|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 30 2015 02:33 Plansix wrote:
Wait, they still haven't provided probable cause for the arrest? What a fucking joke.
Yeah Hannity had racist ass Mark Fuhrman on his show speculating about potential probable causes "he could of been ditching drugs, he could of instigated an altercation" and they had to cut the interview because the man's lawyer kept interrupting saying we had the police's probable cause 'report' and there just wasn't a probable cause on it. Well other than making eye contact with an officer which is certainly an arrestable offense for some people. Of course it's not legal...
So yes of the little things we know (because the police are keeping it secret), according to the police's own records they didn't have a legal reason to arrest him in the first place. I can assure you if it's weeks later when they finally come up with a legitimate reason for arrest, no rational person will believe them.
Quick recap: We know we have a an illegal arrest, a person who sustained fatal injuries while in police custody from that illegal arrest. One would think that would be enough to stop paying the officers who couldn't explain why they arrested him or how he got fatally injured, but nope they are still on the payroll...
|
Innocent until proven guilty? He's in a union? There's a clear process following every other police related death and this is no different?
There are photos and rumors going around social media about the guy having an insurance settlement quite recently and that he may have died due to complications with that.
Transparency should be a priority for all involved. The Baltimore police are having a news conference that I'll post about if something happens.
|
On April 30 2015 03:01 Sermokala wrote:
Innocent until proven guilty? He's in a union? There's a clear process following every other police related death and this is no different?
That would be fine if there wasn't the general distrust of the police. People at my job have been fired pretty fast for less. And no one died due to injuries that are still not explained. I will be in awe if someone gets charged or they provide a reasonable cause for that man being arrested.
|
On April 30 2015 03:01 Sermokala wrote:
Innocent until proven guilty? He's in a union? There's a clear process following every other police related death and this is no different?
Didn't stop them from firing the SC officer before he went to trial. I don't see a lot of difference regarding it being obvious the police screwed up. The police have already admitted to not having a reason for the arrest in the first place, and that they were supposed to secure their prisoner and didn't. They were supposed to call for medical help and didn't. If that's not enough for the union or the PD that's on them, that has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty.
There are photos and rumors going around social media about the guy having an insurance settlement quite recently and that he may have died due to complications with that.
Typical...
|
On April 30 2015 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 03:01 Sermokala wrote:
Innocent until proven guilty? He's in a union? There's a clear process following every other police related death and this is no different? Didn't stop them from firing the SC officer before he went to trial. I don't see a lot of difference regarding it being obvious the police screwed up. The police have already admitted to not having a reason for the arrest in the first place, and that they were supposed to secure their prisoner and didn't. They were supposed to call for medical help and didn't. If that's not enough for the union or the PD that's on them, that has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty.
The sc situation was a lot more cut and dry with a single officer caught on tape clearly braking procedure. This Baltimore case had a lot more people who might be responsible for his death in a number of waves. And that's where the lengthy investigation and union comes in.
|
On April 30 2015 03:23 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 03:01 Sermokala wrote:
Innocent until proven guilty? He's in a union? There's a clear process following every other police related death and this is no different? Didn't stop them from firing the SC officer before he went to trial. I don't see a lot of difference regarding it being obvious the police screwed up. The police have already admitted to not having a reason for the arrest in the first place, and that they were supposed to secure their prisoner and didn't. They were supposed to call for medical help and didn't. If that's not enough for the union or the PD that's on them, that has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty. The sc situation was a lot more cut and dry with a single officer caught on tape clearly braking procedure. This Baltimore case had a lot more people who might be responsible for his death in a number of waves. And that's where the lengthy investigation and union comes in.
1-6 suspects were police officers
#7 is a van.
Pretty sure we have an idea of who did it. It's just a question of which one is "guiltiest".
|
On April 30 2015 03:23 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 03:01 Sermokala wrote:
Innocent until proven guilty? He's in a union? There's a clear process following every other police related death and this is no different? Didn't stop them from firing the SC officer before he went to trial. I don't see a lot of difference regarding it being obvious the police screwed up. The police have already admitted to not having a reason for the arrest in the first place, and that they were supposed to secure their prisoner and didn't. They were supposed to call for medical help and didn't. If that's not enough for the union or the PD that's on them, that has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty. The sc situation was a lot more cut and dry with a single officer caught on tape clearly braking procedure. This Baltimore case had a lot more people who might be responsible for his death in a number of waves. And that's where the lengthy investigation and union comes in.
