Arizona Police Officer Execute Man For Telling Them They Needed A Warrant

reply to post by Xcathdra


Yeah you are right, we should follow the law....

My problem with you is that you are always defending police, even when they shoot a hundcuffed dude in the back. Come on, a handcuffed guy isn't enough of a threat to be tazed, let alone shot. So the excuse that he mistook his gun for a tazer is still no excuse! Ok got that out of my system....

Do you agree, that as soon as this officer showed he was out of control, by putting a gun to the guy's head, that he should have been tazed and cuffed? I would like to hear your opinion on that.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by MrWendal

 

So you are saying because incidents like these happen, your ready to throw constitutitonal protections out the window? Kind of a dire response dont you think?

While I agree the behavior is unacceptable, we still only have one side of the story for this incident. Before you start building the gallows should we not at least allow the guy to have his day in court?

And no, im not defending the cop personally, what I am defending is due process and the presumption of innocense until proven guilty.

Did I say that we should throw Constitutional Protections out the window? No I did not. What I DID say was that Police actions like this are becoming the norm and these actions will lead to attacks on Police as a whole. Did you bother to click the links I posted? If you did let me ask you... what would possess a man to fire a rocket at a Police Station? What would possess a man to walk into a Police Station and just open fire?

I can tell you what can cause it. Injustice. When people see that Police can violate the law and get away with it this is what happens. They lash out at the system they believe is causing that injustice. Even for the cases where police do not get off without penalty of some kind, the penalty is still in favor of the Police. Let's take the BART shooting as an example. That cop shot and unarmed, handcuffed man in the back of the head and killed him. He was tried, convicted, and served 11 months before being let go. If you or I were to shoot an unarmed and helpless man we would be charged with 1st degree murder and serve 20 years to life. That is injustice, and things like that lead to stories like I linked.

As far as "innocent until proven guilty", you can take the nonsense some place else. Innocent until proven guilty no longer applies to the general population anymore.... we are guilty until we are proven innocent. If it is good enough for the population, than the same standard should be good enough for the cops. You can not have it both ways. This is a country that now supports indefinite detention without even being convicted of a crime, but now because one of the people who are payed by tax dollars goes off the deep end, now you want to pull "innocent until proven guilty"?

I witnessed a situation with my local Sheriff's office just the other night. I like to walk up to the corner store at night if I need something. It is only a 5-10 minute walk and lord knows the exercise won't kill me. As I walked up to the store I noticed a Police car moving slowly and clearly taking an interest in the area that I was in. I went into the store and there was the store clerk and another man. The Officer walks in and begins to harass the man. The Officer claims they got a call about a man who was "peeking into cars" along the side of the building. The Store clerk tells the Officer that the man is not a problem and was just in the store to use the phone and she was allowing it. She goes on to say that the man was at the side of the building to use the pay phone, he had come into the store to get change for it, but it did not work so he came inside and used the store phone. This turns into a 25 minute encounter for the man where he was threatened with being taken to jail for trespassing onto the store. I even sat and watched this Officer try to talk the Store Clerk into pressing charges for trespassing, which she refused because the guy was not a problem he just wanted to use a phone. So do not give me the "innocent until proven guilty" cliche because it simply does not apply to the average person who is walking down the street than it sure as hell should not apply to cop that shoots an unarmed man.

In this case you have a witness statement (the dead man's mom) and you have a statement from the Officer's own partner... that would be enough to convict me in any court. Have you ever been to court and in a situation when it is the Cop's word against yours? Who wins that battle?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
When people decide anyone is guilty without due process, a trial, right to face your accusers etc, you have become just as bad as the person you accuse of being a murderer.

If you find the officers actions so abhorrent, then why are people willing to drop to the same level while making a ludicrous argument that the behavior is somehow different.

I will agree with you on due process, but the facts really do speak for themselves, more often then not the LEO is nothing more then a thug with a badge, high school bullies who have no concern with their actions, I was raised to respect the peace officer, hell, it was a common joke in my family that I got my name from a motorcycle cops dogs bark. Those days are gone, the clowns deserve the respect they give, which is none. The website i just posted is updated daily, these are not I hate cops postings, these are listings of cops who day after day violate the laws that supposedly they are sworn to uphold. If any cop wants my respect then they need to show me the same respect. The last time any LEO showed me any respect was a long long time ago. They are rude, condescending and have a god complex.

