Pinal County Sheriff Deputy kills Manuel Longoria while Longoria's hands are raised in the air.

reply to post by Xcathdra

##SNIPPED##

Escalation of force
Physical
Chemical
Electronic
Impact
Firearm

If the suspect surrenders (as evidenced by the video) the escalation stops

If it doesn't it is excessive( violation)

Excessive force is defined ( as my link on pag4 " The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) in Data Collection on Police Use of Force,states that "… the legal test of excessive force…is whether the police officer reasonably
believed that such force was necessary to accomplish a legitimate police purpose…"


Now i have proven excessive force (and violation)

Unless you can show what legitimate purpose the officer had in shooting an unarmed man in the back twice

Your argument is fail

Xcathdra
You and others claim his actions are illegal. Please support that claim.

Please support the claim where I claimed his actions were illegal first.

You are the only one talking about laws. We all know the laws are stacked in the officers favor.

reply to post by Another_Nut


Officer reasonably believed that such force was necessary..

That is the key sentence and you have proven nothing, just that you can read a page from the Justice Department. I've said it too many times and am getting really sick of repeating it, WE WERE NOT THERE, we do not know all the little nuances of the situation from a short little video, we don't know what happened before that video started, we don't' know what if anything was said by this guy to them prior, without that information, charging that the police did something wrong is in itself a snap judgement

I need to see more of this incident besides someone's cellphone video......the dash cams would be a great place to start, can you get those? (I can probably but that's besides the point it would take months) until we see it all, we cannot reasonably deduce that this was an incident where force was not necessary. We also don't' know why the officer made his decision, that information has not been made public yet. WITHOUT ALL THE FACTS ONE CANNOT MAKE A JUDGEMENT CALL.. It's that simple.

vkey08
reply to post by Another_Nut

 

Officer reasonably believed that such force was necessary..

That's pretty much the standard answer even when law enforcement is guilty of the murder of an innocent.
Is it any wonder Americans don't trust the police anymore. Respect is earned!

reply to post by vkey08


And one last feeding

Id that officer "reasonably believed" that an unarmed surrendering tazed suspect needed to be shot twice in the back in order to carry out the arrest( the only legitimate thing left to do after a person surrenders) then he is a liar

How can a person "reasonably believe " that? He can't

Therefore murder

Eta if one cannot make the call(as you say) without all the facts then how is it that you can make the call nothing illegal was done by the officer?

Eeta it is ok to admit you may be wrong as i did to you in the China stops cash transfers thread. It happens to us all

reply to post by vkey08


Haha that is a laughable assumption. I despise Alex Jones. I get my information from tons of articles, fbi statistics, the media, and personal experience.

I challenge you to find me a couple cases in which a cop was sentenced harsher than a civilian, or even the same as a civilian.

That will be the test. I have given you several examples where officers got off scott free despite obvious murder (thomas kelly) and cases where charged officers were given laughable and insulting sentences.

I have given evidence, you have just made claims. Put up or shut up as they say.

vkey08
reply to post by Another_Nut

 

Officer reasonably believed that such force was necessary..

That is the key sentence and you have proven nothing, just that you can read a page from the Justice Department. I've said it too many times and am getting really sick of repeating it, WE WERE NOT THERE, we do not know all the little nuances of the situation from a short little video, we don't know what happened before that video started, we don't' know what if anything was said by this guy to them prior, without that information, charging that the police did something wrong is in itself a snap judgement

I need to see more of this incident besides someone's cellphone video......the dash cams would be a great place to start, can you get those? (I can probably but that's besides the point it would take months) until we see it all, we cannot reasonably deduce that this was an incident where force was not necessary. We also don't' know why the officer made his decision, that information has not been made public yet. WITHOUT ALL THE FACTS ONE CANNOT MAKE A JUDGEMENT CALL.. It's that simple.

That is a worthless sentence when there obviously was no danger. I have listed MANY instances where the officer believed his actions were necessary or claimed to be in danger when he wasnt.

So you think murder is okay as long as an officer says he was "uh scairt" when he murdered the unarmed, surrendering suspect?