Can you even imagine a scenario where the breaking of procedure they have admitted to breaking already under the known circumstances that is acceptable for an officer?
|
On April 30 2015 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 03:23 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 03:01 Sermokala wrote:
Innocent until proven guilty? He's in a union? There's a clear process following every other police related death and this is no different? Didn't stop them from firing the SC officer before he went to trial. I don't see a lot of difference regarding it being obvious the police screwed up. The police have already admitted to not having a reason for the arrest in the first place, and that they were supposed to secure their prisoner and didn't. They were supposed to call for medical help and didn't. If that's not enough for the union or the PD that's on them, that has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty. The sc situation was a lot more cut and dry with a single officer caught on tape clearly braking procedure. This Baltimore case had a lot more people who might be responsible for his death in a number of waves. And that's where the lengthy investigation and union comes in. Can you even imagine a scenario where the breaking of procedure they have admitted to breaking already under the known circumstances that is acceptable for an officer?
Literally 99% of all scenarios which aren't publicized?
|
I respect if the police department is contractually obligated to keep them on pay role during the investigation, but they should say that if they are. And make some sort of statement beyond "we are looking into the the problem that we very may have likely killed someone we shouldn't have even arrested. We will have answers soon, trust us."
|
On April 30 2015 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 03:23 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 03:01 Sermokala wrote:
Innocent until proven guilty? He's in a union? There's a clear process following every other police related death and this is no different? Didn't stop them from firing the SC officer before he went to trial. I don't see a lot of difference regarding it being obvious the police screwed up. The police have already admitted to not having a reason for the arrest in the first place, and that they were supposed to secure their prisoner and didn't. They were supposed to call for medical help and didn't. If that's not enough for the union or the PD that's on them, that has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty. The sc situation was a lot more cut and dry with a single officer caught on tape clearly braking procedure. This Baltimore case had a lot more people who might be responsible for his death in a number of waves. And that's where the lengthy investigation and union comes in. Can you even imagine a scenario where the breaking of procedure they have admitted to breaking already under the known circumstances that is acceptable for an officer?
There's a sharp difference between ignorance negligence and homicidal intent. If the departed resisted then all bets are off from them say putting a knee on the back neck to control him. Him falling or being thrown to the ground could have a host of honest mistakes made.
It's unrealistic to expect cops to be prepared for every medical condition that someone they meet might have and certainly can't trust that person to be honest all the time. Right now cops go to an Academy for 2 years and can take extra classes much like a teacher does. Maybe we should consider moving that up or at the least increasing post graduation first aid training.
|
On April 30 2015 03:28 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 03:23 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 03:01 Sermokala wrote:
Innocent until proven guilty? He's in a union? There's a clear process following every other police related death and this is no different? Didn't stop them from firing the SC officer before he went to trial. I don't see a lot of difference regarding it being obvious the police screwed up. The police have already admitted to not having a reason for the arrest in the first place, and that they were supposed to secure their prisoner and didn't. They were supposed to call for medical help and didn't. If that's not enough for the union or the PD that's on them, that has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty. The sc situation was a lot more cut and dry with a single officer caught on tape clearly braking procedure. This Baltimore case had a lot more people who might be responsible for his death in a number of waves. And that's where the lengthy investigation and union comes in. Can you even imagine a scenario where the breaking of procedure they have admitted to breaking already under the known circumstances that is acceptable for an officer? Literally 99% of all scenarios which aren't publicized?
So you would be fine if the police arrested you for no reason threw you in the back of a van and put leg restraints on you while you cried for help, then went back to driving around and then finally call for medical attention once your spine has been almost completely severed?
Because that's what we KNOW happened.
On April 30 2015 03:28 Plansix wrote:
I respect if the police department is contractually obligated to keep them on pay role during the investigation, but they should say that if they are. And make some sort of statement beyond "we are looking into the the problem that we very may have likely killed someone we shouldn't have even arrested. We will have answers soon, trust us."
You have to keep in mind the history of the department and investigations, also the same department who's custody he was in when he recieved fatal injuries is the same department that is investigating what they did wrong... As an example...
A lawyer for a black Baltimore police officer, who filed a complaint against a superior officer and others for ordering him to look at Ku Klux Klan Web sites, blasted city investigators for refusing to punish the officers involved in the incident and failing to release details of the probe.
