|
Post by Kit Walker on Dec 23, 2010 23:30:01 GMT -5
Which shows someone who had a gun pointed at him and still tried to start a fight. How about you actually try to make an argument for once? I'd hardly call asking for a warrant "starting a fight" I do point out that one doesn't need a warrant when the home owner asks the officers to enter the house. That said, it does appear that Officer Crisman overstepped his bounds, and has reportedly been charged with second degree murder. Link to the police report on the fatal incident: vvoice.vo.llnwd.net/e14/5665291.0.pdfLink to a recent news article: blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2010/11/richard_chrisman_phoenix_police_department.phpTO ABOVEATHLETICS: Do you not fact check the shit you say? The reason the police officer hasn't been executed yet is because the incident happened TWO FUCKING MONTHS AGO. Coming up on three, but fuck all man, give the wheels of justice time to turn. He's been arraigned on charges of second degree murder but the man's god damned trial hasn't even begun yet, much less a conviction turned in, sentencing decided, the appeals process completed, et al. Think McFly! And now for something completely different: A Texas Police Officer faces life in prison for two counts of manslaughter: www.woai.com/news/local/story/San-Antonio-police-officer-found-guilty-of/tr0tSzWTRkWgFn2XGQnY5w.cspx
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Dec 23, 2010 23:33:03 GMT -5
Oh look, AA, not one, but TWO police officers receiving just punishment for their crimes - one is taking longer due to the fact that they're currently in the middle of legal process, same as any civilian would be.
Your criteria has been met. You can shut up now.
If you don't, I will hold this over your head until you do.
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Dec 23, 2010 23:36:40 GMT -5
Actually AA I-- I'm sorry but this computer has been taken a hold of by the Georgia State Police Task Force. Nothing further is to be said on the subject of the police officers murdering innocent civilians. Cease and desist immediately. That is all. Epic win, Shane. ;D I thought it was a stroke of genius myself. At any rate. Yes. The legal system takes a LONG TIME. There are PROBLEMS with the legal system. YES. But to say that the cops are getting off scot free when they break the law is WRONG factually and everything else. We have had local cops here get suspended without pay for dealing drugs on the side (drugs they have confiscated from drug dealers no less!) we have had local cops caught on rape charges, etc., to say they don't get charged and sent to jail themselves is stupid on many levels.
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Dec 23, 2010 23:43:52 GMT -5
I also point out that, unless he takes a ridiculously generous plea deal, IF this guy gets off it is because a jury sees doubt in his guilt. Which would suck, but it is the way the system needs to work.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Dec 23, 2010 23:44:30 GMT -5
One single case anywhere of a police officer receiving the maximum penalty (either death or life imprisonment) for an on-duty murder. EDIT: This is a "direct question" to John Erickson First, find an example of a single on-duty murder that absolutely cannot be viewed as self defense. Officer Troy Meade shot a middle-aged, unarmed, drunk driver who was not on the road and not threatening anyone, with two deadly weapons, murdering him. This was after several minutes of pointless provocation, and immediately after he said 'this has gone long enough, it's time to end this'! He was let off by a jury, after claiming that he saw reverse lights turn on in the car, which was entirely boxed in. Instead of taking the option of walking away and waiting for him to sleep, the officer chose to murder the victim. www.heraldnet.com/article/20100426/NEWS01/100429882Other cases include the murders of Michael Schwerner, James Chaney and Andrew Goodman. Their events up to their deaths at the hand of the local police (for being civil rights workers) was accurately portrayed in the movie Mississipi Burning, which also invented a completely fictional account of a supposed FBI investigation which didn't occur. Fred Hampton was also murdered by police; the FBI shot him repeatedly in his sleep after one of their agents drugged him.
|
|
|
Post by John E on Dec 23, 2010 23:47:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Dec 23, 2010 23:50:39 GMT -5
Still doesn't prove a mass conspiracy or that all cops are psychos, though. ltfred's example: Reading through it however does not fit the criteria for absolutely cannot be seen as self-defense.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Dec 23, 2010 23:58:56 GMT -5
In my home state, a whole swathe of officers (and politicians) were jailed for a decades-long corruption, drug-importing, election-rigging, anti-civil-rights ring run out of the head of the police department's office. After an inquiry called the Fitzgerald Inquiry, officers like Terry Lewis were jailed for decades, and the premier only escaped justice by a rigged jury. This was back in 1987-89. ltfred's example: Reading through it however does not fit the criteria for absolutely cannot be seen as self-defense. That's an accurate description of the standard for police officers in court; 100% proof that there are no circumstance, no matter small, that might explain or lessen the wrong of the police, or they're totally off. For regular people, self-defence would actually need to be proven, since the burden of proof is always on the claimant, but since the accused was a police officer, that 1% doubt does create total innocence in the mind of the law. That's the usual, modern, standard. A usual person would have needed to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the a) the reverse lights were on, b) that the car was capable of imminently reversing and hurting people, c) there was no other way to avoid serious injury but to shoot and that d) the officer had not provoked the victim into action in the first place. As none of these things were proven, a regular person would have been found guilty. A 1% chance is enough for police, however. This is indeed true. It does suggest that police are held to a lower standard.
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Dec 24, 2010 2:09:29 GMT -5
A normal person and a police officer would have to both prove it. Besides, blame the jury, not the person who did it for getting off scot free.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is very powerful. Like I said, the legal system isn't perfect but no system is, now is it?
By all means, I think the guy should have been proven guilty. But I was neither judge nor jury during that time, now was I?
I would have doubted that what he said was true. There are so many things I would have demanded to see it isn't even funny. But that's me being an intelligent person who knows how things go. People in juries are not often the smartest people or the most knowledgeable and dont' know how to process evidence given to them.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Dec 24, 2010 2:13:50 GMT -5
A normal person and a police officer would have to both prove it. Besides, blame the jury, not the person who did it for getting off scot free. Beyond a reasonable doubt is very powerful. Like I said, the legal system isn't perfect but no system is, now is it? By all means, I think the guy should have been proven guilty. But I was neither judge nor jury during that time, now was I? I would have doubted that what he said was true. There are so many things I would have demanded to see it isn't even funny. But that's me being an intelligent person who knows how things go. People in juries are not often the smartest people or the most knowledgeable and dont' know how to process evidence given to them. He didn't get off on reasonable doubt. Dozens of people saw him shoot the guy; there isn't any reasonable doubt that he did it. There is, however, reasonable doubt that he did it in self-defence. Defences are things that the defendent have to prove apply, which IMO he did not. The defendent must prove beyond 'reasonable doubt' (or beyond whatever standard applies) that he acted in self-defence, not the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Dec 24, 2010 2:23:21 GMT -5
Yes yes yes. I know. Prove beyond a reasonable doubt he did it in self-defense. Yes. A self-defense plea is hard to pin guilty on. One of the hardest, in fact.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Dec 24, 2010 15:22:48 GMT -5
Just an FYI for anyone who missed it: AA got banned for a month yesterday, so he'll probably be a bit slow in replying to those so engaged.
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Dec 24, 2010 15:41:57 GMT -5
He's on a month ban, as of yesterday. Documented and everything.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Dec 24, 2010 17:20:16 GMT -5
lol
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Dec 24, 2010 18:52:03 GMT -5
Yeah, I loled. Not going to lie.
|
|