It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Police beat, taser mentally ill homeless man to death
page: 6share:
reply to post by Anoynymoose
What I am trying to explain to you is that you do not know what the full situation is when you come across it. The police could be justified in what they are doing but because you do not know full situation it could appear as police misconduct. So then you get involved, not knowing all the facts, and add to a bad situation.
If you treat the police with disrespect and act like a turd, chances are you will be treated the same. If you are respectful and act like a civilized human being, most likely you will be treated as such.
What I am trying to explain to you is that you do not know what the full situation is when you come across it. The police could be justified in what they are doing but because you do not know full situation it could appear as police misconduct. So then you get involved, not knowing all the facts, and add to a bad situation.
If you treat the police with disrespect and act like a turd, chances are you will be treated the same. If you are respectful and act like a civilized human being, most likely you will be treated as such.
reply to post by areyouserious2010
thefullertonian.com...
What is meant by "soft tissue damage"?
All your pretense in calling for the facts is becoming wearisome. If you were so interested in the facts then you would have found this information for yourself. More importantly, you hide behind this appeal for the facts in a way that reminds me of an old saying:
"Never let the facts get in the way of the truth".
It is the truth you seem to want to obfuscate, gleefully pointing out that it was only two police officers who brutally murdered Kelly Thomas, instead of six, as if this somehow reduces the severity of the crime. Or, would you care to make an argument that it was simply self defense and two armed police officers needed to cause the damage they did because they were confronted by an unarmed retarded man?
Let me ask you a question. How were the two officers injured as reported in the article?
Early reports from OC Register and ABC7 have stated that officers sustained broken bones during the altercation, but Sgt. Goodrich confirmed on July 20th that none of the officer’s bones had been broken in the dispute. They did however receive soft tissue damage.
thefullertonian.com...
What is meant by "soft tissue damage"?
A Soft tissue injury (STI) is the damage of muscles, ligaments and tendons throughout the body. Common soft tissue injuries usually occur from a sprain, strain, a one off blow resulting in a contusion or overuse of a particular part of the body. Soft tissue injuries can result in pain, swelling, bruising and loss of function (Lovering, 2008).
All your pretense in calling for the facts is becoming wearisome. If you were so interested in the facts then you would have found this information for yourself. More importantly, you hide behind this appeal for the facts in a way that reminds me of an old saying:
"Never let the facts get in the way of the truth".
It is the truth you seem to want to obfuscate, gleefully pointing out that it was only two police officers who brutally murdered Kelly Thomas, instead of six, as if this somehow reduces the severity of the crime. Or, would you care to make an argument that it was simply self defense and two armed police officers needed to cause the damage they did because they were confronted by an unarmed retarded man?
edit on 28-7-2011 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)
reply to post by areyouserious2010
Um, I don't know if you forgot this, but they beat him to death. They killed him with their bare hands and electrocution. So....yeah, that's pretty excessive. In fact that's about as excessive as it gets.
Cops get no respect from me, a piece of metal and a utility belt doesn't mean I'm going to be all "Yes sir officer sir.......I'm so sorry sir.............yes of course officer............you know best sir, have a good day". No way buddy, he's just an ordinary person to me, and the First Amendment doesn't require that you suck up to cops. That is pathetic.
What if the person starts fighting with the police first. What if they begin striking the officer with their fists and the officer begins defending him or herself by striking back but unfortunately a strike or the fall from being knocked unconscious causes some sort of brain injury and the person dies? It most likely has happened before. The officer's actions would be justified and as long as the officer's actions were not excessive there is no wrongdoing by the police.
Um, I don't know if you forgot this, but they beat him to death. They killed him with their bare hands and electrocution. So....yeah, that's pretty excessive. In fact that's about as excessive as it gets.
Oh, so if you hit a cop, they have the right to call five of their friends and beat you to death? Cops aren't above the law, they murdered him and they should be thrown into prison.
If you treat the police with disrespect and act like a turd, chances are you will be treated the same. If you are respectful and act like a civilized human being, most likely you will be treated as such.
Cops get no respect from me, a piece of metal and a utility belt doesn't mean I'm going to be all "Yes sir officer sir.......I'm so sorry sir.............yes of course officer............you know best sir, have a good day". No way buddy, he's just an ordinary person to me, and the First Amendment doesn't require that you suck up to cops. That is pathetic.
edit on 28-7-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
That is the wikipedia definition of soft tissue damage. When the police stated this it was an ambiguous statement at best. Without stating exactly what the injuries were I will not speculate so this is a good question. Instead of wanting to know exactly what the injuries were and making a determination based on fact, you have turned to a definition from wikipedia and made a conclusion based on that. Which is not investigation it is speculation.
If you would have stated "I want a rigorous investigation into the matter to collect all the facts and find out exactly what happened; After getting those facts, if it is found that there is probable cause of police of misconduct, I would like to see the responsible parties charges with a crime," I would not have said one word. But you didnt. You immediately jumped to conclusions condemning all of the police officers involved.
I have not provided an excuse or justification for their actions. I have merely stated that there is not enough information to condemn the police officers for their actions at this point. I have maintained that there is a clear reason to launch an investigation into the incident due to the severity of what happened and I have maintained that if there is evidence of police misconduct they should be charged with a crime just like anyone else.
What is meant by "soft tissue damage"?
That is the wikipedia definition of soft tissue damage. When the police stated this it was an ambiguous statement at best. Without stating exactly what the injuries were I will not speculate so this is a good question. Instead of wanting to know exactly what the injuries were and making a determination based on fact, you have turned to a definition from wikipedia and made a conclusion based on that. Which is not investigation it is speculation.
It is the truth you seem to want to obfuscate, gleefully pointing out that it was only two police officers who brutally murdered Kelly Thomas, instead of six, as if this somehow reduces the severity of the crime. Or, would you care to make an argument that it was simply self defense and two armed police officers needed to cause the damage they did because they were confronted by an unarmed retarded man?
If you would have stated "I want a rigorous investigation into the matter to collect all the facts and find out exactly what happened; After getting those facts, if it is found that there is probable cause of police of misconduct, I would like to see the responsible parties charges with a crime," I would not have said one word. But you didnt. You immediately jumped to conclusions condemning all of the police officers involved.
I have not provided an excuse or justification for their actions. I have merely stated that there is not enough information to condemn the police officers for their actions at this point. I have maintained that there is a clear reason to launch an investigation into the incident due to the severity of what happened and I have maintained that if there is evidence of police misconduct they should be charged with a crime just like anyone else.
reply to post by areyouserious2010
Sure, because there is a very good chance that an investigation will reveal that this was a just and proper reaction to an unarmed retarded man resisting arrest - and of course at this point we do not have near enough information to know if this arrest was lawful or simulation of legal process - instead of a knee jerk reaction. Yeah, I see what you're saying. You're saying that the members of this site and what appear to be their knee jerk reactions are far more serious than what appears to be a gross and violent knee jerk reaction by two police officers. Got ya.
Ohhhhhhh! I get it now. What you are saying is that those two police officers, before arresting the unarmed retarded man who subsequently resisted arrest, actually did a proper and thorough investigation and gathered more than enough facts to justify their arrest of this unarmed retarded man. And of course, since they did a proper and thorough investigation prior to arresting this unarmed retarded man, they knew full well he was unarmed and retarded, as any proper and thorough investigation would demand. So, since we should just simply accept your reification as truth, it should, at this point, be presumed that these two police officers knew they were arresting - and of course presume there was enough reasonable suspicion to constitute a lawful arrest - an unarmed retarded man and acted with all the appropriate precautions that would go into such an arrest, but that more than likely this unarmed retarded man - reported to be, by the community who knew him, gentle and sweet natured - went Bruce Lee all over these poor innocent police officers ass.
Yep, got it. That's plausible, right? It could have gone down that way, so since it is possible, even if stretching the limits of plausibility a bit, why bother with the investigation at all. Obviously the investigation where bear out this incredible tale of two heroic police officers who mightily defended their imperiled lives against a vicious and very lethal unarmed retarded man.