Cops are essentially jimbo and ned from south park, they are justified to shoot as long as they scream "he's coming right for us!"

Do you think the murder of that 13 year old schizophrenic kid was justified? His parents called the police to help calm him down, and a cop remarked "we don't have time for this" and murdered him in front of his parents.

reply to post by DontTreadOnMe


Sorry sorry. I know. It's just hard for a post like this not to open up the whole "incidents of cops shooting civilians with no justification is on the rise" and that goes hand in hand with them generally not recieving charges, and if they are charged they are given way lighter sentences.

I think most of the wanderings still relate to the thread.

reply to post by Xcathdra


What blanket statement have I made?

I made statements about how they generally recieve lighter sentences than civilians, but that is true.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Those explanations are flawed. The are poor explanations.

The only explanation I want to hear from you two is WHY do you think officers receive lighter sentences? That would have been my second question if you hadn't admitted the truth about the lighter sentences.

You guys could be part of the solution since you work on the force. You are on a site for people who think critically, but you are certainly not denying ignorance tonight.

reply to post by vkey08


I didn't put words in your mouth? Anyone that reads the post you replied to and quoted me on, they can see i put no words in your mouth.

One last thing. When I am pulled over, I have the most polite guy in the world. I never give any hassle i have my papers ready and i always explain that i have a gun in my glove box.

A few months ago I was subjected to around 40 minutes of police harrassment (which made me late to work) because i warned an officer i had my gun in the glove box so he knew before I opened it. it was a speeding ticket, yet they grilled me over the gun (which was legally contained), put me on the hood, and threatened me with dogs. They said I would continue to be later and later unless I let him look in my trunk. I eventually consented so i could get to work.

I am extremely nice to cops, believe it or not, i am dead serious.I don't like cops, but i don't trust them so i am polite to them.

Another_Nut
##snipped##

Escalation of force
Physical
Chemical
Electronic
Impact
Firearm

Use of force continuum / subject resistance control - established for legal reasons when it comes to an officers use of force to overcome resistance. This is not a law but a legal guideline. Subject resistance control does not require an officer to start off at the bottom and work their way up. Their use of force can begin anywhere in the range and is determined by suspect actions / situation / officer perception. I will note that the 9th circuit court (west coast) has ruled a Taser is to fall into the upper levels of use of force and only applies to states in the 9th circuit.

Secondly you are missing some levels in there -
Officer Presence - denoted with uniformed officers / marked patrol vehicles to clearly establish the authority of the police entity involved.

Verbal Commands - using verbal communication towards those who are the focus of the officer.

Nothing here is a violation of law.
Nothing here is a violation of Police Policy.

A departments use of force continuum is a policy and will vary from agency to agency unless their state has a law requiring a certain continuum be used (there are a few out there that allow different actions).

An Officer can have a good shoot yet can be in violation of department policy.
An officer can be within departmental policy yet in violation of the law.

Either way, there was no violation in this area nor is this a law, in the manner you are attempting to use it.

Another_Nut
If the suspect surrenders (as evidenced by the video) the escalation stops

No it does not. The US Supreme Court has ruled an officer is to use the least amount of force necessary to overcome the level of resistance faced. The US Supreme Court has also ruled that the officer using the force has the burden to justify his / her actions. Hence the ruling that use of force is based on what the officer perceived at the moment force was used and why the US Supreme Court has ruled 20/20 hindsight cannot be used when reviewing use of force.

You are mistaking non compliance with an arrest. The suspect remains a potential threat until he is in custody and under the control / care of commissioned officers. Even then deadly force could justifiably occur depending on actions of the suspect.

Also, for almost all agencies, a baton / asp is not to be used on the head. If I am deploying a strike, and the suspect moves and the result is my baton / asp impacting his head, the action is valid and lawful, even though the area impacted is a red zone.

Lots of things must be taken into account.

Another_Nut
If it doesn't it is excessive( violation)

incorrect - Under SCOTUS an officer is required to de-escalate / reduce force at the earliest possible moment, which is based on suspect actions. That reduction in force is based on totality of circumstances and officer determination. As I stated time and again, the officer has the burden to justify there actions, and those actions can not be reviewed in a 20/20 hindsight mindset, as you and others are doing.