The SCOTUS has made it very clear that cops are not here to protect and to serve, they have no obligation to risk their lives for the population. Their only purpose is to generate money for the state. armed tax collectors and nothing more.

While I am at it, let me say something about the whole "few bad apples" defense.

It is nonsense. If we saw cases like this a couple times a year, then we could say it is a few bad apples. However, that is just not the case. In the US you can find stories of Police Abuses from coast to coast. If I were to sit here and attempt to link all these stories, I could spend hours and several pages listing countless examples.... all from just one 24 hour period. That is not " a few bad apples", that is something far more widespread. It is only June now... how many of these threads have we seen this year? And that is just the stuff that makes the news, this is just examples that get reported. Just like my story of a man who got harassed for trying to use a phone, stories like that go unreported so clearly the number of cases where police abuse their power is much higher than we actually realize.

It is not a "few bad apples" it is a problem with the system as a whole.

We always get to hear about law enforcement officers that die in the line of duty.

I think it is time that we see an annual tally of how many civilians are killed by law enforcement officers. Including motor vehicle accidents caused by those officers.

I wonder how those numbers would stack up?

I have an idea that the civilian losses are greater.

Originally posted by butcherguy
We always get to hear about law enforcement officers that die in the line of duty.

I think it is time that we see an annual tally of how many civilians are killed by law enforcement officers. Including motor vehicle accidents caused by those officers.

I wonder how those numbers would stack up?

I have an idea that the civilian losses are greater.

you get a star my friend

reply to post by NuroSlam
I am not a cop-hater.

I just get a little sick of hearing the memorials for them, when they have chosen their line of work, knowing full well what dangers are involved. I would rather hear memorials for firefighters that risk their lives and actually try to save people without shooting them.

As far as them protecting and serving, most of them show up at a crime scene after the damage is done, to fill out forms and try to find out what happened.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by NuroSlam

 

As far as them protecting and serving, most of them show up at a crime scene after the damage is done, to fill out forms and try to find out what happened.

Well that is their job. It is a common misconception that Police are here to prevent crime. Police can not stop crime anymore than I can stop a moving bullet with my mind. Police are here to investigate crime and catch those responsible. That is their job. Which by definition means, the crime has to have already occurred.

Originally posted by MrWendal

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by NuroSlam

 

As far as them protecting and serving, most of them show up at a crime scene after the damage is done, to fill out forms and try to find out what happened.

Well that is their job. It is a common misconception that Police are here to prevent crime. Police can not stop crime anymore than I can stop a moving bullet with my mind. Police are here to investigate crime and catch those responsible. That is their job. Which by definition means, the crime has to have already occurred.

My point was:

They ought to scrape the words "to protect" off the sides of their vehicles. They afford you little protection.

Most of the laws that the legislatures pass are passed in the name of preventing crime. The law enforcement officers claim to be preventing crime by enforcing those laws, most of which are unconstitutional, IMO.

Face it, Joe Schmuckitelli, smoking crack or shooting heroin does you no harm. Law enforcement, in many cases, creates more problems than it destroys. Do the law enforcement agencies have wars on theft, which actually causes you harm? No, but we have federal agencies created to take part in a 'war' on drugs.

Before you jump to any conclusions, I do not use illegal drugs or even promote their use.

I am a libertarian.

Edit to add:
The cops aren't too good at the job.... last time I checked, 75% of felony crimes go UNSOLVED.

Originally posted by MrWendal

Well that is their job. It is a common misconception that Police are here to prevent crime. Police can not stop crime anymore than I can stop a moving bullet with my mind. Police are here to investigate crime and catch those responsible. That is their job. Which by definition means, the crime has to have already occurred.

the common clown in a blue suit doesn't investigate crime, their primary purpose is to spot violations and issue a fine

Originally posted by TKDRL
Yeah you are right, we should follow the law....

agreed

Originally posted by TKDRL
My problem with you is that you are always defending police, even when they shoot a hundcuffed dude in the back. Come on, a handcuffed guy isn't enough of a threat to be tazed, let alone shot. So the excuse that he mistook his gun for a tazer is still no excuse! Ok got that out of my system....