Yeah! Particularly those WTO melee's where the poor multitudes of heavily armed and dressed in riot gear police were facing some really, really, scary college students in Pittsburgh, and some really scary people in and Toronto. My God! We are so fortunate to have a para military police force so willing and ready to confront the unarmed populace with a plethora of technology and force to show them precisely whose in charge. Thank you so much for setting us all straight and reminding us how very much like Andy Griffith these good ol' police really are, and instead of mistaking them as the enemy, thanks to you we have found the enemy, and it is us. You're a genuine hero.
Well, I am not one of them. Quite the opposite, I am the guy who keeps telling people they have a natural and unalienable right to self defense. Indeed, if it ever came out that these two police officers did not have any probable cause to arrest Thomas Kelly then his so called "resisting arrest" would be lawfully known as self defense.
I am all for people defending themselves and if I could find, or you could - that is assuming you could even be bothered to muster up some of those mysteriously missing facts - show us some credible evidence that these two police officers were acting in self defense, or even if you could show us that their arrest of Kelly Thomas was lawful instead of simulating legal process, then I would be inclined to stand in your defense instead of aggressively holding you accountable for your defense of criminality.
There is no reason to assume, at this point that this was an innocent act of self defense, and if there was, there would not be an ongoing investigation with the media making open calls for people who may have witnessed this atrocity to come forward. An ongoing investigation is happening because it is pretty clear a crime happened.
Oh really? In "reality" this atrocious and lethal beating was not unprovoked? So, in reality, I guess it is fairly presumed you have access to the full video and have seen for yourself exactly what went down. Hmmmmm, I wonder why this video has not been released? Why would the Fullerton Police Department withhold a video that would clearly vindicate their police officers?
In reality, you come off as a lame advocate for those who look really guilty and they would be better served with a more able advocate.
I think there are at least dozens of members in this site waiting patiently to see at least one example of your presumed farsightedness, but instead all we get from you is empty rhetoric.
I would say that anytime the police use this much force and someone winds up dead it constitutes an obvious need for investigation to gather all the facts so it can be determined based on those facts whether or not the police were justified in their actions. I do not believe it constitutes "probable cause" for a knee jerk reaction to the situation.
Sure, because there is a very good chance that an investigation will reveal that this was a just and proper reaction to an unarmed retarded man resisting arrest - and of course at this point we do not have near enough information to know if this arrest was lawful or simulation of legal process - instead of a knee jerk reaction. Yeah, I see what you're saying. You're saying that the members of this site and what appear to be their knee jerk reactions are far more serious than what appears to be a gross and violent knee jerk reaction by two police officers. Got ya.
The difference is that when the police are investigating someone for a crime, they gather FACTS and charge a person based on evidence not their pure emotional response to the incident at face value.
Ohhhhhhh! I get it now. What you are saying is that those two police officers, before arresting the unarmed retarded man who subsequently resisted arrest, actually did a proper and thorough investigation and gathered more than enough facts to justify their arrest of this unarmed retarded man. And of course, since they did a proper and thorough investigation prior to arresting this unarmed retarded man, they knew full well he was unarmed and retarded, as any proper and thorough investigation would demand. So, since we should just simply accept your reification as truth, it should, at this point, be presumed that these two police officers knew they were arresting - and of course presume there was enough reasonable suspicion to constitute a lawful arrest - an unarmed retarded man and acted with all the appropriate precautions that would go into such an arrest, but that more than likely this unarmed retarded man - reported to be, by the community who knew him, gentle and sweet natured - went Bruce Lee all over these poor innocent police officers ass.
Yep, got it. That's plausible, right? It could have gone down that way, so since it is possible, even if stretching the limits of plausibility a bit, why bother with the investigation at all. Obviously the investigation where bear out this incredible tale of two heroic police officers who mightily defended their imperiled lives against a vicious and very lethal unarmed retarded man.
Wrong. The reason it appears there are more dubious police beatings is the advent of the cell phone camera. Most videos of the police using force is completely justified and within the policy of the police department. The reason videos of the police using force appears to be police misconduct is because of two things.
Yeah! Particularly those WTO melee's where the poor multitudes of heavily armed and dressed in riot gear police were facing some really, really, scary college students in Pittsburgh, and some really scary people in and Toronto. My God! We are so fortunate to have a para military police force so willing and ready to confront the unarmed populace with a plethora of technology and force to show them precisely whose in charge. Thank you so much for setting us all straight and reminding us how very much like Andy Griffith these good ol' police really are, and instead of mistaking them as the enemy, thanks to you we have found the enemy, and it is us. You're a genuine hero.
One, there are people out there who disagree with the police using any force whatsoever.
Well, I am not one of them. Quite the opposite, I am the guy who keeps telling people they have a natural and unalienable right to self defense. Indeed, if it ever came out that these two police officers did not have any probable cause to arrest Thomas Kelly then his so called "resisting arrest" would be lawfully known as self defense.
I am all for people defending themselves and if I could find, or you could - that is assuming you could even be bothered to muster up some of those mysteriously missing facts - show us some credible evidence that these two police officers were acting in self defense, or even if you could show us that their arrest of Kelly Thomas was lawful instead of simulating legal process, then I would be inclined to stand in your defense instead of aggressively holding you accountable for your defense of criminality.
There is no reason to assume, at this point that this was an innocent act of self defense, and if there was, there would not be an ongoing investigation with the media making open calls for people who may have witnessed this atrocity to come forward. An ongoing investigation is happening because it is pretty clear a crime happened.
Two, the video leaves out key moments in the incident that make the police action look unprovoked or excessive when in reality it was not.
Oh really? In "reality" this atrocious and lethal beating was not unprovoked? So, in reality, I guess it is fairly presumed you have access to the full video and have seen for yourself exactly what went down. Hmmmmm, I wonder why this video has not been released? Why would the Fullerton Police Department withhold a video that would clearly vindicate their police officers?
In reality, you come off as a lame advocate for those who look really guilty and they would be better served with a more able advocate.
You still do not have enough facts to render such a judgement. Your short-sightedness and quickness to condemn reeks of foulness.
I think there are at least dozens of members in this site waiting patiently to see at least one example of your presumed farsightedness, but instead all we get from you is empty rhetoric.
reply to post by TupacShakur
Yes they did beat him to death that is a fact. The did kill him with their bare hands but I dont know about the electrocution. Police issue tasers do not provide enough power to electocute someone so I dont think he was electrocuted. At face value, yes it looks excessive but without finding all the facts we do not know what really happened. And that is my point. Not that the police were right, because I do not have enough facts to make that judgement, but that there needs to be an investigation to find out exactly what happened before passing judgement.
No, but they do have the right to use force in return within reason. Get real, I never said they were above the law I just said that the incident should be investigated and they should be charged if there is evidence of police misconduct.
There is no law that you have to be nice to the police. That is your right to act like that. One that acts in such a way towards the police should not complain when the police are not so nice to them in return. I do not see how it is pathetic to treat someone the way you would like to be treated.
Um, I don't know if you forgot this, but they beat him to death. They killed him with their bare hands and electrocution. So....yeah, that's pretty excessive. In fact that's about as excessive as it gets.
Yes they did beat him to death that is a fact. The did kill him with their bare hands but I dont know about the electrocution. Police issue tasers do not provide enough power to electocute someone so I dont think he was electrocuted. At face value, yes it looks excessive but without finding all the facts we do not know what really happened. And that is my point. Not that the police were right, because I do not have enough facts to make that judgement, but that there needs to be an investigation to find out exactly what happened before passing judgement.
Oh, so if you hit a cop, they have the right to call five of their friends and beat you to death? Cops aren't above the law, they murdered him and they should be thrown into prison.
No, but they do have the right to use force in return within reason. Get real, I never said they were above the law I just said that the incident should be investigated and they should be charged if there is evidence of police misconduct.
Cops get no respect from me, a piece of metal and a utility belt doesn't mean I'm going to be all "Yes sir officer sir.......I'm so sorry sir.............yes of course officer............you know best sir, have a good day". No way buddy, he's just an ordinary person to me, and the First Amendment doesn't require that you suck up to cops. That is pathetic.
There is no law that you have to be nice to the police. That is your right to act like that. One that acts in such a way towards the police should not complain when the police are not so nice to them in return. I do not see how it is pathetic to treat someone the way you would like to be treated.
reply to post by areyouserious2010
But you said yourself what happened: "they did beat him to death that is a fact". So....what, do you need an official investigation to tell you what everybody, including yourself, already knows?