Another_Nut
Excessive force is defined ( as my link on pag4 " The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) in Data Collection on Police Use of Force,states that "… the legal test of excessive force…is whether the police officer reasonably
believed that such force was necessary to accomplish a legitimate police purpose…"

This is one of the problems you guys run into.

First - An excessive force charge would fall under state statute and not federal. The only thing the Feds would be involved in is the 42 USC 1983 violation (civil rights). Primary jurisdiction remains with the state for criminal actions, and in turn uses state criteria when prosecution occurs.

Secondly "whether the police officer reasonably believes" is key and goes back to the Supreme Court rulings. As I stated, the officer has the burden to justify their use of force / actions. Those actions and justification are reviewed in the parameters established by the US Supreme Court.

The one part you and other are ignoring is the fact the suspect made statements he was armed. Whether he is or not is no longer relevant at that point, and the suspect will be treated as if he is armed. It was not until after he was shot and killed was it determined he was not armed. When being told to show his hands and to stop moving around / reaching for items, that's what you do - you stop.

Another_Nut
Now i have proven excessive force (and violation)

no sir you have not.. you have proven nothing but the fact you are just not understanding how these laws work (or what they are as you did not bother to cite any laws and merely your opinion).

Another_Nut
Unless you can show what legitimate purpose the officer had in shooting an unarmed man in the back twice

Actions of the suspect from the start to the finish - **ETA**Totality of circumstances taken together culminated in the end result. You have to take all into account, not just the end result.

disregard for public safety be engaging in a motor vehicle pursuit.
disregard for officer safety by engaging in a motor vehicle pursuit.
Disregard for public safety by ignoring established traffic laws, placing the public at large in danger.
Making claims that he is armed to the public as well as law enforcement.
making claims he is not going to go alive.
Assaulting law enforcement by ramming / attempting to ram them with his vehicle (which automatically escalates the force to potentially deadly) x3 (1 municipal officer / 2 deputy sheriff's).
Refusing to comply with officer commands.
Refusing to keep his hands where they could be seen at all times and not just sporadic.
refusing to get out of the car the first time he was stopped.
Fleeing the traffic stop and reengaging in a pursuit by refusing to stop for marked units.
Forcing law enforcement to use a pit maneuver in order to stop his vehicle.
Refusing to comply with verbal commands given by law enforcement.
refusing to submit to less lethal means, including a taser and bean bag rounds.
making comments that he was not going to be taken alive
Once stopped - refusing to keep from digging into his pocket / car as he did prior to the shoot.

Finally, he was not unarmed. That was not determined until the incident was over with.

Another_Nut
Your argument is fail

edit on pm120143106America/ChicagoTue, 28 Jan 2014 18:26:37 -0600_1000000 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

not even close.. As I requested, you failed to comply. I asked you to cite the laws that were violated. instead I got an opinion based on non understanding.

Wanna try again?

olaru12

vkey08
reply to post by Another_Nut

 

Officer reasonably believed that such force was necessary..

That's pretty much the standard answer even when law enforcement is guilty of the murder of an innocent.
Is it any wonder Americans don't trust the police anymore. Respect is earned!

edit on 28-1-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)

the Judicial branch determines if charges are filed and a court determines guilt or innocence. Law Enforcement is a part of the executive branch, not judicial.

So are you stating their mistrust of police is based on the fact they don't know what branch does what?

GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

What blanket statement have I made?

I made statements about how they generally recieve lighter sentences than civilians, but that is true.

Your blanket comments involving all law enforcement. All you need to do is read your posts in this thread and you will see what im referring to.

and no, really, its not true that they receive lighter sentences.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Uhh see even with proof (from a gov site no less)

You just ignore it and make up what u want

Feeding time over

GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Those explanations are flawed. The are poor explanations.

The only explanation I want to hear from you two is WHY do you think officers receive lighter sentences? That would have been my second question if you hadn't admitted the truth about the lighter sentences.

You guys could be part of the solution since you work on the force. You are on a site for people who think critically, but you are certainly not denying ignorance tonight.

