St. Louis prosecutor says she will no longer accept cases from 28 city police officers

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: UKTruth

Exactly - sounds like she is crap at her job and wants to blame everyone else.

You think public servants should be aloud to plead the fifth while in the process of trying to convict a citizen with a crime?

I know you come from a police state where you're always on camera and have to register your butter knifes, but we do things a bit different here. We aren't always right, but we fight to make sure the citizen always has the upper hand.

Of course public servants should be allowed to plead the 5th. Good god.
If they can't produce the required evidence the accused may well beat the charge. Simple. That is how it is supposed to work.
You do not them blacklist a bunch of police officers because a high portion of their arrests don't result in convictions, you assess what they are doing wrong and get them to improve or fire them.
You certainly don't make a list and blacklist people - that will just result in criminals going free.

This monster of a woman seems like she just wants to massage her own record.

a reply to: Boadicea

Props to this woman, screw the county swine and the bootlickers lining up in this thread.

a reply to: UKTruth

If the officer is NOT credible, pleads the 5th(pffft) or fails to appear the D.A will not file, as any defense lawyer will pick the case apart, or expose themselves to later appeal.
no cop no case

More likely she is saving taxpayers money on a case that CANNOT be won, the issue here is with police managment.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

It breaks on both ends
You have a right to a timely trial. If their docket backlog pushes your simple misdemeanor charge back 1-2 years, any half decent lawyer could get it thrown out, entirely. So, they either eat that backlog in this direction, or they keep having cases roll off on the other side.

It's a resource issue, and without the money to hire more judicial processors, what choice do they have?

Option 1: Let cases go "stale"/"expire"
Option 2: Nullify the highest case generation sources with bad conviction rates anyway.

a reply to: Boadicea

Im impressed. People like this prosecutor are the ones that shut me the hell up when I lose faith in the system.

a reply to: Boadicea

This is Blatant Discrimination , St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner Needs to Resign ASAP for Violating the Law .

This is an in-house solution to a problem that developed in-house...BRAVO....I hope many more offices follow suit and refuse to allow themselves to be pigeonholed into supporting the now-defunct Thin Blue Line......lol...this is an incredibly smart precise surgical way to eliminate an endemic problem...wosers someone is at the top of their game here.Trump and Friends score another touchdown....now spread the word and the work.

a reply to: Boadicea

What due process???

You know, that 242 year old judicial system that guarantees all citizens the opportunity to have their case heard whether they are claimant or defendant, and whether their case is civil, or criminal. A guarantee to every citizen that their case will be put though the same justice system no matter their race, wealth, or social status is not a guarantee of verdict. Therefor, it is a constitutional right which is defined by the 4th, 11th, & 14th amendments.

The officers are not being charged with a crime.

Correct, they are levying charges against criminal defendants who are (supposed to be) innocent until proven guilty.

Nor do any officers have any right to be an LEO.

Correct, no citizen is arbitrarily granted a badge simply because they’re American.

That’s a privilege, not a right. Nor do any officers have a right to testify against someone.

Sort of. Every American citizen who lacks a folonious criminal past has the right to apply for a career in law enforcement. And likewise, those precincts and municipalities have the right to subject all applicants to: a psychological evaluation, a criminal background check, a documented biometric identity that is archived in a global catalogue, a written and a physical police exam, etc... and ultimately they have the
right to deny them that career, should they not meet all reqiirements needed for eligibility.

Now, once they’ve passed all requirements and they are granted their badge, then it becomes a privilege. But everyone has the right to apply for a career in law enforcement, so long as that means they are put through the same process and held to the same standards as every other citizen who has applied.

So what due process is being compromised?

So... take a deep breath, because I’m fairly certain you won’t absorb what I’m about to convey to you. At least, not without rereading the material a second or third time.

Now, even though in this particular story the judge is selectively tossing out cases before they can be presented to the court, the due process being infringed upon is the right for the defendant’s friends, neighbors, and community members that guarantees no one will be able to skirt around the law without having to be put through the same judicial process that all who are indicted must be subject to.

The judge has all the power and authority she needs to toss these cases out if she wants... only once these cases have been formally arraigned in a court where she has jurisdiction.

