family or something the way your defending these guys.
not defending them. i dont know what happened, so i dont make uneducated opinions about whether they are guilty or not. i leave that up to the justice system, including grand juries. when i read posts like yours, i say "bullshit" because you have no basis for your statements other than your own prejudice.
edit: and please, when you want to insult someone's intelligence and call them naive, at least do it without having multiple spelling and grammar errors in your insult. it just makes you look silly.
Wow you seem too robotic to even be human. Keep placing your faith in a justice system that has failed us multiple times in the same situation. I'm envious of you, the world you live in seems way nicer then reality.
On May 07 2012 05:19 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: Don't worry the facts will come out at trial...
oh that's right there's not even going to be one.
funny how we have this constitution and laws that dont force defendants to go through a potentially bankrupting trial when there is not even enough evidence to convince a grand jury that the defendant did something wrong under greatly lessened evidentiary burdens.
i'm sure you (and the rest of the people who are upset about no indictment) knew more about the facts than the grand jury though. you are obviously omniscient and knew what evidence the prosecutor would present at trial better than the people the prosecutor actually presented the evidence to.
There's no evidence because the cops can do whatever the fuck they want with it. North America has as backwards ass justice system. A cop basicly has to snitch on another cop with a shit ton of evidence for anything to happen to the police officer.
yep, they sure hid the evidence in this case:
District Attorney Janet DiFiore, who referred to the shooting as a tragedy, said Thursday that the grand jury heard from 42 witnesses, including Police Officer Anthony Carelli, who fired the fatal shots.
Why are you so nieve? You think an honest unbiased investigation is going on right now? Any witnesses who don't corroborate the cops story are going to have their statement thrown out. The department will do anything and everything to put the blame somewhere else or come up with some bogus self defense story. Your telling me multiple officers cant detain a 68 year old man without lethal force? You must be family or something the way your defending these guys.
not defending them. i dont know what happened, so i dont make uneducated opinions about whether they are guilty or not. i leave that up to the justice system, including grand juries. when i read posts like yours, i say "bullshit" because you have no basis for your statements other than your own prejudice.
edit: and please, when you want to insult someone's intelligence and call them naive, at least do it without having multiple spelling and grammar errors in your insult. it just makes you look silly.
Your faith is well placed. No one in the justice system has any external incentives other than to see law prevail. [/sarcasm]
it certainly has its flaws. yet, i choose to trust it more than uninformed opinions in this forum.
On May 07 2012 05:16 Obamanation666 wrote: I don't think the police just showed up to kill this war veteran for no apparent reason. Obviously, there is more to this story than is being reported. Maybe we should wait before jumping to conclusions.
On May 07 2012 05:19 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: Don't worry the facts will come out at trial...
oh that's right there's not even going to be one.
funny how we have this constitution and laws that dont force defendants to go through a potentially bankrupting trial when there is not even enough evidence to convince a grand jury that the defendant did something wrong under greatly lessened evidentiary burdens.
i'm sure you (and the rest of the people who are upset about no indictment) knew more about the facts than the grand jury though. you are obviously omniscient and knew what evidence the prosecutor would present at trial better than the people the prosecutor actually presented the evidence to.
There's no evidence because the cops can do whatever the fuck they want with it. North America has as backwards ass justice system. A cop basicly has to snitch on another cop with a shit ton of evidence for anything to happen to the police officer.
yep, they sure hid the evidence in this case:
District Attorney Janet DiFiore, who referred to the shooting as a tragedy, said Thursday that the grand jury heard from 42 witnesses, including Police Officer Anthony Carelli, who fired the fatal shots.
Why are you so nieve? You think an honest unbiased investigation is going on right now? Any witnesses who don't corroborate the cops story are going to have their statement thrown out. The department will do anything and everything to put the blame somewhere else or come up with some bogus self defense story. Your telling me multiple officers cant detain a 68 year old man without lethal force? You must be family or something the way your defending these guys.
not defending them. i dont know what happened, so i dont make uneducated opinions about whether they are guilty or not. i leave that up to the justice system, including grand juries. when i read posts like yours, i say "bullshit" because you have no basis for your statements other than your own prejudice.
edit: and please, when you want to insult someone's intelligence and call them naive, at least do it without having multiple spelling and grammar errors in your insult. it just makes you look silly.
Wow you seem too robotic to even be human. Keep placing your faith in a justice system that has failed us multiple times in the same situation. I'm envious of you, the world you live in seems way nicer then reality.
On May 07 2012 05:19 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: Don't worry the facts will come out at trial...
oh that's right there's not even going to be one.
funny how we have this constitution and laws that dont force defendants to go through a potentially bankrupting trial when there is not even enough evidence to convince a grand jury that the defendant did something wrong under greatly lessened evidentiary burdens.
i'm sure you (and the rest of the people who are upset about no indictment) knew more about the facts than the grand jury though. you are obviously omniscient and knew what evidence the prosecutor would present at trial better than the people the prosecutor actually presented the evidence to.
There's no evidence because the cops can do whatever the fuck they want with it. North America has as backwards ass justice system. A cop basicly has to snitch on another cop with a shit ton of evidence for anything to happen to the police officer.
yep, they sure hid the evidence in this case:
District Attorney Janet DiFiore, who referred to the shooting as a tragedy, said Thursday that the grand jury heard from 42 witnesses, including Police Officer Anthony Carelli, who fired the fatal shots.
Why are you so nieve? You think an honest unbiased investigation is going on right now? Any witnesses who don't corroborate the cops story are going to have their statement thrown out. The department will do anything and everything to put the blame somewhere else or come up with some bogus self defense story. Your telling me multiple officers cant detain a 68 year old man without lethal force? You must be family or something the way your defending these guys.
not defending them. i dont know what happened, so i dont make uneducated opinions about whether they are guilty or not. i leave that up to the justice system, including grand juries. when i read posts like yours, i say "bullshit" because you have no basis for your statements other than your own prejudice.
edit: and please, when you want to insult someone's intelligence and call them naive, at least do it without having multiple spelling and grammar errors in your insult. it just makes you look silly.
Your faith is well placed. No one in the justice system has any external incentives other than to see law prevail. [/sarcasm]
it certainly has its flaws. yet, i choose to trust it more than uninformed opinions in this forum.
Skepticism is what (should) keep law enforcement and our legal system honest. Everyone has a right to ask questions, and they're simply waiting to be answered as more facts come out. I certainly don't think that involves endorsing (a strawman) lynching and vigilante justice.
Ugh, I really do expect too much from you guys sometimes. I'm glad there are a few people that are rational and don't fall prey to the immediately-jump-to-conclusions knee-jerk-reactionary style news that we get spoon fed nowadays.