Yes they did beat him to death that is a fact. The did kill him with their bare hands but I dont know about the electrocution. Police issue tasers do not provide enough power to electocute someone so I dont think he was electrocuted. At face value, yes it looks excessive but without finding all the facts we do not know what really happened. And that is my point. Not that the police were right, because I do not have enough facts to make that judgement, but that there needs to be an investigation to find out exactly what happened before passing judgement.
Right, you never said they were above the law, but you were defending their actions by saying that you should treat cops how you would like to be treated. I interpreted that as you saying "two cops got soft tissue damage, so if he hit them, the cops have every right to hit them back".
No, but they do have the right to use force in return within reason. Get real, I never said they were above the law I just said that the incident should be investigated and they should be charged if there is evidence of police misconduct.
I just think it's pathetic to be all goody-goody and put on a fake persona when confronted by cops. I don't respect them though, there's too much corruption, police brutality, and abuse of power. Sure, I'm generalizing, but I don't care.
There is no law that you have to be nice to the police. That is your right to act like that. One that acts in such a way towards the police should not complain when the police are not so nice to them in return. I do not see how it is pathetic to treat someone the way you would like to be treated.
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
I will not speculate as to what the investigation will reveal. I do not know why you are so quick to do so.
Correct. You do not know what the information was at the time of the officer's actions.
[quote]
You're saying that the members of this site and what appear to be their knee jerk reactions are far more serious than what appears to be a gross and violent knee jerk reaction by two police officers.
No, I am saying the members of this site do not know and are not in a position to know the full facts to make a clear judgement and condemn the officers. Anyone in this forum who claims to know this is not only wrong but has brought their integrity into question.
We do not know what the information was that was known by the police officers at the time of their attempted detention of the man. But, that was not questioned in the article or the video. That was questioned by you. I do not think you are in a position to question that.
Reasonable suspicion is not grounds for a lawful arrest. This is where you show that you really do not know what you are talking about. Reasonable suspicion is sufficient for a police officer to make an investigative detention or a "Terry Stop." A "Terry Stop" is used to lawfully detain a person, when there is reasonable suspicion, in order for an officer to investigate further and determine if crime a crime is or has just been committed. In order to have a lawful arrest, an officer needs probable cause.
Again, we do not have the facts to make a determination. It does not say exactly what his actions were and how he was resisting arrest. The community testifying that he was gentle and sweet natured, is circumstantial at best. There are plenty of rapists and violent criminals that are gentle and sweet natured to the community. A community testifying to his demeanor in their experience sheds no light on how he was acting at the time of this incident.
Yes, it is possible. So, now you are saying that just because something seems improbable TO YOU, there is no point in conducting an investigation. All you are saying is that you have already made up your mind so there is no point in conducting an investigation. Which is wrong.
Please, stay on the topic at hand.
Well, based on my location and the location of where this occurred it would be quite inconvenient for me to spend my own money to go there and investigate this incident on my own. Especially since I would have absolutely no authority to question the officer or examine the evidence myself. That is why, just like you, I have to wait for the facts to be uncovered by someone with the authority to examine the evidence and interview the officers and witnesses. Before you say that the police can not be trusted to investigate this themselves, I am sure that with the media coverage of this incident, the State's Attorney is watching it very closely and conducting a review themselves.
Once again, you claim that I am defending criminality. I provided no defense for criminality. I merely pointed out that an article from dailymail.com and a video that shows absolutely nothing has not provided you with the entire facts of the incident. And the fact that you would come to this forum and claim that you had enough facts to pass judgement is questionable.
There is no reason to assume anything. Like you are so willing to do.
It was a general statement made about most videos that claim to show police brutality that you took out of context. The video of this incident that I have seen shows nothing of evidentiary value.
So let me get this straight, the empty rhetoric is from the person that is waiting to see the facts of the case before passing judgement? Not from the person who passes judgement based on very little fact, speculation and a lot of emotional reaction? I think you have that reversed.
Sure, because there is a very good chance that an investigation will reveal that this was a just and proper reaction to an unarmed retarded man resisting arrest
I will not speculate as to what the investigation will reveal. I do not know why you are so quick to do so.
- and of course at this point we do not have near enough information to know if this arrest was lawful or simulation of legal process - instead of a knee jerk reaction.
Correct. You do not know what the information was at the time of the officer's actions.
[quote]
You're saying that the members of this site and what appear to be their knee jerk reactions are far more serious than what appears to be a gross and violent knee jerk reaction by two police officers.
No, I am saying the members of this site do not know and are not in a position to know the full facts to make a clear judgement and condemn the officers. Anyone in this forum who claims to know this is not only wrong but has brought their integrity into question.
Ohhhhhhh! I get it now. What you are saying is that those two police officers, before arresting the unarmed retarded man who subsequently resisted arrest, actually did a proper and thorough investigation and gathered more than enough facts to justify their arrest of this unarmed retarded man. And of course, since they did a proper and thorough investigation prior to arresting this unarmed retarded man, they knew full well he was unarmed and retarded, as any proper and thorough investigation would demand.
We do not know what the information was that was known by the police officers at the time of their attempted detention of the man. But, that was not questioned in the article or the video. That was questioned by you. I do not think you are in a position to question that.
So, since we should just simply accept your reification as truth, it should, at this point, be presumed that these two police officers knew they were arresting - and of course presume there was enough reasonable suspicion to constitute a lawful arrest
Reasonable suspicion is not grounds for a lawful arrest. This is where you show that you really do not know what you are talking about. Reasonable suspicion is sufficient for a police officer to make an investigative detention or a "Terry Stop." A "Terry Stop" is used to lawfully detain a person, when there is reasonable suspicion, in order for an officer to investigate further and determine if crime a crime is or has just been committed. In order to have a lawful arrest, an officer needs probable cause.
- an unarmed retarded man and acted with all the appropriate precautions that would go into such an arrest, but that more than likely this unarmed retarded man - reported to be, by the community who knew him, gentle and sweet natured - went Bruce Lee all over these poor innocent police officers ass.
Again, we do not have the facts to make a determination. It does not say exactly what his actions were and how he was resisting arrest. The community testifying that he was gentle and sweet natured, is circumstantial at best. There are plenty of rapists and violent criminals that are gentle and sweet natured to the community. A community testifying to his demeanor in their experience sheds no light on how he was acting at the time of this incident.
Yep, got it. That's plausible, right? It could have gone down that way, so since it is possible, even if stretching the limits of plausibility a bit, why bother with the investigation at all. Obviously the investigation where bear out this incredible tale of two heroic police officers who mightily defended their imperiled lives against a vicious and very lethal unarmed retarded man.
Yes, it is possible. So, now you are saying that just because something seems improbable TO YOU, there is no point in conducting an investigation. All you are saying is that you have already made up your mind so there is no point in conducting an investigation. Which is wrong.
Yeah! Particularly those WTO melee's where the poor multitudes of heavily armed and dressed in riot gear police were facing some really, really, scary college students in Pittsburgh, and some really scary people in and Toronto. My God! We are so fortunate to have a para military police force so willing and ready to confront the unarmed populace with a plethora of technology and force to show them precisely whose in charge. Thank you so much for setting us all straight and reminding us how very much like Andy Griffith these good ol' police really are, and instead of mistaking them as the enemy, thanks to you we have found the enemy, and it is us. You're a genuine hero.
Please, stay on the topic at hand.
that is assuming you could even be bothered to muster up some of those mysteriously missing facts
Well, based on my location and the location of where this occurred it would be quite inconvenient for me to spend my own money to go there and investigate this incident on my own. Especially since I would have absolutely no authority to question the officer or examine the evidence myself. That is why, just like you, I have to wait for the facts to be uncovered by someone with the authority to examine the evidence and interview the officers and witnesses. Before you say that the police can not be trusted to investigate this themselves, I am sure that with the media coverage of this incident, the State's Attorney is watching it very closely and conducting a review themselves.
show us some credible evidence that these two police officers were acting in self defense, or even if you could show us that their arrest of Kelly Thomas was lawful instead of simulating legal process, then I would be inclined to stand in your defense instead of aggressively holding you accountable for your defense of criminality.