And then, when you consider the fact that she’s tossing all cases being levied by specific officers without actually granting the victims (i.e. the people vs so and so) the opportunity to see their perpetrators stand trial, if their case had made it that far.

You cannot possibly believe that every single law enforcement agency and every single LEO is squeaky clean.

Of course I don’t. And how on earth did you jump to that conclusion? Did you just filter out the italicized word ‘allegedly’ that I placed in that sentence solely to prevent someone such as yourself from misrepresenting my point.

But of course, that only could have worked if you read every word in the order I had written them. Personally, I didn't think that having a 4th grade-level reading comprehension would turn out to be such an unreasonable thing to expect from a user on ATS.

Then again, this IS the conspiraweb.

Look at it this way, you have the right to grossly conflate my words without fear of (legal) repercussion (so long as you are T&C compliant)!

a reply to: UKTruth

A cop is not your typical civil servant, if they want to plead the 5th..fine, at the same time they can seek other employment.

a reply to: SKEPTEK

Why would an officer plead the 5th on the stand in an arrest they made.

Once we hone in on the issue it becomes clear the Judges will do everything they can to not take direct hits here or they will all end up in Jail themselves...so there is now CLEARLY a FULL STOP ORDER IN PLACE....the accountability for stopping the Thin Blue Line from infiltrating the legal system is now being put squarely on the heads of the lower minions...the System MUST CORRECT ITSELF INTERNALLY AND IMMEDIATLY or Judges will fall like snowflakes in the Sahara...…...if external intervention is required for a correction then all hades will break loose....and we are at the RUBICON right now.


Many many laws will soon be REPEALED and will be REMOVED because the methods used to embed them and the influences which directed this intentional bastardisation of a good solid effective System have now been clearly put on tangible TEMPLATES and identified to the most minute details...yes the INDIVIDUALS pulling the puppet strings have been traced and tracked....there are new methods of investigation being used in case no one has noticed....lol....by the middle of Trumps next term America will be looking and acting and FEELING like America again.

originally posted by: RadioRobert

I think my issue is the list itself and the blanket declaration.

Okay. I'll address your listed points individually. I can see issues as well, but I'll address your points individually.

It is absolutely up to prosecutorial discretion on whether to take a case to court. My problem is that A) no reasoning seems to be provided publicly or privately

I have to disagree that no reasoning was provided. She did explain the issues and problems these officers present in successfully prosecuting cases, such as pleading the fifth to protect themselves while testifying against a defendant. She did not make specific accusations against specific officers, but she did explain her reasoning. I'm not sure she had much choice either. To make specific accusations without charging and providing evidence could open her office to a whole more trouble with their union, and there could be libel/slander issues as well.

Having said that though, I don't like it. I think the public should know all the details and they can judge accordingly. The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Just as they demand from the rest of us.

B) the prosecutor is already involved in a contentious relationship with the Department(s)

Yes. I would expect a prosecutor who cannot do her job to have a somewhat contentious relationship with the department(s) responsible... especially if/when she knows that they are not doing their jobs. Remember, the prosecutor absolutely and necessarily DEPENDS on the work of these department(s) and officers to do her job. And, by definition, to protect the public and bring justice where appropriate.

C) this is a blanket statement of rejection and made public which hurts the rerelationship between thd public and the Department(s) in a way they have no way to address.

I heartily disagree. She made a statement of refusal, yes, for good cause against public officials who are charged with protecting that public and would seem to be failing miserably (and worse). The relationship between the public and the department(s) is already damaged. She didn't do that. THEY DID.

But just as important, it's exactly the secrecy and hiding and protecting bad behavior on the part of public officials that has so damaged their relationship with the public, and the trust of the public. The public deserves the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

It makes sense that there may be officers that would not be credible as essential witnesses in a case and would/may hinder prosecution. If a case hinges on an officer's testimony, it may not be viable. The relative strength of the case should inform the decision. Not a predetermination regarding the involvement of one officer.

That's neither realistic nor practical in the big picture. We're not just talking cops on the street, we're also talking about detectives and other investigators. Virtually every single criminal case that goes before a judge depends on the work of the LE department(s). Every. Single. One. If the officers are not credible, then neither is their evidence. It is all tainted.

So I see two problems, potentially, and each or either may be true.

If an officer is completely incredible and irresponsible, he cannot maintain his job as a LEO. Why/how is that person still employed? Is this an actual departmental issue not being addressed internally? Possible.