And again you only see what you want to see. Did I defend the officer? Please point out where I did because to date, I have not. What I have done is defend the process that many people in here want to throw out the window. The problem people have is called 20/20 hindsight, and thats about the only thing people in these forums see. Couple that with a lack of knowledge about the law and how its applied is the other factor that makes most of the comments in these types of threads so far off base its not even funny.

The review of an officers use of force can only be looked at from the perspective of what did the officer perceive at the exact moment he used force.

These types of stories make it too easy for people to draw the wrong conclusions. We get to read about the events that occured. We get to know the timeline of events, the officer actions, the suspect actions etc. The problem with that scenario is its unrealistic in terms of expecting the parties involved to have those exact same viewpoints. They wont have those viewpoints because they were to busy making them.

Its like the video that shows the officer pushing a female from behind into a wall. People were in an uproar over that. The person who recorded the incident was far enough away to catch all parties in the same frame. The problem starts when people who viewed that video decided the officers actions were innapropriate. They come to that conclusion because they get to see all the events from one vantage point. What they failed to do was take into account that the female was walking away from the officer, brought her hands up, then dropped them back down, out of the officers field of view. Its possible from his viewpoint that she could have been going for a weapon.

As with that thread, I explained the process involved and the officers actions. I did NOT condone the actions, and like in this thread I dont condone the officers actions based on the account so far.

A domestic occured, the police were called. The mother allowed the police into the house. Somewhere along the way a dog got shot, the suspect got tased twice, and then shot and killed. Those events are relayed to us by the suspects mother, not law enforcement. We have some minor comments by the other officer present, but not enough info to do anything but drawn an opinion based on only one side of the story.

Was the suspect going for a gun?
Was he armed with a knife?
Does he know martial arts?
Did he go for the other officer present?
Were both officers viewing the same thing from the same vantage point?
were both officers present when the entire incident occured?
Were either officer out of the field of view until the incident ended?

Lots of questions that need to be asked and answered for us to really understand what occured. The very same questions that will be asked by the investigators, the IA detective and most likey the state police and possibly the FBI.

Originally posted by TKDRL
Do you agree, that as soon as this officer showed he was out of control, by putting a gun to the guy's head, that he should have been tazed and cuffed? I would like to hear your opinion on that.

Like you and everyone else in this thread, including me, were not present. We do not know what the officer perceived that caused him to take the action described, if in fact he did. As I said above, the details we have are coming from the mother, not the police, with the exception of the other officer on scene, and all he said was it was the worst day of his career.

If the version of events we have is indeed what occured, then by all means charge the officer, throw the book at him, and if found guilty lock him up and dont let him out - period.

An example for you on how angle and perception can appear to be right and wrong at the same time.

This is the first Dash Cam angle - When this was released people wanted the officers head on a platter because they saw an officer unload a few rounds into the back of a person who appears to be just walking away from them.


This is the second dash cam footage at another angle.



As you can see, only viewing something from one side of the story may not be accurate.

Originally posted by MrWendal
Did I say that we should throw Constitutional Protections out the window? No I did not. What I DID say was that Police actions like this are becoming the norm and these actions will lead to attacks on Police as a whole. Did you bother to click the links I posted? If you did let me ask you... what would possess a man to fire a rocket at a Police Station? What would possess a man to walk into a Police Station and just open fire?

You insinuated through your comments about the Officers guilt and what should happen to him is where you are throwing the Constitution out the window.

As far as the rocket goes, you are honestly arguing that because an incident where an officer crosses the line is somehow justifing the lunatics actions of firing a rocket into a police station?

Are you really that insane? Are you really that naive to assume that all officers act the same way? Would it be appropriate for all officers to assume your a threat to society because of your posts and view point on the police? So far, based on your argument, that is exactly what you are arguing.