Once again, you claim that I am defending criminality. I provided no defense for criminality. I merely pointed out that an article from dailymail.com and a video that shows absolutely nothing has not provided you with the entire facts of the incident. And the fact that you would come to this forum and claim that you had enough facts to pass judgement is questionable.
There is no reason to assume, at this point that this was an innocent act of self defense, and if there was, there would not be an ongoing investigation with the media making open calls for people who may have witnessed this atrocity to come forward. An ongoing investigation is happening because it is pretty clear a crime happened.
There is no reason to assume anything. Like you are so willing to do.
Oh really? In "reality" this atrocious and lethal beating was not unprovoked? So, in reality, I guess it is fairly presumed you have access to the full video and have seen for yourself exactly what went down. Hmmmmm, I wonder why this video has not been released? Why would the Fullerton Police Department withhold a video that would clearly vindicate their police officers?
It was a general statement made about most videos that claim to show police brutality that you took out of context. The video of this incident that I have seen shows nothing of evidentiary value.
but instead all we get from you is empty rhetoric.
So let me get this straight, the empty rhetoric is from the person that is waiting to see the facts of the case before passing judgement? Not from the person who passes judgement based on very little fact, speculation and a lot of emotional reaction? I think you have that reversed.
This is beyond brutality.
ANY candidate for public office must address this issue or he/she will NOT be getting my vote.
It is a dealbreaker, and it is certainly not going away on its own.
Who is safe from these crazy cops? We try to teach our kids to respect them, but what parent could ask their child to cooperate when the odds are unclear what kind of individual we as a public are dealing with at any given time?
Is the penalty for breaking into cars and resisting arrest death on the street by beating?
When did that become the law?
And who appointed police the judge, jury, and executioner?
We now have to DIE for resisting arrest? Says WHO?!
ANY candidate for public office must address this issue or he/she will NOT be getting my vote.
It is a dealbreaker, and it is certainly not going away on its own.
Who is safe from these crazy cops? We try to teach our kids to respect them, but what parent could ask their child to cooperate when the odds are unclear what kind of individual we as a public are dealing with at any given time?
Is the penalty for breaking into cars and resisting arrest death on the street by beating?
When did that become the law?
And who appointed police the judge, jury, and executioner?
We now have to DIE for resisting arrest? Says WHO?!
reply to post by TupacShakur
To have a crime you need a guilty action and guilty intent. If the man began striking the officer and the officer retaliated with strikes to the suspect and one of those striked inadvertently causing a traumatic brain injury and lead to his death then you might have a guilty action but you do not have guilty intent. Why do you lobby for no investigation to be done? Is it because you have a bias towards police officers and do not care what the true facts are? There should always be an investigation to gather fact.
I was saying that without all the facts, we do not know what really happened. All we know right now is that the man was suspected of a crime, the police went to stop him, he resisted arrest, two officers were injured, force was used against the man and he eventually died of his injuries. That is all the facts we know. There is a lot more information to be gathered which provides a full account of the incident. When all of the facts are gathered then a true judgement can be made on the subject.
So it is a fake personal for you to treat someone with respect? So you usually do not treat anyone with respect? Or is it just police officers?
Unfortunately, your bias towards police has lead you astray. A small minority of police officers, who are corrupt, have given you the impression that all police are bad which is incorrect. I am sure that you would champion against someone saying that all black people are criminals. I am sure that you would champion against someone who stated all hispanic people are illegal aliens. I am sure you would champion against someone who stated all white people are racists or "white devils".
In fact all of these statements are untrue. A small minority of a group has caused a prejudice against the whole. You would say it is wrong for a person to have a prejudice such as this but then you would turn around and claim it is ok for you to do the same against a police officer? That is the definition of hypocisy. You should judge the person by their actions. And at first you should treat everyone how you would like to be treated until they prove that they will not reciprocate.
But you said yourself what happened: "they did beat him to death that is a fact". So....what, do you need an official investigation to tell you what everybody, including yourself, already knows?
To have a crime you need a guilty action and guilty intent. If the man began striking the officer and the officer retaliated with strikes to the suspect and one of those striked inadvertently causing a traumatic brain injury and lead to his death then you might have a guilty action but you do not have guilty intent. Why do you lobby for no investigation to be done? Is it because you have a bias towards police officers and do not care what the true facts are? There should always be an investigation to gather fact.
Right, you never said they were above the law, but you were defending their actions by saying that you should treat cops how you would like to be treated. I interpreted that as you saying "two cops got soft tissue damage, so if he hit them, the cops have every right to hit them back".
I was saying that without all the facts, we do not know what really happened. All we know right now is that the man was suspected of a crime, the police went to stop him, he resisted arrest, two officers were injured, force was used against the man and he eventually died of his injuries. That is all the facts we know. There is a lot more information to be gathered which provides a full account of the incident. When all of the facts are gathered then a true judgement can be made on the subject.
I just think it's pathetic to be all goody-goody and put on a fake persona when confronted by cops. I don't respect them though, there's too much corruption, police brutality, and abuse of power. Sure, I'm generalizing, but I don't care.
So it is a fake personal for you to treat someone with respect? So you usually do not treat anyone with respect? Or is it just police officers?
Unfortunately, your bias towards police has lead you astray. A small minority of police officers, who are corrupt, have given you the impression that all police are bad which is incorrect. I am sure that you would champion against someone saying that all black people are criminals. I am sure that you would champion against someone who stated all hispanic people are illegal aliens. I am sure you would champion against someone who stated all white people are racists or "white devils".
In fact all of these statements are untrue. A small minority of a group has caused a prejudice against the whole. You would say it is wrong for a person to have a prejudice such as this but then you would turn around and claim it is ok for you to do the same against a police officer? That is the definition of hypocisy. You should judge the person by their actions. And at first you should treat everyone how you would like to be treated until they prove that they will not reciprocate.
edit on 28-7-2011 by areyouserious2010 because: edit
edit on 28-7-2011 by
areyouserious2010 because: edit
reply to post by confreak
Love to do that...but... I love all the way in Georgia...a bit away from Fullerton Cali! but for those who are there, I say great!
Love to do that...but... I love all the way in Georgia...a bit away from Fullerton Cali! but for those who are there, I say great!
Sooo how much more thuglice brutality do we need until America wakes up?
reply to post by areyouserious2010
What do you mean by this? Is this your lame attempt to impeach facts while simultaneously insisting everyone else wait for the facts to come out? Are you hoping that by simply dismissing the link regarding "soft tissue damage" as being a Wikipedia article that this will be more than enough to convince readers that "soft tissue damage" means something else all together and that we cannot go by Wikipedia?
Of course, if you genuinely thought that the Wikipedia article misstated what "soft tissue damage" is, you would have supplied different definitions from more credible sources to counter that Wikipedia article you lamely hope to dismiss. The problem is this:
That definitions comes from The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons...or perhaps you would be more comfortable with a lawyers definiton of "soft tissue damage"
A clever advocate would have done the research in an effort to find some fact that might refute what the Wikipedia article defined as "soft tissue damage", and failing that a really smart advocate would have never have handed his opponent a silly logical fallacy of argument by dismissal such as you did, and handed it to me on a silver platter.
You are the one speculating that "soft tissue damage" is an ambiguous statement, and are ignoring that the very unambiguous previous statement reported by ABC News that broken bones were sustained was corrected and replaced with what you now speculate is an ambiguous statement. It is not a good question I asked when asking "what is soft tissue damage"? It was a successful prediction that you had no idea what "soft tissue damage" was and that you would trip up all over this issue.
Since you are so insistent on the facts, and I agree that the facts need to be known, it is prudent to clarify what you mean by the above remark. Since it was I who took up debate with you, and your initial post that I responded to that was itself actually addressing a different member. I - in fact - replied to your disclaimer insisting that the members shouldn't pass judgment. I responded by pointing out that the police officers who beat this unarmed retarded man to death certainly passed judgment in order to do such a thing. Of course, those are just the facts, and when they get in the way for you, I suppose you will just dismiss them like you would a Wikipedia article, for no other reason than it is a Wikipedia article.
Let's get both the facts and the data that has been reported thus far.