Exactly. And that problem lies with the LE agency -- start to finish. They hire them, they SHOULD fire them as soon as the officer becomes a problem. But they're not. Consequently, these dirty cops still make arrests, still press charges, and still muck up the case in the end.

Could the prosecutor be unfairly making a determination of the LEO's adequacy based on personal subjective opinion in a way that harms both the department and officer without recourse?

Hence the need for complete transparency... the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It's the secrecy that protects the dirty cops.

More likely in this instance.

Otherwise, why make a blanket statement of intent without evaluating on a case by case basis?

Do you think she drew these names out of a hat? Of course she evaluated each officer according to their individual performance! We just don't know all the whys and wherefores. But she does.

And why make it public?

See above.... Truth, whole truth, nothing but truth.

The type of abuse that would justify that behaviour would be egregious...

Of course.

... and should be able to be handled in a different avenue..

Okay. I'm listening. What? How?

Maybe there are additional and specific facts which would inform my opinion, but it seems unlikely that this isn't part of a personal/political feud.

Maybe? I would suggest that given your admitted ignorance to all the facts and figures, that you have absolutely no justification for presuming the worst of the prosecutor and the best of the LEOs.

I would also suggest that in these circumstances, there damn well should be some feuding!

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: RadioRobert

I think my issue is the list itself and the blanket declaration.

Okay. I'll address your listed points individually. I can see issues as well, but I'll address your points individually.

It is absolutely up to prosecutorial discretion on whether to take a case to court. My problem is that A) no reasoning seems to be provided publicly or privately

I have to disagree that no reasoning was provided. She did explain the issues and problems these officers present in successfully prosecuting cases, such as pleading the fifth to protect themselves while testifying against a defendant. She did not make specific accusations against specific officers, but she did explain her reasoning. I'm not sure she had much choice either. To make specific accusations without charging and providing evidence could open her office to a whole more trouble with their union, and there could be libel/slander issues as well.
Having said that though, I don't like it. I think the public should know all the details and they can judge accordingly. The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Just as they demand from the rest of us.

B) the prosecutor is already involved in a contentious relationship with the Department(s)

Yes. I would expect a prosecutor who cannot do her job to have a somewhat contentious relationship with the department(s) responsible... especially if/when she knows that they are not doing their jobs. Remember, the prosecutor absolutely and necessarily DEPENDS on the work of these department(s) and officers to do her job. And, by definition, to protect the public and bring justice where appropriate.

C) this is a blanket statement of rejection and made public which hurts the rerelationship between thd public and the Department(s) in a way they have no way to address.

I heartily disagree. She made a statement of refusal, yes, for good cause against public officials who are charged with protecting that public and would seem to be failing miserably (and worse). The relationship between the public and the department(s) is already damaged. She didn't do that. THEY DID.

But just as important, it's exactly the secrecy and hiding and protecting bad behavior on the part of public officials that has so damaged their relationship with the public, and the trust of the public. The public deserves the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

It makes sense that there may be officers that would not be credible as essential witnesses in a case and would/may hinder prosecution. If a case hinges on an officer's testimony, it may not be viable. The relative strength of the case should inform the decision. Not a predetermination regarding the involvement of one officer.

That's neither realistic nor practical in the big picture. We're not just talking cops on the street, we're also talking about detectives and other investigators. Virtually every single criminal case that goes before a judge depends on the work of the LE department(s). Every. Single. One. If the officers are not credible, then neither is their evidence. It is all tainted.

So I see two problems, potentially, and each or either may be true.

If an officer is completely incredible and irresponsible, he cannot maintain his job as a LEO. Why/how is that person still employed? Is this an actual departmental issue not being addressed internally? Possible.

Exactly. And that problem lies with the LE agency -- start to finish. They hire them, they SHOULD fire them as soon as the officer becomes a problem. But they're not. Consequently, these dirty cops still make arrests, still press charges, and still muck up the case in the end.

Could the prosecutor be unfairly making a determination of the LEO's adequacy based on personal subjective opinion in a way that harms both the department and officer without recourse?

Hence the need for complete transparency... the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It's the secrecy that protects the dirty cops.

More likely in this instance.
Otherwise, why make a blanket statement of intent without evaluating on a case by case basis?

