Another cop shooting

[GarfieldtheCat]

So because Wilson was not indicted that means the system is corrupt? The GJ heard ALL of the evidence available and determined that a crime did not occur. Isn't that the way the system is supposed to work? Just because the outcome is not what you wanted, doesn't mean the system is corrupt or broken. If he had been indicted, I'm sure Wilson supporters would be upset, but that doesn't mean the system didn't work.

- Merg

Are you a paid police shill, or do you have family that are cops so you feel you have to defend everything every cop ever does?

That is not the way it works, and you know it (or you are totally ignorant). A GJ is to determine probably cause, not guilt or innocence. That's all. When you have a bunch of people saying different things, that sure seems like there is a disagreement between the two parties.

And you, as usual, ignore how DA's in many case are in bed with the police, so they intentionally don't seek charges, such as this case. You want to deny that this doesn't happen a lot?

How do you explain letting the potential defendant (Officer Wilson) testify with basically no cross-examination? It's like you and me having a fight, and then the police asks me for my side of the story, and totally takes it at face value, and never get your side, or even give you the chance to rebut what I said. Why would he not lie if he killed someone? Why wouldn't he protect himself? The DA set this up from the beginning to make sure he got off, and it worked.

How do you explain the disparity in testimony between everyone? If there is a question about it, seems like a real trial is appropriate, wouldn't you say?

And lets not forget that this DA is totally and openly biased towards cops. Do you deny that? He wouldn't even indict cops after they were found to have lied about killing a couple of people at GJ testimony. The DA's response when asked about those Yeah, would you care to explain why cops that lie to a GJ aren't prosecuted? Answer: They are cops, cops aren't punished.

You can read about the DA here: Link

In 2001, two undercover drug officers from Dellwood shot and killed two men on the parking lot of a Jack in the Box in north St. Louis County. The officers said the suspects, who had prior felony convictions for drug and assault offenses, tried to escape arrest and then drove toward the officers.

A subsequent federal investigation showed that the men were unarmed and that their car had not moved forward when the officers fired 21 shots and killed the suspects, Earl Murray and Ronald Beasley. The probe, however, also concluded that because the officers feared for their safety, the shootings were justified.

McCulloch didn’t prosecute the officers. He specifically drew the ire of defense lawyers and protesters, who had been holding demonstrations and threatened to block Highway 40,when he said of Murray and Beasley, “These guys were bums.”

Yeah, totally unbiased DA, wouldn't you say? Since you are all for police being held accountable, I'm am sure you would agree that the cops should have been tried for perjury, correct? They clearly lied, and the DA didn't care, the black men were bums....so it was OK.

You think "punishment" for beating the crap out of an innocent woman is resigning, wow. You claim that police need to be help to the law, then totally allow them to get away with crimes that would put us in jail. The CHP office is free to get a new job, and doesn't have to disclose anything, and the CHP most likely can't mention it either. So that CHP cop will soon be able to beat up other people by next year. That's your idea of police justice? Really?

Regarding this case, the SC trooper may end up getting away with it, since the solicitor is imposing a 9 month delay, probably to let everyone forget about it. Gotta protect each other no matter what right?

In fact, this is similar to the Ferguson shooting. If we didn't have the dashboard video, it would be the cops word (which we have on video as well, outright lying to the investigators - so much for cops not lying again, right?) against the innocent man's work. The cops would portray him as a thug (just like they did Brown), and everyone would blindly accept the cops version, and no charges filed. Sound familiar? Do you deny that this is the most likely outcome if there hadn't been video? Black thug assaulting fine white officer, just doing his job?

 

[The Merg]

Are you a paid police shill, or do you have family that are cops so you feel you have to defend everything every cop ever does?

I have not defended everything that every cop ever does and I won't.

That is not the way it works, and you know it (or you are totally ignorant). A GJ is to determine probably cause, not guilt or innocence. That's all. When you have a bunch of people saying different things, that sure seems like there is a disagreement between the two parties.

I assume you mean probable cause. Just because you have conflicting information, doesn't mean that you need to have a trial. You can weigh that conflicting information to determine if there is probable cause. An officer does to the scene of a domestic and hears a version of events from one party and then the other. Those stories can be completely different, but based on other information, the officer might determine that there is probable cause to make an arrest or might determine that there is not probable cause. Just because there are differing points of view doesn't meant that there has to be a trial.