On July 6th, The Los Angeles Times gave this report:
Now, in fairness to the beleaguered Fullerton Police Department, based on this paragraph alone, the "authorities" being sourced are unnamed and we should take such an unnamed source with a grain of salt. Indeed, we now now that it was not a fact that Kelly Thomas was "brawling with half a dozen Fullerton police officers", but as you have pointed out, it was in fact only two. The L.A. Times continues:
We now have reports disputing this earlier report of "a broken rib and broken bone in the arm" sustained by the two officers during the fight, and it is now reported by a named source - Sgt. Andrew Goodrich of the Fullerton Police Department - that the police officers did not suffer any broken bones, but instead sustained, what you term an ""ambiguously stated", injury of "soft tissue damage".
Even so, the L.A. Times continues with their earlier report:
Hmmmm. Suddenly the earlier unnamed "authorities" has at least one name, and that name is - lo and behold - Sgt. Andrew Goodrich! But wait a minute, this early report tells us that Goodrich said it took altogether six police officers to "subdue" Mr. Thomas, but you're saying that the beating was only done by two police officers. Hmmmm. Well, maybe subsequent reports will support your contention it was just two police officers and not six that beat the ever loving crap out of Kelly Thomas.
Yet, before we look at any other news reports let's finish with the L.A. Times report:
A criminal probe of Mr. Thomas regarding the "alleged vehicle burglaries"? Why, that's right! It was the alleged vehicle robberies that gave the police, what you speculate to be "reasonable suspicion" to detain and arrest Mr. Thomas to begin with. The L.A. Times reported that Mr. Thomas was, after all, arrested on suspicion of possession of stolen items from vehicles. Has anything else been reported about this reported criminal investigation on the now deceased Kelly Thomas? This report was on the 6th of July, it is now the 28th of July and I can find no information what-so-ever incriminating Kelly Thomas in any criminal activity leading to his brutal and fatal beating by what appears to be actually six police officers, not two. Although admittedly two police officers got the jump on the other four in "subduing" an unarmed retarded man.
Let's take a look at a more recent report by the Huffington Post
So, with a report made just yesterday, (July 27th, 2011), we still have Sgt. Andrew Goodrich contradicting your contention that it was only two police officers who beat Mr. Thomas to death, and Goodrich is sticking to his story that it ultimately took "maybe" six police officers to kill Mr. Thomas. Of course Goodrich is still referring to this killing as an effort to "subdue" Mr. Thomas but of the facts we do have, that these efforts to subdue Kelly Thomas resulted in his death is one of those facts.
It is important to note that 22 days after the incident it is still being reported that Mr. Thomas was arrested on "suspicion of possession of stolen items". No report to be found confirming that in fact there were stolen items on Mr. Thomas' person at the time of his arrest, only the same report we got from the L.A. Times on the 6th of July that he was arrested for suspicion of possession of stolen items. That becomes an important fact to now into consideration. If Mr. Thomas did in fact have stolen items on his person, why are we not hearing anything about this?
Do you imagine with your over speculative mind that revealing information that actually incriminates Mr. Thomas of criminality will somehow hurt the police officers investigation into the police officers who beat him? Is there some sort of reasonable and rational explanation as to why - if there is incriminating evidence against Mr. Thomas - as to why that evidence has not been revealed to help vilify the police officers?
Certainly, if the Fullerton Police Department had information incriminating Mr. Thomas in the burglaries that led to the police officers suspecting he was in possession of stolen items they would release this information to put the public at ease somewhat and allow them to understand that the police officers did in fact have reasonable suspicion and that it is easier to now understand why an unarmed retarded man might have fought so hard as the Fullerton Police Department alleges.
The Huffington Post article concludes with these two paragraphs:
So, where the Huffington Post, in some regards echoes the earlier report by the L.A. Times, a glaring difference is that where the L.A. Times had reported a criminal investigation was taking place into to Mr. Thomas regarding the burglaries, in the Huffington Post the only investigation mentioned, or "inquiry" if you will, is the "incident" itself, and no mention at all about any criminal investigation into to Mr. Thomas' connection with the alleged burglaries of that night.
Further, the Huffington Post reports of a Fullerton City Council Member who has written an open letter demanding the release of a video and the Fullerton P.D. offering a "clear" explanation as to what actually happened. Here is a link shows that letter in its entirety and also quotes the Mayor of Fullerton and other City Council Members reaction to Bruce Whitaker's letter:
Why look at that! The Mayor of Fullerton sounds a lot like you. Okay, so what sort of speculation did City Council Member Bruce Whitaker make in his open letter printed on city stationary?
Well, the fact of the matter is that Whitaker did not make any speculations at all and only called for some clear explanations and release of a video. Interesting.
So, let's list these facts:
On July 5th Fullerton Police received reports of someone breaking into vehicles in an area near a bus depot.
When Fullerton police arrived on the scene at some point they discovered Kelly Thomas.
For undisclosed reasons, two Fullerton Police officers arrested Kelly Thomas on suspicion of possessing stolen items.
At this point, the Fullerton Police Department, primarily through a Sgt. Andrew Goodrich, alleges that Mr. Thomas resisted arrest and that it took four more police officers to subdue Mr. Thomas, which ultimately resulted in his death.
These are the facts as we understand them today.
Here are some more facts:
It was reported on July 6th that detectives had launched a criminal investigation into the now dead Mr. Thomas regarding the alleged break ins to vehicles parked in the area near the Fullerton bus depot, but no evidence of any further reporting on this investigation. It is a fact that at this point we do not know if this criminal investigation on Thomas is still in play or has been dropped.
If Kelly Thomas was in possession of stolen items - the excuse given for "reasonable suspicion" - we do not know. This is a fact. It is a fact that if the Fullerton Police Department knows if Mr. Thomas was in possession of stolen items at the time of his arrest that they have not disclosed this information. (Unless they have and I have just failed to find that information. If it has been reported that Mr. Thomas was indeed in possession of stolen items at the time of his arrest, I urge you to find these reports and post them in this thread, as that would be kind of fact that would help calm down an outraged membership somewhat.)
Another fact is that when City Council Member Bruce Whitaker used City stationary to write an open letter the Mayor of Fullerton felt compelled to respond to that open letter by (presumably) countering with a warning that we should not speculate, at the very least, implying that Bruce Whitaker in his open letter had engaged in some form of speculation. However, a careful reading of his open letter reveals that Whitaker did not engage in any speculation and merely reported the facts as he understood them and called for the release of a video in the possession of the Fullerton P.D. That is a fact.
When looking at all these facts, the members of this site have more than enough reasonable suspicion regarding, not just the police officers involved, but at this point the Fullerton Police Department.
Your pretenses of not speculating are either as I just called them pretenses, or they are lies. You are speculating, the only difference between your speculation and those members you smugly admonish is that you are speculating, very obviously so when you make assertions such as "in reality" the can of whoop ass the police opened up on Kelly Thomas "was not" "unprovoked or excessive", that the police officers acted professionally and properly, while those you admonish are speculating otherwise. You appear to be speculating when you assert it was only two police officers who beat the almighty crap out of Mr. Thomas. You have done plenty of speculation in this thread, sport.
That is the wikipedia definition of soft tissue damage.
What do you mean by this? Is this your lame attempt to impeach facts while simultaneously insisting everyone else wait for the facts to come out? Are you hoping that by simply dismissing the link regarding "soft tissue damage" as being a Wikipedia article that this will be more than enough to convince readers that "soft tissue damage" means something else all together and that we cannot go by Wikipedia?
Of course, if you genuinely thought that the Wikipedia article misstated what "soft tissue damage" is, you would have supplied different definitions from more credible sources to counter that Wikipedia article you lamely hope to dismiss. The problem is this:
When you participate in sports and physical fitness activities, you can injure the soft tissues of your body. Even simple everyday activities can damage these ligaments, tendons, and muscles.
Some of the soft-tissue injuries you are most likely to experience include:
sprains
strains
contusions
tendonitis
bursitis
stress injuries
Any of these can be the result of a single episode, such as a fall, a sudden twist, or a blow to the body. You might also sustain one or more of these injuries because of repeated overuse, such as in ongoing athletic activities. In this case, small amounts of body stress accumulate slowly but steadily. The result can be damage and pain.
That definitions comes from The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons...or perhaps you would be more comfortable with a lawyers definiton of "soft tissue damage"
Soft tissue injury is damage to four different types of tissue: muscles, ligaments, tendons or nerves.