Originally posted by MrWendal
I can tell you what can cause it. Injustice. When people see that Police can violate the law and get away with it this is what happens. They lash out at the system they believe is causing that injustice. Even for the cases where police do not get off without penalty of some kind, the penalty is still in favor of the Police. Let's take the BART shooting as an example. That cop shot and unarmed, handcuffed man in the back of the head and killed him. He was tried, convicted, and served 11 months before being let go. If you or I were to shoot an unarmed and helpless man we would be charged with 1st degree murder and serve 20 years to life. That is injustice, and things like that lead to stories like I linked.

The constitution is important, if for no other reason than it would show you that law enforcement is NOT part of the judicial system, and because of that police are NOT the ones who finalize charges nor are we the ones who sentence people who are found guilty. In addition, state laws vary from state to state, so a punishment in one state will not be the exact same in another.

Again, based on your argument above, you are throwing the Constitution out the window. On the off chance you missed the key info in the BART incident, the officer was found guilty of involuntary manslauighter - Why you ask? Because his actions and circumstances involved, in the State of California, rose to the level of involuntary manslaughter. He was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced inline with California State Law.

If you dont care for that outcome, then I suggest you take your complaint to California.

Originally posted by MrWendal
As far as "innocent until proven guilty", you can take the nonsense some place else. Innocent until proven guilty no longer applies to the general population anymore....

Which is utter nonsense.. Again, throwing the constitution out the window.

Originally posted by MrWendal
we are guilty until we are proven innocent. If it is good enough for the population, than the same standard should be good enough for the cops. You can not have it both ways. This is a country that now supports indefinite detention without even being convicted of a crime, but now because one of the people who are payed by tax dollars goes off the deep end, now you want to pull "innocent until proven guilty"?

Have what both ways? There is no both ways, there is only one way, and that way is the law. Taking the BART incident as an example again, the crime the officer was charged with and his sentence is not a police charge. Its the same time of charge a civilian would face and the punishment is the same a citizen would receive.

Originally posted by MrWendal
I witnessed a situation with my local Sheriff's office just the other night. I like to walk up to the corner store at night if I need something. It is only a 5-10 minute walk and lord knows the exercise won't kill me. As I walked up to the store I noticed a Police car moving slowly and clearly taking an interest in the area that I was in. I went into the store and there was the store clerk and another man. The Officer walks in and begins to harass the man. The Officer claims they got a call about a man who was "peeking into cars" along the side of the building. The Store clerk tells the Officer that the man is not a problem and was just in the store to use the phone and she was allowing it. She goes on to say that the man was at the side of the building to use the pay phone, he had come into the store to get change for it, but it did not work so he came inside and used the store phone. This turns into a 25 minute encounter for the man where he was threatened with being taken to jail for trespassing onto the store. I even sat and watched this Officer try to talk the Store Clerk into pressing charges for trespassing, which she refused because the guy was not a problem he just wanted to use a phone. So do not give me the "innocent until proven guilty" cliche because it simply does not apply to the average person who is walking down the street than it sure as hell should not apply to cop that shoots an unarmed man.

Yeah, because every single officer in this country are corrupt and do the same thing. Quit sterotyping. If you found the actions innapropriate, fiel a complaint with the departments IA division. Failure to do that and constantly griping about it does not change a thing, now does it?

Originally posted by MrWendal
In this case you have a witness statement (the dead man's mom) and you have a statement from the Officer's own partner... that would be enough to convict me in any court. Have you ever been to court and in a situation when it is the Cop's word against yours? Who wins that battle?

Actually I have been to court.. A lot, and I can say from experience that a cops word is not always taken, but since you are so fond of stereotyping I am going to assume you wont beleive that.

As far as the mother goes, the article states the officer met her outside, not inside. The article also states the officers entered the house. Where does it say the mother was with the officers and witnessessed everything first hand?

If the facts are as they were first presented then this officer should be charged with second-degree murder. As well as for cruelty to animals for shooting the dog. This guy - again if the facts are as they first seem - is either a psychopath or a bully with a gun who probably felt his partner would join in on the murder. How did he get on the force in the first place, and then stay there, because a personality like his would be easily seen and commented upon by fellow officers and his higher-ups. He probably should have been taken off the job a long time ago.