Do you think she drew these names out of a hat? Of course she evaluated each officer according to their individual performance! We just don't know all the whys and wherefores. But she does.

And why make it public?

See above.... Truth, whole truth, nothing but truth.

The type of abuse that would justify that behaviour would be egregious...

Of course.

... and should be able to be handled in a different avenue..

Okay. I'm listening. What? How?

Maybe there are additional and specific facts which would inform my opinion, but it seems unlikely that this isn't part of a personal/political feud.

Maybe? I would suggest that given your admitted ignorance to all the facts and figures, that you have absolutely no justification for presuming the worst of the prosecutor and the best of the LEOs.I would also suggest that in these circumstances, there damn well should be some feuding!

This all day long

a reply to: RadioRobert

A single person or their office making a subjective opinion that prevents you from following your career is compromising the rights of those individuals. That's what I'd expect a union to do.

Subjective? No more or subjective than deciding to prosecute someone based on the information and evidence.

Further, no one has a right to be an LEO. It's a privilege and a responsibility. If you abuse that privilege and fail to fulfill your responsibilites, then you lost that privilege.

If you were a bus driver and someone at the school district or transportation department had nothing sufficient to fire you or go through the process of removing you, but had the power to strip you of your license for subjective reasons would be compromising your career without giving you the ability for redress.

Very very poor analogy. The prosecutor does have sufficient reason: The officers are not doing their job correctly and responsibly. And, technically, she didn't have anyone fired. She is simply exercising her responsibility to provide fair and just prosecution of criminal cases, and in so doing refusing cases from officers known to be problematic in that responsibility.

However, to play your game, did the bus driver refuse to pick the kids up after school? Did the bus driver decide to only stop at the bus stops he wanted to stop at? Was the bus driver bullying and beating kids on the bus? Did the bus driver decide not to take the bus back to the bus yard after his shift?

It seems to me as a prosecutor she has both the sway and the ability to pursue formal avenues to address officers who need disciplinary or legal action.

This is s formal avenue. But what would you consider the appropriate response to dirty cops submitting dirty cases that cannot be prosecuted fairly or justly?

Maybe the union is completely out of whack, and the Department is being irresponsible. That could happen. But I haven't seen any evidence that she pursued prosecutions for the officers involved or referred them for internal discipline as opposed to getting her name in the paper.

You haven't seen it; doesn't mean it didn't happen. Where would you expect to find such information? Are you sure that information is even made public? I know that many union contracts prohibit such reporting to the public. Are you sure that isn't the case here?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: SKEPTEK

Why would an officer plead the 5th on the stand in an arrest they made.

How many times have we seen or heard officers claim that they are being punished for doing their jobs the way they were trained to do it? Plenty. This is why the DOJ has had to get involved in many cases to assist police departments in analyzing their policies and training procedures to avoid these kinds of things from happening again.

a reply to: Boadicea

I'm not sure any of us could make a real judgement on the validity of this unless we had a documentation of what each of them did. If in fact, they are making false charges or are not following the laws for arresting or citing someone they need to be held accountable.

Think of the ramifications and the cost to the defendant and the government if charges are regularly being made and are not prosecutible due to sloppiness, corruption or indifference. Imagine repeatedly having a cop not show up to court or pleading the fifth in a case that he/she initiated. Why they weren't fired if this is true, before it came to this is really puzzling, but it is the government at the end of the day.

It may be that people need to see a basic template describing exactly how the Unions lawyers and the States lawyers and Judges and others conspire to maintain the structure of and to support the continued existance of The Thin Blue Line....its possibly about time to indoctrinate everyone.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Boadicea

This is Blatant Discrimination.

Why yes! Yes it is! I took a moment to look up the definition of "discrimination":

recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.

Ms Gardner most definitely discriminated between good cops and dirty cops!

But somehow I think you meant another definition. Care to be more specific so I know what I'm really addressing?

St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner Needs to Resign ASAP for Violating the Law .

Which law? The law that says dirty cops can act with impunity in any and all situations no matter who gets hurt?

a reply to: ColdWisdom

You know, that 242 year old judicial system that guarantees all citizens the opportunity to have their case heard whether they are claimant or defendant, and whether their case is civil, or criminal. A guarantee to every citizen that their case will be put though the same justice system no matter their race, wealth, or social status is not a guarantee of verdict. Therefor, it is a constitutional right which is defined by the 4th, 11th, & 14th amendments.