Police Commissioner Frederick Bealefeld said the charges in the case had been sustained by the police department?s EEOC unit. (actually from a different article on the same site)
Clarke Ahlers, who represents Sgt. Kelvin Sewell, said he has made two written requests to the city’s Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, seeking the result of the investigation that ended with charges of discrimination, filing false reports and evidence tampering against four white homicide officers.
But representatives for the city’s community relations commission refused to release the details of the investigation conducted by the police department’s EEOC unit during a Friday meeting.
“The department has violated their own rules and regulations requiring that investigations be released to the complainant,” Ahlers said. “The words of zero tolerance in the department are pretty words, but their actions say they tolerate racism.”
Source
On April 30 2015 03:38 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 03:23 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 03:01 Sermokala wrote:
Innocent until proven guilty? He's in a union? There's a clear process following every other police related death and this is no different? Didn't stop them from firing the SC officer before he went to trial. I don't see a lot of difference regarding it being obvious the police screwed up. The police have already admitted to not having a reason for the arrest in the first place, and that they were supposed to secure their prisoner and didn't. They were supposed to call for medical help and didn't. If that's not enough for the union or the PD that's on them, that has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty. The sc situation was a lot more cut and dry with a single officer caught on tape clearly braking procedure. This Baltimore case had a lot more people who might be responsible for his death in a number of waves. And that's where the lengthy investigation and union comes in. Can you even imagine a scenario where the breaking of procedure they have admitted to breaking already under the known circumstances that is acceptable for an officer? There's a sharp difference between ignorance negligence and homicidal intent. If the departed resisted then all bets are off from them say putting a knee on the back neck to control him. Him falling or being thrown to the ground could have a host of honest mistakes made. It's unrealistic to expect cops to be prepared for every medical condition that someone they meet might have and certainly can't trust that person to be honest all the time. Right now cops go to an Academy for 2 years and can take extra classes much like a teacher does. Maybe we should consider moving that up or at the least increasing post graduation first aid training.
"Resisted" what? They had no reason to arrest him so he can't 'resist arrest'...? Constitution, Smonstitution right?
|
No I'm saying 99% of the time it doesn't matter because nobody is going to give a shit because there's no evidence and nobody is dead. Cops are paid thugs. We expect them to beat the shit out of people at this point.
|
On April 30 2015 03:38 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 03:23 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 03:01 Sermokala wrote:
Innocent until proven guilty? He's in a union? There's a clear process following every other police related death and this is no different? Didn't stop them from firing the SC officer before he went to trial. I don't see a lot of difference regarding it being obvious the police screwed up. The police have already admitted to not having a reason for the arrest in the first place, and that they were supposed to secure their prisoner and didn't. They were supposed to call for medical help and didn't. If that's not enough for the union or the PD that's on them, that has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty. The sc situation was a lot more cut and dry with a single officer caught on tape clearly braking procedure. This Baltimore case had a lot more people who might be responsible for his death in a number of waves. And that's where the lengthy investigation and union comes in. Can you even imagine a scenario where the breaking of procedure they have admitted to breaking already under the known circumstances that is acceptable for an officer? There's a sharp difference between ignorance negligence and homicidal intent. If the departed resisted then all bets are off from them say putting a knee on the back neck to control him. Him falling or being thrown to the ground could have a host of honest mistakes made. It's unrealistic to expect cops to be prepared for every medical condition that someone they meet might have and certainly can't trust that person to be honest all the time. Right now cops go to an Academy for 2 years and can take extra classes much like a teacher does. Maybe we should consider moving that up or at the least increasing post graduation first aid training.
If they arrested him and had him in custody, they are responsible for his well being. I am not sure how someone gets a broken spine and then dies of complications while in custody, or how that goes untreated. And I won't know because no is who does is releasing the information.
On April 30 2015 03:44 Jormundr wrote:
No I'm saying 99% of the time it doesn't matter because nobody is going to give a shit because there's no evidence and nobody is dead. Cops are paid thugs. We expect them to beat the shit out of people at this point.