Officers don't receive lighter sentences. I pointed out that they can request segregation, as ALL inmates can. So there is no non preference in that statement towards law enforcement.

We work towards a solution but the problem we run into are people who are extremely head strong who refuse to explore the law and instead chose to use their own morals / ethics in place of said law. That is what causes the problem, when people refuse to listen and learn.

As for this site I make myself available to any and all who have questions about law enforcement. I do this, knowing that I face people who are intentionally ignorant / blinded by hate for the police because of some misconceived persecution they went through growing up.

I have taken the time to link to laws in these types of threads, explain and reference civil rights violations, cite / explain surpreme court rulings..

all I have gotten for that is you and others insinuating im a Nazi, that im wrong and have no idea what im talking about. You then have another member who engaged you on the legal side, and what did you do with her comments? You told her she was wrong an attacked her as being a part of the conspiracy you guys constantly invoke yet never support.

Sir, we have been trying to engage in conversation. We have been trying to explain the very side you hate and refuse to learn about. So when we answer your questions, how about you take the time to read them AND research them with the cited laws instead of calling us names, telling us we are wrong, while trying to use your opinion in place of law.

I get it, you don't like police and you don't like some laws. That is a personal problem that can only be resolved by participating in the system, by supporting candidates that share your ideas and by passing legislation that is more appropriate to what you think.

Constantly targeting law enforcement serves no purpose and changes nothing. As has been stated before, all you are doing is bashing and not at all seem interested in resolving what you think the problem is.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Detained you for 40 minutes and put you on the hood?

What did you do / say?

Another_Nut
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Uhh see even with proof (from a gov site no less)

You just ignore it and make up what u want

Feeding time over

edit on pm120143107America/ChicagoTue, 28 Jan 2014 19:59:44 -0600_1000000 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

Basic Government 101 -
federal law cannot be enforced by state / local officer.
State / local law cannot be enforced by federal law enforcement.

This incident occurred at the state level, and as such we use state laws / definitions and not federal.

This is not new and has always been like this. So, once again I have explained how something work sand instead of learning, you accuse me of ignoring and making up what I want.

Please research the term separate sovereigns / jurisdiction - primary / state statutes vs federal statutes and how they are applied.

If a person living in New York shoots and kills a person in New York, the entity with jurisdiction is going to be New York, not the federal government. If a shooting occurs on federal property, then the feds have jurisdiction and federal law applies. If a crime crosses state lines, the feds will have jurisdiction.

I am not making things up or ignoring them... I am trying to educate those who are confused / don't know.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Not entirely true... but close.

If there is a civil rights violation that is not investigated by the State but rather the Federal Govt.. so there are times the Feds *can* step in.. but you're right for the most part, the State Law would take precedence. ^_^ just clearing that up for our other friends here that may be scratching their heads..

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


I am only going to answer one statement you made in that diatribe.

I said this on Facebook to a bunch of people that were begging me to get involved in something, and I will say it here for you. I do not ever believe that shooting a child or harming a child (child being minor- under 18) is EVER justified, I dont' care if a six year old has an UZI and is shooting at you, you do not kill a child if you are a police officer, I will always side against you, doubly so in the case where the child is mentally ill, or challenged (as I have two girls that are) yes I'm biased, yes I speak in this case as a mother first and an investigator second.

The other question I got asked over there, and I'll also answer it here, is have I ever taken a life in the line of duty. There is no way to explain it where anyone here would understand it but the short answer is Yes I have, but only when it looked like my life would end if I didn't.. being shot 3 times (luckily the guy was a lousy shot but he got to the point that he was close enough to not miss) and being vastly alone, yes I fired back.. I have nightmares EVERY SINGLE NIGHT about that incident, and have dedicated the last fifteen years of my life to educating LEO's on the proper way to defuse a situation, and investigating those that seriously cross the line. It's not the only time that I have had to fire back, but it is the only time I was able to watch up close and personally (other than what was happening to my wounds) what a bullet impacting a skull will do to someone, nothing I ever WANT to see again up close.

That's partially my own ethics kicking in though.. I can't stand the ending of a life, but I do realize it is sometimes necessary.