Why does Arizona even have a Judicial system anyway? The executive branch does the job of sentencing and executing people for arguing with their mother's at a lower cost.

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


I am not surprised by the killing by the cop. Not at all. I have come to expect that sort of story. What I AM shocked at is that his partner actually is corraborating the mother's story instead of covering for the bad cop. THANK YOU AND CONGRATULATIONS to that cop for doing the bare minimum his badge requires. Now watch as that cop gets killed in the "line of duty." I would put money on it.

I wish that they had at least gave kudos to the partner for telling the truth. I'm betting that this cop will be shown to have PTSD or some other lame excuse. He was a cocky, self important little tyrant and if doesn't get what he deserves it'll be the L.A. riots all over again.

Why do cops always have to shoot people's dogs? I think the only fair punishment for killing a dog is castration, that is just beyond sick. The only advice I have is keep a weapon close in case some corrupt cop comes knocking on your door. I would guess that at least 15% of people on here would shoot that pig if he came into their house without a warrant and shot their dog. We can't keep getting pushed around and s*** on like this, every day there's another story about people's rights being violated and we never seem to do anything about it. Sure we come on here and talk about how upset we are and how wrong it is, but that's not going to stop people's rights from being violated and their household pets being murdered.

Go to hell Cop boy! Look at his face, he looks like an souless asshole!

R.I.P poor boy

But i thought you Americans took pride in your guns - to defend yourselves against the Government.

How long are you guys going to tolerate this?

Originally posted by Xcathdra

You insinuated through your comments about the Officers guilt and what should happen to him is where you are throwing the Constitution out the window.

I did not say he was guilty of anything at the time you quoted my post and began a dialogue with me. However, there is a case for why he should be arrested and brought up on charges. 2 witnesses, one of whom is his own partner and a dead body. And maybe you can tell me what I said should happen to him? Unless you have me confused with someone else, I have not even stated an opinion on what should happen to him.

As far as the rocket goes, you are honestly arguing that because an incident where an officer crosses the line is somehow justifing the lunatics actions of firing a rocket into a police station?

I never said it was justified. Here you are assuming my intent without actually reading what I wrote. My point is about cause and effect, not weather an action is justified. What I am saying is... as more and more of these cases continue to make it into the public eye, it will create a backlash, and in fact already has.

Are you really that insane? Are you really that naive to assume that all officers act the same way?

Where did I say all Officers act the same way? I am saying that these actions are becoming more and more commonplace and it is a problem with the system itself. I didnt say, "All cops are the same we should blow up the police station!" I am saying that Police Abuses are commonplace, it is creating a dangerous situation for everyone, and people are lashing out. That is not opinion, that is fact. 10 years ago you wouldn't find a news story of a guy firing a rocket into a police station much less several articles about attacks on a police station or police services. Does that not tell you something?

Would it be appropriate for all officers to assume your a threat to society because of your posts and view point on the police?

Well first off all, I already am viewed as a threat because of my Political views and support of a particular candidate according to last election year's MIAC report. Second of all, I am already viewed as a threat because in this country we are all guilty until proven innocent. If this is something you have not realized yet, you are a blind fool who lives in fantasy land or you have flat out ignored all the evidence. Take your pick.

So far, based on your argument, that is exactly what you are arguing.

Wrong, I have not actually argued anything. I have stated facts. You however are making many assumptions and they are all wrong.

The constitution is important, if for no other reason than it would show you that law enforcement is NOT part of the judicial system, and because of that police are NOT the ones who finalize charges nor are we the ones who sentence people who are found guilty. In addition, state laws vary from state to state, so a punishment in one state will not be the exact same in another.

Here you just make me laugh. You want to tell me how important the Constitution is when a Police Officer shoots an unarmed man, yet Police ignore the Constitution on a daily basis. You can not have your cake and eat too. Now saying Police are not part of the Judicial system is a bold faced lie. The Judicial System begins when one is charged with a crime. Those charges do not come from Joe Blow the guy walking his dog, they come from Police. Charges can be filed against you solely based on the word of the Officer with no other evidence to support his accusation.