This is a pile of BS. There are plenty of good cops in the US. More than terrible ones. But the terrible ones get the majority of the press because they are terrible and abuse the power granted to them.
|
On April 30 2015 03:38 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 03:23 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 03:01 Sermokala wrote:
Innocent until proven guilty? He's in a union? There's a clear process following every other police related death and this is no different? Didn't stop them from firing the SC officer before he went to trial. I don't see a lot of difference regarding it being obvious the police screwed up. The police have already admitted to not having a reason for the arrest in the first place, and that they were supposed to secure their prisoner and didn't. They were supposed to call for medical help and didn't. If that's not enough for the union or the PD that's on them, that has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty. The sc situation was a lot more cut and dry with a single officer caught on tape clearly braking procedure. This Baltimore case had a lot more people who might be responsible for his death in a number of waves. And that's where the lengthy investigation and union comes in. Can you even imagine a scenario where the breaking of procedure they have admitted to breaking already under the known circumstances that is acceptable for an officer? There's a sharp difference between ignorance negligence and homicidal intent. If the departed resisted then all bets are off from them say putting a knee on the back neck to control him. Him falling or being thrown to the ground could have a host of honest mistakes made. It's unrealistic to expect cops to be prepared for every medical condition that someone they meet might have and certainly can't trust that person to be honest all the time. Right now cops go to an Academy for 2 years and can take extra classes much like a teacher does. Maybe we should consider moving that up or at the least increasing post graduation first aid training.
Yes why would a man who has done nothing wrong, being arrested on no charge and thrown into the back of a van resist. He should sit there like a good little boy while they drive him off.
I don't know what is more disgusting, the out of control police or the people who keep defending them despite a new scandal showing up every week.
And you wonder why the victims (the poor/minorities) are not quietly waiting for due process and 'proper' investigation.
|
On April 30 2015 03:45 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 03:38 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 03:23 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 03:01 Sermokala wrote:
Innocent until proven guilty? He's in a union? There's a clear process following every other police related death and this is no different? Didn't stop them from firing the SC officer before he went to trial. I don't see a lot of difference regarding it being obvious the police screwed up. The police have already admitted to not having a reason for the arrest in the first place, and that they were supposed to secure their prisoner and didn't. They were supposed to call for medical help and didn't. If that's not enough for the union or the PD that's on them, that has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty. The sc situation was a lot more cut and dry with a single officer caught on tape clearly braking procedure. This Baltimore case had a lot more people who might be responsible for his death in a number of waves. And that's where the lengthy investigation and union comes in. Can you even imagine a scenario where the breaking of procedure they have admitted to breaking already under the known circumstances that is acceptable for an officer? There's a sharp difference between ignorance negligence and homicidal intent. If the departed resisted then all bets are off from them say putting a knee on the back neck to control him. Him falling or being thrown to the ground could have a host of honest mistakes made. It's unrealistic to expect cops to be prepared for every medical condition that someone they meet might have and certainly can't trust that person to be honest all the time. Right now cops go to an Academy for 2 years and can take extra classes much like a teacher does. Maybe we should consider moving that up or at the least increasing post graduation first aid training. If they arrested him and had him in custody, they are responsible for his well being. I am not sure how someone gets a broken spine and then dies of complications while in custody, or how that goes untreated. And I won't know because no is who does is releasing the information. Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 03:44 Jormundr wrote:
No I'm saying 99% of the time it doesn't matter because nobody is going to give a shit because there's no evidence and nobody is dead. Cops are paid thugs. We expect them to beat the shit out of people at this point. This is a pile of BS. There are plenty of good cops in the US. More than terrible ones. But the terrible ones get the majority of the press because they are terrible and abuse the power granted to them.
One of the working theories is that they gave him a "rough ride" after they put him in leg irons. Taking a sudden turn or slamming on brakes a couple times would throw you around the back of the van.
Possible explanation from Daily Mail
|
If you run away when cops look at you or talk to you that's enough to detain and search you. They don't need to put handcuffs on you to detain you on suspicion. If you resist them then it's a petty crime or a violation of paroles and they can areas you for what then is no reason. If you see a guy wearing a heavy coat and he happens to have a gun or drugs your a resting him before you have cause if he resists.
|
On April 30 2015 03:50 Sermokala wrote:
If you run away when cops look at you or talk to you that's enough to detain and search you. They don't need to put handcuffs on you to detain you on suspicion. If you resist them then it's a petty crime or a violation of paroles and they can areas you for what then is no reason. If you see a guy wearing a heavy coat and he happens to have a gun or drugs your a resting him before you have cause if he resists.