Common causes
Soft tissue injury is caused by direct or indirect trauma. Direct trauma may happen in connection with sports or other accidents, being struck by an object or falling. Indirect trauma commonly stems from overuse of the tissue. For instance, assembly line or factory workers often suffer from this type because of the many repetitive movements they have to do many times a day.
Types of soft issue injury
Soft tissue injuries include ligament sprains (e.g. sprained ankle), tendon strains, repetitive stress injury and carpal tunnel syndrome.
A clever advocate would have done the research in an effort to find some fact that might refute what the Wikipedia article defined as "soft tissue damage", and failing that a really smart advocate would have never have handed his opponent a silly logical fallacy of argument by dismissal such as you did, and handed it to me on a silver platter.
When the police stated this it was an ambiguous statement at best. Without stating exactly what the injuries were I will not speculate so this is a good question. Instead of wanting to know exactly what the injuries were and making a determination based on fact, you have turned to a definition from wikipedia and made a conclusion based on that. Which is not investigation it is speculation.
You are the one speculating that "soft tissue damage" is an ambiguous statement, and are ignoring that the very unambiguous previous statement reported by ABC News that broken bones were sustained was corrected and replaced with what you now speculate is an ambiguous statement. It is not a good question I asked when asking "what is soft tissue damage"? It was a successful prediction that you had no idea what "soft tissue damage" was and that you would trip up all over this issue.
If you would have stated "I want a rigorous investigation into the matter to collect all the facts and find out exactly what happened; After getting those facts, if it is found that there is probable cause of police of misconduct, I would like to see the responsible parties charges with a crime," I would not have said one word. But you didnt. You immediately jumped to conclusions condemning all of the police officers involved.
Since you are so insistent on the facts, and I agree that the facts need to be known, it is prudent to clarify what you mean by the above remark. Since it was I who took up debate with you, and your initial post that I responded to that was itself actually addressing a different member. I - in fact - replied to your disclaimer insisting that the members shouldn't pass judgment. I responded by pointing out that the police officers who beat this unarmed retarded man to death certainly passed judgment in order to do such a thing. Of course, those are just the facts, and when they get in the way for you, I suppose you will just dismiss them like you would a Wikipedia article, for no other reason than it is a Wikipedia article.
I have not provided an excuse or justification for their actions. I have merely stated that there is not enough information to condemn the police officers for their actions at this point. I have maintained that there is a clear reason to launch an investigation into the incident due to the severity of what happened and I have maintained that if there is evidence of police misconduct they should be charged with a crime just like anyone else.
Let's get both the facts and the data that has been reported thus far.
On July 6th, The Los Angeles Times gave this report:
A 37-year-old man was in "very critical condition" Wednesday evening after brawling with half a dozen Fullerton police officers, authorities said.
Now, in fairness to the beleaguered Fullerton Police Department, based on this paragraph alone, the "authorities" being sourced are unnamed and we should take such an unnamed source with a grain of salt. Indeed, we now now that it was not a fact that Kelly Thomas was "brawling with half a dozen Fullerton police officers", but as you have pointed out, it was in fact only two. The L.A. Times continues:
Two officers also were injured with a broken rib and broken bone in the arm during the fight, which lasted about seven minutes. The officers had responded to a report of someone breaking into cars in a lot at the Fullerton Transportation Center, police said.
We now have reports disputing this earlier report of "a broken rib and broken bone in the arm" sustained by the two officers during the fight, and it is now reported by a named source - Sgt. Andrew Goodrich of the Fullerton Police Department - that the police officers did not suffer any broken bones, but instead sustained, what you term an ""ambiguously stated", injury of "soft tissue damage".
Even so, the L.A. Times continues with their earlier report:
Kelly Thomas, 37, described by police as a transient, began fighting two officers who tried to arrest him on suspicion of possessing items stolen from the vehicles, Sgt. Andrew Goodrich said.
Thomas tried to run from the two officers, who ended up knocking him to the ground and calling for backup as the struggle continued, Goodrich said. Four additional officers arrived and tried to help subdue Thomas.
Hmmmm. Suddenly the earlier unnamed "authorities" has at least one name, and that name is - lo and behold - Sgt. Andrew Goodrich! But wait a minute, this early report tells us that Goodrich said it took altogether six police officers to "subdue" Mr. Thomas, but you're saying that the beating was only done by two police officers. Hmmmm. Well, maybe subsequent reports will support your contention it was just two police officers and not six that beat the ever loving crap out of Kelly Thomas.
Yet, before we look at any other news reports let's finish with the L.A. Times report:
"It was a long fight," Goodrich said. "He suffered a lot of injuries to his neck and head area."
Thomas was being treated Wednesday night at UC Irvine Medical Center.
Goodrich said that Fullerton Police Department internal affairs officers were conducting an administrative investigation of the incident and that detectives had launched a criminal probe of Thomas and the alleged vehicle burglaries.
A criminal probe of Mr. Thomas regarding the "alleged vehicle burglaries"? Why, that's right! It was the alleged vehicle robberies that gave the police, what you speculate to be "reasonable suspicion" to detain and arrest Mr. Thomas to begin with. The L.A. Times reported that Mr. Thomas was, after all, arrested on suspicion of possession of stolen items from vehicles. Has anything else been reported about this reported criminal investigation on the now deceased Kelly Thomas? This report was on the 6th of July, it is now the 28th of July and I can find no information what-so-ever incriminating Kelly Thomas in any criminal activity leading to his brutal and fatal beating by what appears to be actually six police officers, not two. Although admittedly two police officers got the jump on the other four in "subduing" an unarmed retarded man.
Let's take a look at a more recent report by the Huffington Post
On July 5, Fullerton police received reports of someone breaking into cars in the area around the bus depot, according to the LA Times. Police subsequently tried to arrest 37-year-old transient Kelly Thomas on suspicion of possessing the stolen items.
When Thomas resisted, it took several minutes for him to be subdued. Sgt. Andrew Goodrich told the OC Register that it took "an upwards of five, maybe six officers to subdue him."
So, with a report made just yesterday, (July 27th, 2011), we still have Sgt. Andrew Goodrich contradicting your contention that it was only two police officers who beat Mr. Thomas to death, and Goodrich is sticking to his story that it ultimately took "maybe" six police officers to kill Mr. Thomas. Of course Goodrich is still referring to this killing as an effort to "subdue" Mr. Thomas but of the facts we do have, that these efforts to subdue Kelly Thomas resulted in his death is one of those facts.
It is important to note that 22 days after the incident it is still being reported that Mr. Thomas was arrested on "suspicion of possession of stolen items". No report to be found confirming that in fact there were stolen items on Mr. Thomas' person at the time of his arrest, only the same report we got from the L.A. Times on the 6th of July that he was arrested for suspicion of possession of stolen items. That becomes an important fact to now into consideration. If Mr. Thomas did in fact have stolen items on his person, why are we not hearing anything about this?
Do you imagine with your over speculative mind that revealing information that actually incriminates Mr. Thomas of criminality will somehow hurt the police officers investigation into the police officers who beat him? Is there some sort of reasonable and rational explanation as to why - if there is incriminating evidence against Mr. Thomas - as to why that evidence has not been revealed to help vilify the police officers?
Certainly, if the Fullerton Police Department had information incriminating Mr. Thomas in the burglaries that led to the police officers suspecting he was in possession of stolen items they would release this information to put the public at ease somewhat and allow them to understand that the police officers did in fact have reasonable suspicion and that it is easier to now understand why an unarmed retarded man might have fought so hard as the Fullerton Police Department alleges.
The Huffington Post article concludes with these two paragraphs:
Currently, the Fullerton Police Department is performing an inquiry into the incident, and the case is being examined by the Orange County District Attorney's office, reports the LA Times. There have been several protests, and a vigil for Kelly was held in downtown Fullerton, the OC Register tells us.
In an open letter, City Council Member Bruce Whitaker has called for the police to offer a clear explanation and to release a video that apparently shows the actual beating.
So, where the Huffington Post, in some regards echoes the earlier report by the L.A. Times, a glaring difference is that where the L.A. Times had reported a criminal investigation was taking place into to Mr. Thomas regarding the burglaries, in the Huffington Post the only investigation mentioned, or "inquiry" if you will, is the "incident" itself, and no mention at all about any criminal investigation into to Mr. Thomas' connection with the alleged burglaries of that night.