And you, as usual, ignore how DA's in many case are in bed with the police, so they intentionally don't seek charges, such as this case. You want to deny that this doesn't happen a lot?

I don't know this. I'm sure there are plenty of DA's that cops like to work with and plenty that they don't. I know a few prosecutors that will bend over backwards to work out minimal plea agreements with defense attorneys.

How do you explain letting the potential defendant (Officer Wilson) testify with basically no cross-examination? It's like you and me having a fight, and then the police asks me for my side of the story, and totally takes it at face value, and never get your side, or even give you the chance to rebut what I said. Why would he not lie if he killed someone? Why wouldn't he protect himself? The DA set this up from the beginning to make sure he got off, and it worked.

There is no cross-examination at a GJ hearing. And in many places, the defendant has to right to testify in front of the GJ. The DA still presented the evidence that could be considered incriminating to the GJ. They weighed both sides and determined there was not probable cause.

How do you explain the disparity in testimony between everyone? If there is a question about it, seems like a real trial is appropriate, wouldn't you say?

Just because there is a disparity in what people say, does not mean that a trial is appropriate. See my example above about when an officer responds to a domestic call.

And lets not forget that this DA is totally and openly biased towards cops. Do you deny that? He wouldn't even indict cops after they were found to have lied about killing a couple of people at GJ testimony. The DA's response when asked about those Yeah, would you care to explain why cops that lie to a GJ aren't prosecuted? Answer: They are cops, cops aren't punished.

Did you miss this part that you quote as to the results of the Federal investigation?

A subsequent federal investigation showed that the men were unarmed and that their car had not moved forward when the officers fired 21 shots and killed the suspects, Earl Murray and Ronald Beasley. The probe, however, also concluded that because the officers feared for their safety, the shootings were justified.

Yeah, totally unbiased DA, wouldn't you say? Since you are all for police being held accountable, I'm am sure you would agree that the cops should have been tried for perjury, correct? They clearly lied, and the DA didn't care, the black men were bums....so it was OK.

Did they testify to that on the stand, under oath? I don't know as it doesn't say if that actually went to trial, but I don't think it did. If not, you can't try them for perjury. However, if they lied, their department should punish them.

You think "punishment" for beating the crap out of an innocent woman is resigning, wow. You claim that police need to be help to the law, then totally allow them to get away with crimes that would put us in jail. The CHP office is free to get a new job, and doesn't have to disclose anything, and the CHP most likely can't mention it either. So that CHP cop will soon be able to beat up other people by next year. That's your idea of police justice? Really?

That's not what I said. I stated that the courts have ruled that excessive force is a civil rights issue and is not deemed as criminal. In this case, as part of the civil suit, the CHP officer agreed to resign. If he tries to get hired somewhere else, he'll need to disclose that he worked at his previous employer and the new department will be able to get his full work history, which would include this accusation of excessive force as well as the resulting civil suit.

Regarding this case, the SC trooper may end up getting away with it, since the solicitor is imposing a 9 month delay, probably to let everyone forget about it. Gotta protect each other no matter what right?

This was a bad shoot. I can't tell you what the solicitor is thinking by imposing the delay.

In fact, this is similar to the Ferguson shooting. If we didn't have the dashboard video, it would be the cops word (which we have on video as well, outright lying to the investigators - so much for cops not lying again, right?) against the innocent man's work. The cops would portray him as a thug (just like they did Brown), and everyone would blindly accept the cops version, and no charges filed. Sound familiar? Do you deny that this is the most likely outcome if there hadn't been video? Black thug assaulting fine white officer, just doing his job?

I didn't say that cops don't lie. Everyone lies. As soon as his lie was shown, he was fired from the department. He was also charged criminally. As for the cops portraying the victim as a thug, once again, you are just making things up as you have no idea what would have happened if there was no video. We don't know if there were other witnesses. I do deny that would have been the most likely outcome as I don't know enough about the circumstances involved (and neither do you). Is it a possibility? Sure, anythying is possible, but none of us know the answer to that one.

- Merg

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

So basically, listen to what the cops say, treat it as gospel, and if anyone says otherwise, well, believe the cops and don't charge. Gotcha. Man, that's justice you can believe in. Just like resignation is a punishment. Awesome.

BTW, in another instance of police not policing their own, the cops that almost killed two women during the LAPD Dorner manhunt? They never got punished. YOu remember they shot at two women in a car that was nothing like Dorner's car, and clearly they were two women, and the cops shot at them over 100 times.