So basically any excuse under the sun to provide a reason why the guy has a broken spine after a ride in a van? Like really? This is the way police should operate? I don't provide them with the power to arrest to use it like idiots.
|
On April 30 2015 03:45 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 03:38 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 03:23 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 03:01 Sermokala wrote:
Innocent until proven guilty? He's in a union? There's a clear process following every other police related death and this is no different? Didn't stop them from firing the SC officer before he went to trial. I don't see a lot of difference regarding it being obvious the police screwed up. The police have already admitted to not having a reason for the arrest in the first place, and that they were supposed to secure their prisoner and didn't. They were supposed to call for medical help and didn't. If that's not enough for the union or the PD that's on them, that has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty. The sc situation was a lot more cut and dry with a single officer caught on tape clearly braking procedure. This Baltimore case had a lot more people who might be responsible for his death in a number of waves. And that's where the lengthy investigation and union comes in. Can you even imagine a scenario where the breaking of procedure they have admitted to breaking already under the known circumstances that is acceptable for an officer? There's a sharp difference between ignorance negligence and homicidal intent. If the departed resisted then all bets are off from them say putting a knee on the back neck to control him. Him falling or being thrown to the ground could have a host of honest mistakes made. It's unrealistic to expect cops to be prepared for every medical condition that someone they meet might have and certainly can't trust that person to be honest all the time. Right now cops go to an Academy for 2 years and can take extra classes much like a teacher does. Maybe we should consider moving that up or at the least increasing post graduation first aid training. Yes why would a man who has done nothing wrong, being arrested on no charge and thrown into the back of a van resist. He should sit there like a good little boy while they drive him off. I don't know what is more disgusting, the out of control police or the people who keep defending them despite a new scandal showing up every week. And you wonder why the victims (the poor/minorities) are not quietly waiting for due process and 'proper' investigation.
If people wave their right to due process then they can't complain when they get shot randomly. Don't rabble that bullshit that they just picked him up and threw him in a van for kicks. At least have the decency to see both sides reasonably.
|
On April 30 2015 03:50 Sermokala wrote:
If you run away when cops look at you or talk to you that's enough to detain and search you. They don't need to put handcuffs on you to detain you on suspicion. If you resist them then it's a petty crime or a violation of paroles and they can areas you for what then is no reason. If you see a guy wearing a heavy coat and he happens to have a gun or drugs your a resting him before you have cause if he resists.
Ok that doesn't make any sense...
At least have the decency to see both sides reasonably.
You can't be serious...?
|
On April 30 2015 03:54 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 03:45 Gorsameth wrote:On April 30 2015 03:38 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 03:23 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 03:01 Sermokala wrote:
Innocent until proven guilty? He's in a union? There's a clear process following every other police related death and this is no different? Didn't stop them from firing the SC officer before he went to trial. I don't see a lot of difference regarding it being obvious the police screwed up. The police have already admitted to not having a reason for the arrest in the first place, and that they were supposed to secure their prisoner and didn't. They were supposed to call for medical help and didn't. If that's not enough for the union or the PD that's on them, that has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty. The sc situation was a lot more cut and dry with a single officer caught on tape clearly braking procedure. This Baltimore case had a lot more people who might be responsible for his death in a number of waves. And that's where the lengthy investigation and union comes in. Can you even imagine a scenario where the breaking of procedure they have admitted to breaking already under the known circumstances that is acceptable for an officer? There's a sharp difference between ignorance negligence and homicidal intent. If the departed resisted then all bets are off from them say putting a knee on the back neck to control him. Him falling or being thrown to the ground could have a host of honest mistakes made. It's unrealistic to expect cops to be prepared for every medical condition that someone they meet might have and certainly can't trust that person to be honest all the time. Right now cops go to an Academy for 2 years and can take extra classes much like a teacher does. Maybe we should consider moving that up or at the least increasing post graduation first aid training. Yes why would a man who has done nothing wrong, being arrested on no charge and thrown into the back of a van resist. He should sit there like a good little boy while they drive him off. I don't know what is more disgusting, the out of control police or the people who keep defending them despite a new scandal showing up every week. And you wonder why the victims (the poor/minorities) are not quietly waiting for due process and 'proper' investigation. If people wave their right to due process then they can't complain when they get shot randomly. Don't rabble that bullshit that they just picked him up and threw him in a van for kicks. At least have the decency to see both sides reasonably.
Where did he wave his right? How about his right to not randomly get arrested?
The official police report doesn't even have a reason ffs. Yes at the moment it entirely looks like they threw him in a van for giggles and then killed him through shear incompetence.
That is coming from the people who are tasked with protecting the population. Can you seriously not see the problem with that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