Again, based on your argument above, you are throwing the Constitution out the window. On the off chance you missed the key info in the BART incident, the officer was found guilty of involuntary manslauighter - Why you ask? Because his actions and circumstances involved, in the State of California, rose to the level of involuntary manslaughter. He was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced inline with California State Law.

First of all, as far as the BART incident goes I would argue that the Officer's actions did not rise to the level of involuntary manslaughter. It was murder. The State CHOOSE to charge him with involuntary manslaughter. There is a big difference between the two and it is very common for the State to charge Officers to a lesser degree than they would the average citizen. With the BART incident, a Police Officer shot a handcuffed man, who was lying face down, in the back. The Officer claimed he made a mistake and thought his gun was actually his taser. Yet no one bothered to ask the most obvious question...... if a man is handcuffed and lying face down on the ground and posing no threat at all, why would you tase him? Let's couple that with the fact that according to Police, if I use a taser on someone in the head and neck area, it is considered deadly force. So by the Officer's own admission, even if he really did mistake his gun for his taser, he was still using deadly force against a man who posed no threat and could not even defend himself. You can play with words all you want, but if this case involved a normal everyday person instead of a Police Officer, that normal everyday person would have been charged with Murder and rightfully so.

Originally posted by MrWendal
As far as "innocent until proven guilty", you can take the nonsense some place else. Innocent until proven guilty no longer applies to the general population anymore....

Which is utter nonsense.. Again, throwing the constitution out the window.

Wrong, I did not throw the Constitution out the window, the Police did. What I am doing...clearly.. is pointing out my opinion that the general population is not innocent until proven guilty. No where did I say, "This is how it should be". Again... you assume.

Have what both ways? There is no both ways, there is only one way, and that way is the law. Taking the BART incident as an example again, the crime the officer was charged with and his sentence is not a police charge. Its the same time of charge a civilian would face and the punishment is the same a citizen would receive.

No where do I claim it was a "police charge". What I am saying is that he was charged to a lesser degree than the average citizen would have been charged under the same circumstances. The average citizen would have been charged with MURDER not involuntary manslaughter. Furthermore, you can not say he faced the same punishment the average citizen would have faced. Again, a bold faced lie. In the State of California a charge of "involuntary manslaughter" is a felony charge that carries a sentence of 24-48 months. That is 2-4 years. The Officer in the BART shooting served 11 months. Not even a full year. That does not happen to the Average Citizen, at the minimum the average citizen would do 20 months and be released 4 months early if he was on his best behavior. That is the best the average citizen could hope for, but the average citizen should not be shocked if parole is denied and he served something closer to the maximum 48 months. The only reason this Officer got out after 11 months, was because he was a Police Officer.

Yeah, because every single officer in this country are corrupt and do the same thing. Quit sterotyping. If you found the actions innapropriate, fiel a complaint with the departments IA division. Failure to do that and constantly griping about it does not change a thing, now does it?

HAHAHA Oh just stop. Now your being beyond foolish.

#1. Yes all Police are corrupt. Even the "good cops" and I can tell you why. For every "good cop" that sees an injustice, wrong doing, or any corrupt action by another Officer and he keeps his mouth shut about it, is just as corrupt as those who are violating their oath. For every "good cop" that is backing up his partner's move and arresting someone knowing full well they shouldn't be arrested to begin with, they are just as guilty. For every cop that ignores his oath and upholds and arrest people based on unconstitutional laws.. they are just as corrupt.

#2. File a complaint with IA division? Part of the problem is the IA division. Cops investigating other cops? Does the term "wolf guarding the hen house" sound the least bit familiar to you?

As far as the mother goes, the article states the officer met her outside, not inside. The article also states the officers entered the house. Where does it say the mother was with the officers and witnessessed everything first hand?

I didn't say she witnessed "everything first hand", I said she is a witness, and guess what? She is. Again you are making assumptions and not actually reading what I wrote. Maybe if you spent as much time reading into and making assumptions of Police actions instead of assuming they are always right because they are police, you could make a difference. I also must say, I LOVE how you selectively ignored the Officer's own partner as a witness to make your above point. It just goes to show your obvious bias.