Further, the Huffington Post reports of a Fullerton City Council Member who has written an open letter demanding the release of a video and the Fullerton P.D. offering a "clear" explanation as to what actually happened. Here is a link shows that letter in its entirety and also quotes the Mayor of Fullerton and other City Council Members reaction to Bruce Whitaker's letter:
Mayor Richard M. Jones said that even though the letter is on official city stationary, it reflects the views of Councilmember Whitaker as a private citizen. “He is exercising his right to free speech as a private citizen,” and that it does not represent the council itself. “It’s just not good to speculate on things until we know all the facts,“ Jones said, acknowledging that there have been no official findings from any of the investigations currently underway.
Why look at that! The Mayor of Fullerton sounds a lot like you. Okay, so what sort of speculation did City Council Member Bruce Whitaker make in his open letter printed on city stationary?
Well, the fact of the matter is that Whitaker did not make any speculations at all and only called for some clear explanations and release of a video. Interesting.
So, let's list these facts:
On July 5th Fullerton Police received reports of someone breaking into vehicles in an area near a bus depot.
When Fullerton police arrived on the scene at some point they discovered Kelly Thomas.
For undisclosed reasons, two Fullerton Police officers arrested Kelly Thomas on suspicion of possessing stolen items.
At this point, the Fullerton Police Department, primarily through a Sgt. Andrew Goodrich, alleges that Mr. Thomas resisted arrest and that it took four more police officers to subdue Mr. Thomas, which ultimately resulted in his death.
These are the facts as we understand them today.
Here are some more facts:
It was reported on July 6th that detectives had launched a criminal investigation into the now dead Mr. Thomas regarding the alleged break ins to vehicles parked in the area near the Fullerton bus depot, but no evidence of any further reporting on this investigation. It is a fact that at this point we do not know if this criminal investigation on Thomas is still in play or has been dropped.
If Kelly Thomas was in possession of stolen items - the excuse given for "reasonable suspicion" - we do not know. This is a fact. It is a fact that if the Fullerton Police Department knows if Mr. Thomas was in possession of stolen items at the time of his arrest that they have not disclosed this information. (Unless they have and I have just failed to find that information. If it has been reported that Mr. Thomas was indeed in possession of stolen items at the time of his arrest, I urge you to find these reports and post them in this thread, as that would be kind of fact that would help calm down an outraged membership somewhat.)
Another fact is that when City Council Member Bruce Whitaker used City stationary to write an open letter the Mayor of Fullerton felt compelled to respond to that open letter by (presumably) countering with a warning that we should not speculate, at the very least, implying that Bruce Whitaker in his open letter had engaged in some form of speculation. However, a careful reading of his open letter reveals that Whitaker did not engage in any speculation and merely reported the facts as he understood them and called for the release of a video in the possession of the Fullerton P.D. That is a fact.
When looking at all these facts, the members of this site have more than enough reasonable suspicion regarding, not just the police officers involved, but at this point the Fullerton Police Department.
Your pretenses of not speculating are either as I just called them pretenses, or they are lies. You are speculating, the only difference between your speculation and those members you smugly admonish is that you are speculating, very obviously so when you make assertions such as "in reality" the can of whoop ass the police opened up on Kelly Thomas "was not" "unprovoked or excessive", that the police officers acted professionally and properly, while those you admonish are speculating otherwise. You appear to be speculating when you assert it was only two police officers who beat the almighty crap out of Mr. Thomas. You have done plenty of speculation in this thread, sport.
edit on 28-7-2011 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Setting aside the brutality for a moment I just wanted to point out that there is a line when it comes to what a lawful arrest is or is not, and a person resisting that arrest. I know most people in here think they are jtually exclusive, IE if the arrest is not lawful, I dont have to cooperate. The problem is they are seperate from each other. If an officer is making a false arrest, a person cannot resist that arrest.
Now, with that being said some states (Texas and a few others) do have laws that take that stuff into account. This will vary from state to state. I am not condoning the officers actions at all. I am simply pointing out what the law says when dealing with this subject manner.
@ others in the thread
Before people torch me on the front lawn, I did not make the law. If you dont like the law, then get involved and have it changed.
As far as this incident goes a few questions come to mind. From the article the impression I get is this guy was known to the community.
* - Is there any type of previous encounters between officers and this individual?
* - If he was known to the community did the police know he was mentally ill?
* - How exactly was the call dispatched? We know it was a person breaking into cars. My questions is was their some type of officer safety issued as well that this guy might have been armed?
I have gone hands on a few times with EDP (emotionally disturbed people). Just because there is a "mental issue" present does not mean the person weas a nerf helmet and is incapable of doing damage. With mental problems there is the very real possibility that there is a misfire when it comes to strenght and pain thresholds.
The techniques used by police revolve around the concept of precision strikes to muscle groups, whihc is effective on the average joe. When dealing with a person who is impaired / EDP it does not work.
It would be like having a person punch you, your brain gets the message but misfires, and instead of experiencing pain, you see a color or you smell an odor.
Anyways, I am just pointing this info out and nothing more.
Setting aside the brutality for a moment I just wanted to point out that there is a line when it comes to what a lawful arrest is or is not, and a person resisting that arrest. I know most people in here think they are jtually exclusive, IE if the arrest is not lawful, I dont have to cooperate. The problem is they are seperate from each other. If an officer is making a false arrest, a person cannot resist that arrest.
Now, with that being said some states (Texas and a few others) do have laws that take that stuff into account. This will vary from state to state. I am not condoning the officers actions at all. I am simply pointing out what the law says when dealing with this subject manner.
@ others in the thread
Before people torch me on the front lawn, I did not make the law. If you dont like the law, then get involved and have it changed.
As far as this incident goes a few questions come to mind. From the article the impression I get is this guy was known to the community.
* - Is there any type of previous encounters between officers and this individual?
* - If he was known to the community did the police know he was mentally ill?
* - How exactly was the call dispatched? We know it was a person breaking into cars. My questions is was their some type of officer safety issued as well that this guy might have been armed?
I have gone hands on a few times with EDP (emotionally disturbed people). Just because there is a "mental issue" present does not mean the person weas a nerf helmet and is incapable of doing damage. With mental problems there is the very real possibility that there is a misfire when it comes to strenght and pain thresholds.
The techniques used by police revolve around the concept of precision strikes to muscle groups, whihc is effective on the average joe. When dealing with a person who is impaired / EDP it does not work.
It would be like having a person punch you, your brain gets the message but misfires, and instead of experiencing pain, you see a color or you smell an odor.
Anyways, I am just pointing this info out and nothing more.
reply to post by Xcathdra
Resisting arrest, does not give the right to end a life. You can only use lawful force when its an extreme situation. Those are the laws. Also, when someone is tasering or pounding, and brutally beating someone, in sound mind and body, and police had better be, they would no that they are committing a brutal crime, that would seriously hurt or kill. Its like this, does the knife potentially kill? Most know it can. Does kicking and pounding on people put them at risk for paralysis, brain damage, broken skulls or death? Again, most know yes.
This isn't about resistng arrest. And resisting arrest is minor. Its not murdrer, its not assault, and its not rape. I'm sure they have a huge folder on every person on this planet. So if this in't an armed gunman holding a bunch of people hostage, there is no need to force someone brutally in your custody, and this man was on his back, unarmed, calling out for his father.
They knew who he was, and targeted him deliberately.
Resisting arrest, does not give the right to end a life. You can only use lawful force when its an extreme situation. Those are the laws. Also, when someone is tasering or pounding, and brutally beating someone, in sound mind and body, and police had better be, they would no that they are committing a brutal crime, that would seriously hurt or kill. Its like this, does the knife potentially kill? Most know it can. Does kicking and pounding on people put them at risk for paralysis, brain damage, broken skulls or death? Again, most know yes.
This isn't about resistng arrest. And resisting arrest is minor. Its not murdrer, its not assault, and its not rape. I'm sure they have a huge folder on every person on this planet. So if this in't an armed gunman holding a bunch of people hostage, there is no need to force someone brutally in your custody, and this man was on his back, unarmed, calling out for his father.