No criminal charges have been filed. If/when that happens, and those due process rights are violated, we can discuss the violation of due process. Perhaps even equal application of the law. But that's not an issue yet, if ever.

Every American citizen who lacks a folonious criminal past has the right to apply for a career in law enforcement.

And that right was not infringed. Obviously.

So... take a deep breath, because I’m fairly certain you won’t absorb what I’m about to convey to you.

Oh dear. Really?

I understand perfectly that you are referring to the duties and responsibilities of the judge. Of course the judge can do whatever the judge deems necessary and appropriate... but the prosecutor has her own responsibilities and duties to carry out as she deems necessary and appropriate. It is the prosecutor who has the responsibility, the power, and the authority to file formal charges and prosecute the case. Not the judge.

I also perfectly understand that the prosecutor did not toss any cases brought by these specific officers; she is refusing to even accept them. You cannot "toss a case" if you never accept the case.

Keep your pathetically ignorant patronizing attitude to yourself. Your nonsense is wasted on me. As are your insults.

originally posted by: Deetermined

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: SKEPTEK

Why would an officer plead the 5th on the stand in an arrest they made.

How many times have we seen or heard officers claim that they are being punished for doing their jobs the way they were trained to do it? Plenty. This is why the DOJ has had to get involved in many cases to assist police departments in analyzing their policies and training procedures to avoid these kinds of things from happening again.

Don't even go there....their training is no excuse....but you are on point because we will eventually work our way to how this training is conceived of and how it is legally vetted and then propagated....this is a part of the macro-template of the dynamic relationships between these groups we speak of....your weak defense will not fly pal...simply because...even if the SOP is to issue a verbal command that is generic enough to allow the officer dynamic control of the moment and then design this to be a proxy ESCALATING DYNAMIC that always ends terminally with a suspects death...so if we consider that ALL LEOS know full well that their Unions lawyers and the Civil Lawyers representing the communities who employ them work TOGETHER TO DESIGNE SO^P ACTION PLANS that focus predominantly on protecting these groups from litigation by the people...they COLLUDE TOGETHER TO REMAIN TEFLON FROM LITIGATIONS....this GROUP is the BACKBONE OF THE THIN BLUE LINE....at the end of the day it is the Cop pulling the trigger and committing murder and they are NOT IN THE MILITARY so they CANNOT FALL BACK ON THE DUTY EXCUSE....the Cop doesn't have to murder the teenager who is driving the stolen car and trying to escape being arrested JUST BECAUSE HE DOESNT OBEY A VERBAL COMMAND TO STOP AND SHUT OFF THE CAR....oh yes SOP allows a Cop to MURDER or more accurately ASSASINATE on BEHALF OF A GREATER GROUP ENTITY a person who is OPERATING A SO-CALLED DEADLY WEAPON IN A MANNER WHICH COULD ENDANGER THE LIVES OF PLICE OR BYSTANDERS...hold on arseholes....We The People DO NOT WANT SANCTIONED EXECUTION OF OUR KIDS or for ANYONE we want the murders by Cop to STOP IMMEDIATLY...we want punishment to those who have and still are murdering or ASSASINATING civillians….if someone is in a stolen car and they are trying to get away and they do not show DETERMINATION TO TRACK AND RUN YOU DOWN..in other words arseholes... just driving past you doesn't enable yu to murder someone they have to be coming right at you and not with intentions....you GET THE PUCK OUT OF THE WAY and you DO NOT FIRE YOUR WEAPON EVER....if a car is crashed and stalled and the suspect is trying to re-start it to continue his flight...YOU CANNOT GIVE HIM A VERBAL TO STOP AND THEN ASSASINATE HIM....this is ASSASINATION FOR ASSOCIATION n a deeper technical level and also COLD BLOODED MURDER ON A GENERCI MORAL LEVEL.This is one of HUNDREDS of examples where ASSASINATION IS LEGALLY SUPPORTED BY THIS COLLUSIONARY GROUP.