Chief said suspension wasn't needed, he just sent them back for more training.

Link

The officers faced suspension or even firing, but police chief Charlie Beck elected instead to let them all return to duty once they undergo some additional training, according to a memo obtained by the AP. The officers have not been named, so you'll probably never know if the guy writing your speeding ticket once shot at an innocent senior citizen.

You were saying something about punishment for police?

Shortly after the women were mistaken for Dorner, another police officer shot at another pickup truck. This one was black Honda Ridgeline. Brian McGee drove his cruiser into the truck and opened fire three times. The man inside the truck was not hit, but he sustained back and head injuries. The city of Torrance, where the incident took place, gave him $20,000 to replace his truck which was, again, a black Honda Ridgeline and not a gray Nissan Titan.

Last month, prosecutors found that the officer was "justified in using force to stop the vehicle and in discharging his firearm" and declined to press charges.

"Although mistaken," the district attorney's report said, "McGee honestly and reasonably believed that Dorner was driving the truck.

You were saying something about DA's not being in bed with the police? Another clear instance of shooting an innocent man, but he made in honest mistake. Riiiiight.

Corruption at it best and you defend it. Awesome. Care to comment on these "few bad apples"? Tell us it was all justified and good?

Oh, no comment on the Ferguson DA, with his racist comment? And how he wouldn't prosecute the officers? Kind of shows his discrimination doesn't it?

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Merg - the head of the NAtional Bar association calls out (like many others, all who you apparently dismiss) the Ferguson DA for bias and basically throwing the GJ.

Link

Some choice quotes:

Typically a defendant doesn’t testify in that proceeding because the prosecutor’s main goal as the advocate for the state is to administer justice and to get a charge, otherwise he wouldn’t be bringing it before the grand jury.”

Hmmm....not what happened. They let the potential defendant tell his side, letting him claim anything without cross-examination. Wilson could totally lie, but no one would be able to call him out. Funny how that is only allowed when it's a cop.

I’ve talked to individuals that have been prosecutors for years and they say only under circumstances when there is an assurance that the prosecutor is not going to go after the defense witness or that they’re not going to put them in a position where they would give up their right that they feel comfortable to go in the room

Again, the Ferguson DA set it up to allow him to get off.

As a cop apologist who supposedly believes in justice, don't know why you think this is OK. Talk about different justice for cops versus blacks. IF Wilson is innocent, a trial would show that, so why are you and others so against finding out all the facts in a court of law? Isn't that what you claim to support?

I wonder if the DA ever let any potential black defendants testify in front of a GJ to prove their innocent? Wanna bet it never happened? I bet it never did, especially since alleged black criminals are scum according to the DA.

White cop? Step up and tell your story, no one will call BS, no cross-exam to see if he is lying, just a nice chance to portray a dead kid as "Hulk Hogan" and say it wasn't his fault.

If the SC cop didn't have video to prove his lying, you know it would have been Ferguson all over. White cops word versus a thug. Case closed, no charges.

 

[The Merg]

So basically, listen to what the cops say, treat it as gospel, and if anyone says otherwise, well, believe the cops and don't charge. Gotcha. Man, that's justice you can believe in. Just like resignation is a punishment. Awesome.

I never said that. And I never said that resignation was punishment. I stated that the courts could not do anything in that case with regards to it criminally.

BTW, in another instance of police not policing their own, the cops that almost killed two women during the LAPD Dorner manhunt? They never got punished. YOu remember they shot at two women in a car that was nothing like Dorner's car, and clearly they were two women, and the cops shot at them over 100 times.

Chief said suspension wasn't needed, he just sent them back for more training.

Link

You were saying something about punishment for police?

Is the system perfect? No. I know it's not. No system is. I never admitted it was.

You were saying something about DA's not being in bed with the police? Another clear instance of shooting an innocent man, but he made in honest mistake. Riiiiight.

Corruption at it best and you defend it. Awesome. Care to comment on these "few bad apples"? Tell us it was all justified and good?

Oh, no comment on the Ferguson DA, with his racist comment? And how he wouldn't prosecute the officers? Kind of shows his discrimination doesn't it?

When did I defend corruption? Please quote me where I said that a cop that commits a crime should get away with it. And what racist comments were you referring to by the Ferguson DA? That he referred to the two guys as bums? How in the world is that racist? Reading about their criminal history, they were bums and criminals.