They knew who he was, and targeted him deliberately.
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
After all of these words, you still know just as many facts as I do.
The only difference between you and I is that I reserve judgement until the full facts are known. Here are some facts, that you do not know, that would enlighten someone and provide them a true knowledge of the situation so they can formulate and educated opinion on the subject:
-How was the initial call dispatched?
-How many officers were on the scene initially?
-What was the reasonable suspicion that led the officer/officers to want to detain the man?
-When the officer/officers initially contacted the man, what were his reactions?
-What were the actions of the police when confronted with his reaction?
-What was the extent of the man's resistance to the officer's detention? Was he passively resisting or was he fighting with the officer/officers?
-What exactly was the officer's use of force?
-Was it within the policy of the department?
-What weapons were used by the police and how were they used?
-WHAT WERE THE EXACT INJURIES TO THE OFFICERS?
-What were the exact injuries to the deceased man?
-At what point in the incident were the injuries sustained?
-What was his cause of death?
-What exactly did other witnesses testify to?
-What is the testimony of the officers?
I do not claim to know the exact answers to all of these questions and most will not be public knowledge until the case is brought before a court or brought to light by other means.
I am sure you could speculate the answer for many of them. Speculation, no matter how much confidence is put behind it, is still not fact.
When all of these questions, and a few others that I can not think of, are answered one can draw a reasonable conclusion.
We are on the same page when it comes to the initial reaction to the incident. It brings a "what the hell happened," feeling to everyone, even fellow police officers I would imagine. But there are some on here that would lobby for all six officers to be condemned for murder, drug out into the street and shot. Some would argue that there is no need for an investigation because all of the facts are readily available from their own emotional response, the video and the article from dailymail.com. I claim that this is wrong and condemnation should be reserved until the full facts of the story are known. If after obtaining the full facts it shows blatant police misconduct and unreasonable force was applied, the officers should be charged with a crime. Period.
Unfortunately, you have to turn to condescending talk to try to drive your point home with the members of this forum. If your argument spoke for itself, condescending talk would not be necessary, Sport.
Oh and you have yet to provide an explaination as to why you though a lawful arrest could be made on reasonable suspicion. I can see it is your policy, when wrong, to just ignore the fact and continue on with your rant. If you look real close, through all of that grandiose wording, one could draw the conclusion that you really do not know what you are talking about and are speaking on pure emotion.
After all of these words, you still know just as many facts as I do.
The only difference between you and I is that I reserve judgement until the full facts are known. Here are some facts, that you do not know, that would enlighten someone and provide them a true knowledge of the situation so they can formulate and educated opinion on the subject:
-How was the initial call dispatched?
-How many officers were on the scene initially?
-What was the reasonable suspicion that led the officer/officers to want to detain the man?
-When the officer/officers initially contacted the man, what were his reactions?
-What were the actions of the police when confronted with his reaction?
-What was the extent of the man's resistance to the officer's detention? Was he passively resisting or was he fighting with the officer/officers?
-What exactly was the officer's use of force?
-Was it within the policy of the department?
-What weapons were used by the police and how were they used?
-WHAT WERE THE EXACT INJURIES TO THE OFFICERS?
-What were the exact injuries to the deceased man?
-At what point in the incident were the injuries sustained?
-What was his cause of death?
-What exactly did other witnesses testify to?
-What is the testimony of the officers?
I do not claim to know the exact answers to all of these questions and most will not be public knowledge until the case is brought before a court or brought to light by other means.
I am sure you could speculate the answer for many of them. Speculation, no matter how much confidence is put behind it, is still not fact.
When all of these questions, and a few others that I can not think of, are answered one can draw a reasonable conclusion.
We are on the same page when it comes to the initial reaction to the incident. It brings a "what the hell happened," feeling to everyone, even fellow police officers I would imagine. But there are some on here that would lobby for all six officers to be condemned for murder, drug out into the street and shot. Some would argue that there is no need for an investigation because all of the facts are readily available from their own emotional response, the video and the article from dailymail.com. I claim that this is wrong and condemnation should be reserved until the full facts of the story are known. If after obtaining the full facts it shows blatant police misconduct and unreasonable force was applied, the officers should be charged with a crime. Period.
Unfortunately, you have to turn to condescending talk to try to drive your point home with the members of this forum. If your argument spoke for itself, condescending talk would not be necessary, Sport.
Oh and you have yet to provide an explaination as to why you though a lawful arrest could be made on reasonable suspicion. I can see it is your policy, when wrong, to just ignore the fact and continue on with your rant. If you look real close, through all of that grandiose wording, one could draw the conclusion that you really do not know what you are talking about and are speaking on pure emotion.
edit on 29-7-2011 by
areyouserious2010 because: edit to add
edit on 29-7-2011 by areyouserious2010 because: new question to be answered
reply to post by Unity_99
One question. What evidence do you have that makes you believe it was a conspiracy by the police to target the man deliberately?
They knew who he was, and targeted him deliberately.
One question. What evidence do you have that makes you believe it was a conspiracy by the police to target the man deliberately?
These acts of violence whether it is a beating that results in death, a tasering of a young mother, or an unjustified stop are meant as an assault on
all of us. We are being told to submit or else.
How ugly will it get before we start doing something. I'll be calling the phone number that was posted.
How ugly will it get before we start doing something. I'll be calling the phone number that was posted.
reply to post by areyouserious2010
The cops beat to death an unarmed civilian that was crying for his dad. Stop and consider what kind of energy you would have to muster within yourself to hit another human being over and over with as much force as those pigs did and all the while hearing the man crying out for Daddy? EVIL
The cops beat to death an unarmed civilian that was crying for his dad. Stop and consider what kind of energy you would have to muster within yourself to hit another human being over and over with as much force as those pigs did and all the while hearing the man crying out for Daddy? EVIL
reply to post by Witness2008
I understand what you are saying. And an investigation needs to be carried out to determine the reason behind the actions of the police because, believe it or not, there are certain circumstances that could justify what happened. I am not claiming there is a reason or justification. I am just saying that there COULD be one and based on the facts that we have now any judgement passed is based mostly on an emotional response and not fact.
If there is no reason or justification found in those facts that are gathered then this is obviously a case of police brutality and misconduct that must be answered for.
I understand what you are saying. And an investigation needs to be carried out to determine the reason behind the actions of the police because, believe it or not, there are certain circumstances that could justify what happened. I am not claiming there is a reason or justification. I am just saying that there COULD be one and based on the facts that we have now any judgement passed is based mostly on an emotional response and not fact.
If there is no reason or justification found in those facts that are gathered then this is obviously a case of police brutality and misconduct that must be answered for.
new topics
-
How Long have You been Alive?
Other Current Events: 1 hours ago
top topics
-
Congress 2024 - We do not want me in our ladies rooms
US Political Madness: 12 hours ago, 9 flags -
My Pet Elephant For A Day…
Short Stories: 12 hours ago, 6 flags -
A call to repentance—God is patient, but His patience does not abide forever.
Religion, Faith, And Theology: 12 hours ago, 3 flags -
How Long have You been Alive?
Other Current Events: 1 hours ago, 3 flags
active topics
-
How Long have You been Alive?
Other Current Events • 2 • : SprocketUK -
Well, here we go red lines crossed Biden gives the go ahead to use long range missiles
World War Three • 245 • : andy06shake -
Famous Catholic Exorcist Visits Mir-a-Lago
US Political Madness • 17 • : FlyersFan -
Dr Cambell talking about using worm meds for cancer
Medical Issues & Conspiracies • 20 • : Flyingclaydisk -
A call to repentance—God is patient, but His patience does not abide forever.
Religion, Faith, And Theology • 4 • : Flyingclaydisk -
What is your most awesome achievement or proudest moment, RE: something you were responsible for?
General Chit Chat • 20 • : Nofear51 -
-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- ---TIME TO SHOW THE WORLD--- -Part- --44--
Dissecting Disinformation • 3319 • : dashen -
WATCH LIVE: US Congress hearing on UFOs, unidentified anomalous phenomena
Aliens and UFOs • 138 • : Arbitrageur -
Russia Ukraine Update Thread - part 3
World War Three • 6829 • : Arbitrageur -
DefCon Teetering on Escalation
World War Three • 44 • : angelchemuel