And we DO NOT want laws designed to support 5'5 inch 130lb FEMALE OR MALE COPS who ARE NOT FUNCTIONALLY ABLE TO DO THE TASKS REQUIRED TO BE A COP....these laws we put in place to support these small special interest groups were WRONG....they must be repealed immediately...these small special interest groups must be defined as so and we must never allow these types of small politiclly powerfull groups to lead us or dictate our civic or moral compass readings for usas they have done in the past.The undersized female or male applicant is accurately a part of a SMALL SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP of shrimps long BEFORE THEY ARE GENDER DEFINED.....yet the issues of gender bias and others like it were furtively used as cover smoke to allow these shrimps to be Cops which by PROXY allowed the laws governing the Cops to be changed to protect these undersized unable shrimps who scammed their way into the process using legal and fiscal power.....

If we wish to DECONSTRUCT THE PROCESSES AND SYSTEMS THE GLOBAL CABAL HAS EMBEDDED ALL AROUND US WE MUST UNDERSTAND HOW AND WHY THEY BUILT THEM THE WAYS THEY DID.....we need to build dynamic templates and then put in the sweat equity.

If we want the sanctioned legally supported ASSASINATIONS TO STOP then we simply need to construct a dynamic template that evidences exactly how and why these actions are enabled encouraged and defended......and you will find yourself coming back to the FINANCEERS of the SMALL SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS used societally like dynamic scalpels to hamstring humanity on every level possible...nd on this template we can even show WHY THEY REALLY MOVED THOSE CHESS PIECES from a greater picture perspective....in other words every decision this group makes is like a BILLIARDS SHOT and the issue your eyes and mind are on is only the cue ball BUT what they are banking on is the SEQUENCE OF DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS THE REST OF THE BALLS ON THE TABLE WILL MANIFEST once the object ball or ISSUE IN YOUR EYE AND MIND is contacted....because it is here amongst these easily anticipated yet seemingly random interactions where they make their hidden profits and power moves.

In short....who payed for the lobbying that forced Police services to abandon size and physical requirements for recruits....because you see this is a small special interest group of SHRIMPS....who want to be Cops...but cannot....so SOMEONE FINANCES A BATTLE LEGALLY MORALLY CIVICLLY POLITICLLY and on every other level possible to use this SMALL SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP as a SPEARTIP with which they can pierce the integrity and intentions of our legal systems and our established processes....the shrimps and of both genders but foremost the FEMALE SHRIMPS were used as a weapon to undermine We The People......and once the physical abilities of the Cops which are EXACTLY LIKE THE TRUTH REQUIREMENTS AS EARLIER OUTLINED are COMPROMOSED and SHRIMPS are allowed in then ALL RULES MUST BE CHANGED TO SUPPORT THE SHRIMPS BEING ABLE TO DO THEJOB ADEQUATELY...and the bottom line cost of this has been written down in blood tears and at todays point TENS OF THOUSANDS of CORPSES OF ASSASINATED CIVILLIANS....murdered by Cop or similarly empowered group.

If you cannot wrestle the keys out of an 18 year old kids hands when he is trying to start a stalled car then you can go straight to hell and never be a Cop under ALL CIRCUMASTANCES AND I SAY THIS WITH GREAT PREDJUDICE....if you cannot WRESTLE AND CUFF AN UNRULY SHOPLIFTING SUSPECT OR DRUNK OR ANGRY SPOUSE...then go to hell you cannot be a Cop....Shrimps who have been used as PrAWNS….lol...lol...lol...and no you cannot shoot someonedead because they are holding a knife or a broken bottle or a bookbag or the9r wallet or a coffe mug or a baseball bat UNLESS YOU HAVE BEEN PREEMPTIVELY ENGAGED..AND..have reasonable cause to believe you or someone else could be killed...which means that holding an OBJECT and ALL OBJECTS WILL ILLEGALLY BE DEFINED BY POLICE AS weapons and refusing a verbal to drop it DOES NOT SANCTION YOUR STATE PROMPTED ASSASINATION......but because of available chronological records of the evolution of laws and changes we can REVERSE EXTRAPOLATE TO A GREATER AND MUCH MORE ACCURATE DEGREE OFF THIS THREAD AND WITH THE REQUIRED RESOURCES IN PLACE...we now know how to stop these dynamics from happening in the future.....we go back and disempower and disenfranchise the fraudule