- Merg

 

[The Merg]

Merg - the head of the NAtional Bar association calls out (like many others, all who you apparently dismiss) the Ferguson DA for bias and basically throwing the GJ.

Link

You also left out this choice quote then:

I would say to people, don’t second-guess the grand jury.

Hmmm....not what happened. They let the potential defendant tell his side, letting him claim anything without cross-examination. Wilson could totally lie, but no one would be able to call him out. Funny how that is only allowed when it's a cop.

There are many places where a defendant can testify in front of a grand jury and in some places they have the absolute right to do so.

For example, here is one excerpt of a case from a GJ proceeding:

The Grand Jury presentation is all but completely controlled by the District Attorney when it comes to what is and is not presented to the jurors. There is no judge and the defense attorney has no right to speak or argue on behalf of his or her client. The Defendant does however have the right to testify on his own behalf and to offer witnesses (the jurors may vote on whether they want to hear from the defense witnesses). It is rare for a defendant to testify as his attorney does not conduct the questioning and there is no judge to rule on objections. But there are the rare occasions in which a defendant testifies before the Grand Jury. It is a strategic decision that can make or break a case.

Recently our firm was retained to represent a client who was charged with possession of a loaded firearm found in the trunk of a car parked in his driveway. The problem was that it wasn’t his gun. He was arrested and charged with a Class C Violent Felony where if convicted he faced a mandatory state prison sentence of 3.5 years and a maximum of 15 years. Robert Schalk from our firm handled the case for this client and after meeting with him determined that a defense of temporary lawful possession of a weapon was warranted. However, the only way to immediately raise this defense was for the defendant to testify in the Grand Jury and to offer a witness. It was the type of calculated risk that is sometimes necessary in the high stakes game of criminal defense. The defendant and the witness both testified, as did numerous police officers for the prosecution. When it was all said and done the Grand Jury saw the gun case for what it was – an honest mistake, a lapse in judgment and most importantly NOT a crime. All of the weapons charges were dismissed against our client. The jury’s decision was based almost entirely on the defendant’s ability to articulate his side of the events to the Grand Jury.

Making the decision to testify before a Grand Jury is not easy. It comes with enormous risk. But success in the Grand Jury can lead to a dismissal of the charges, and there is no better result in the criminal justice system. It is important to retain an experienced criminal defense attorney who can evaluate the facts of the case, possible defenses and knows what it takes to testify effectively in the Grand Jury.

As a cop apologist who supposedly believes in justice, don't know why you think this is OK. Talk about different justice for cops versus blacks. IF Wilson is innocent, a trial would show that, so why are you and others so against finding out all the facts in a court of law? Isn't that what you claim to support?

I find it funny how it's automatically cops versus blacks. Why not say cops versus criminal defendants? While it is not usual for a defendant to testify at a GJ hearing, it's not unheard of either.

I wonder if the DA ever let any potential black defendants testify in front of a GJ to prove their innocent? Wanna bet it never happened? I bet it never did, especially since alleged black criminals are scum according to the DA.

Not sure what the law is in MO reference testifying in front of GJ, but if the defendant has a right to do so, the DA can't prevent it if they request it. And once again, where did he say black criminals are scum? Just because he refers to a couple of criminals as bums and they happen to be black, is not the same thing.

White cop? Step up and tell your story, no one will call BS, no cross-exam to see if he is lying, just a nice chance to portray a dead kid as "Hulk Hogan" and say it wasn't his fault.

There is no cross-examination in a GJ hearing in that the defense cannot cross exam witnesses.. However, if the defense is testifying there, the prosecutor is the one asking the questions. They are for all purposes performing a de facto cross examination. Anything the defendant says can be used against them. If they say something that contradicts the evidence or they are caught in a lie, the GJ will see that and can take that into account.

If the SC cop didn't have video to prove his lying, you know it would have been Ferguson all over. White cops word versus a thug. Case closed, no charges.

Yup. You know this for a fact, don't you? That's because all cops are racist, right? [/s]

- Merg

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

You keep saying it's OK, believe the cops, they rarely lie, etc, etc, etc. Nice fantasy.

But the problem is, what you think isn't true. I've pointed out many cases of cops getting away with things that would put us in jail, police chiefs not punishing cops, and cases of outright killing people and other forms of abuse.

At some point, you need to realize that what you think isn't reality. It's nice to think and want Congress to accurately work together, but the reality is that they don't. Just like cops and DA's very rarely punish fellow cops.

Your continued instance and tapdancing around all of these incidents just shows you really don't want to accept that there is a real problem with police abuse and effective immunity from committing criminal acts.Don't know why you don't admit it.

There have been, what? at least 20 police abuse incidents mentioned here by me or others in the past couple of months. In all of those cases, multiple officers broke the law. Multiple officers all stoop around and did nothing to stop these incidents, and no one reported anything unusual.

I don't know about you, but when we see all these cases and the cops themselves are like...nothing to see here, that says something is wrong. Hell, in several cases, the officers all lied to cover it up!!! So much for a few bad apples, so much for police policing themselves. It's more like probably 10% are bad, and 50-70% won't stop anyone doing something wrong, not report their brother officer. That doesn't leave much for anyone to do the right thing.

Yet you continue to preach how the police need to be help accountable, when they really aren't. I wonder why? Why are you OK with police getting away with killing people, assault, and other crimes? Because time and time again, that is what happens.

If you support cops, you should be wanting these cops to be punished, and wanting other cops to report criminal activity, because it really doesn't happen.

Look at the LAPD incident....clear cut case of being idiots...shooting at two women 100+ times...punishment? nothing. And that is the norm for cops. Assault a woman on the freeway? Resign with no charges. Shoot someone? Tell your side with no cross exam so you can lie as much as you like, and no one will call you out on it.

Like I said, must be awesome to be a cop and get all those "get out of jail free" cards given to them. If we as non-cops did that, we would be lucky to be in jail, and if unlucky be int he morgue. Talk about double-standards.

 

[bshole]

You keep saying it's OK, believe the cops, they rarely lie, etc, etc, etc. Nice fantasy.

What does law enforcement say about cops lying?

Peter Keane, a former San Francisco Police commissioner, wrote an article in The San Francisco Chronicle decrying a police culture that treats lying as the norm: “Police officer perjury in court to justify illegal dope searches is commonplace. One of the dirty little not-so-secret secrets of the criminal justice system is undercover narcotics officers intentionally lying under oath. It is a perversion of the American justice system that strikes directly at the rule of law. Yet it is the routine way of doing business in courtrooms everywhere in America.”

The New York City Police Department is not exempt from this critique. In 2011, hundreds of drug cases were dismissed after several police officers were accused of mishandling evidence. That year, Justice Gustin L. Reichbach of the State Supreme Court in Brooklyn condemned a widespread culture of lying and corruption in the department’s drug enforcement units. “I thought I was not naïve,” he said when announcing a guilty verdict involving a police detective who had planted crack cocaine on a pair of suspects. “But even this court was shocked, not only by the seeming pervasive scope of misconduct but even more distressingly by the seeming casualness by which such conduct is employed.”

Remarkably, New York City officers have been found to engage in patterns of deceit in cases involving charges as minor as trespass. In September it was reported that the Bronx district attorney’s office was so alarmed by police lying that it decided to stop prosecuting people who were stopped and arrested for trespassing at public housing projects, unless prosecutors first interviewed the arresting officer to ensure the arrest was actually warranted. Jeannette Rucker, the chief of arraignments for the Bronx district attorney, explained in a letter that it had become apparent that the police were arresting people even when there was convincing evidence that they were innocent. To justify the arrests, Ms. Rucker claimed, police officers provided false written statements, and in depositions, the arresting officers gave false testimony.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/o...icers-lie-under-oath.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[JEDIYoda]

What does law enforcement say about cops lying?






http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/o...icers-lie-under-oath.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

What do the cops say -- we are just doing our job.....
I feared for my life......
Give me that cell phone it has recorded evidence on it.....
Well it looked like a gun...even if it was a banana......or the nozzle of a garden hose......
Well even a 6 year old can point and accurately shoot a gun......

etc,,,

 

[highland145]

FYI

SC pays victim $285,000 in trooper traffic stop shooting

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — South Carolina’s insurance is paying $285,000 to an unarmed man who was shot during a traffic stop by a state trooper now facing a criminal charge.

The state Insurance Reserve Fund says the settlement was reached in October, just a month after the shooting.

Authorities released a video of trooper Sean Groubert shooting Levar Jones just moments after he got out of his truck at a Columbia gas station. Groubert says he was pulling Jones over for a seatbelt violation. The video shows the shooting happened as Levar reached back into his truck to get his license.

Groubert was fired and is awaiting trial on a charge of aggravated assault and battery.

Jones is recovering from the shooting.