It's " Probable" Homocide

**RobertZ** · 05-01-2015, 12:00 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/02/us...=top-news&_r=0

**marv2** · 05-01-2015, 01:28 PM

There is no "probable" about it. It is what it IS!

**RobertZ** · 05-01-2015, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by marv2

There is no "probable" about it. It is what it IS!

I agree - but I think for now that's what it legally has to be labeled. At least the case is on the right track.

**marv2** · 05-01-2015, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by RobertZ

I agree - but I think for now that's what it legally has to be labeled. At least the case is on the right track.

I am happy today.
I am happy because I know law enforcement officers are watching these proceedings all across the country today.

**RobertZ** · 05-01-2015, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by marv2

I am happy today.
I am happy because I know law enforcement officers are watching these proceedings all across the country today.

Oh, yes! Let's hope this is a Rosa Parks / Selma turning point, long overdue. And Brava, Ms. Mosby!

**destruction** · 05-01-2015, 03:50 PM

For those who may miss this in the baltimore thread:

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2...more-s-anguish

**marv2** · 05-01-2015, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by RobertZ

Oh, yes! Let's hope this is a Rosa Parks / Selma turning point, long overdue. And Brava, Ms. Mosby!

Yes LAWD! [[and I meant that the way I spelled it! LOL!) We don't need this in this country.

**marv2** · 05-01-2015, 04:15 PM

Wow, deep! I am going to read this page this weekend. Thank you Destruction!

**soulster** · 05-02-2015, 12:15 AM

Originally Posted by marv2

I am happy today.
I am happy because I know law enforcement officers are watching these proceedings all across the country today.

It should give them pause, but i'm waiting for the next situation to pop up on the news. Sure, a lot of cops will whine, a few will even quit because they will feel like they aren't respected, a few will blame Obama, and the rest will ignore it.

**Jerry Oz** · 05-02-2015, 10:42 AM

Our sheriff is running for mayor. When asked about body cameras in a primary debate, he cautioned listeners that 'body cameras only show one side of a situation'. That's obvious enough, but the call for them is to confirm what the cops report, but to write the reports for them. If they lie, the cameras will reveal it. If they are falsely accused, the cameras will exonerate them.

He lost my vote with that BS.

**soulster** · 05-02-2015, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by Jerry Oz

Our sheriff is running for mayor. When asked about body cameras in a primary debate, he cautioned listeners that 'body cameras only show one side of a situation'. That's obvious enough, but the call for them is to confirm what the cops report, but to write the reports for them. If they lie, the cameras will reveal it. If they are falsely accused, the cameras will exonerate them.

He lost my vote with that BS.

Huh? You don't like body cams? I like the idea of body cams as long as they use the models that can't be turned off.

**marv2** · 05-02-2015, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by soulster

Huh? You don't like body cams? I like the idea of body cams as long as they use the models that can't be turned off.

I am guessing what Jerry means is then the sheriff started making excuses early for when whatever the camera captures that is unflattering to the cops that to remember that it is only showing one side of a situation.

**soulster** · 05-02-2015, 11:52 PM

Originally Posted by marv2

I am guessing what Jerry means is then the sheriff started making excuses early for when whatever the camera captures that is unflattering to the cops that to remember that it is only showing one side of a situation.

I don't think he understood the Sheriff. The sheriff was simply saying that he understands the argument against the body cams, but still advocates them.

**marv2** · 05-03-2015, 12:40 AM

Originally Posted by soulster

I don't think he understood the Sheriff. The sheriff was simply saying that he understands the argument against the body cams, but still advocates them.

Gotcha. There are arguments starting to develop from both sides.

**soulster** · 05-03-2015, 02:37 AM

The main argument I see from many cops is that the cams can invade the privacy of both the cops and the citizens. They do have a point. However, police are still public servants, paid by the taxpayers. The taxpayers have a right to know what they do under the freedom of information act. Also, it is not illegal to photograph in a public setting. Being photographed in a public setting is fair game. I can see where it could become a privacy issue if a recording took place inside someone's home, or involved a minor, or even a rape. But, the main thing it that body cams protect both the cops and the citizens. Body cams keep cops on their best behavior.

BTW, we have the constitutional right to record or photograph police in action, in public, as long as the activity does not obstruct their work. Do not let anyone tell you different. If any law officer demands your recording device, and/or destroys it, or the recording, that officer is obstructing justice, and could be charged. But, be careful, because it is still illegal to record audio without the person's consent under the federal wiretapping rules. Clearly, the law has yet to catch up with technology, and should be revised in some manner.

The bottom line is that law officers have to be reminded that they are not above the law. I hope the recent indictments, prosecutions, and sentencings with cause a chilling effect in all police.

**marv2** · 05-03-2015, 09:02 PM

Originally Posted by soulster

The main argument I see from many cops is that the cams can invade the privacy of both the cops and the citizens. They do have a point. However, police are still public servants, paid by the taxpayers. The taxpayers have a right to know what they do under the freedom of information act. Also, it is not illegal to photograph in a public setting. Being photographed in a public setting is fair game. I can see where it could become a privacy issue if a recording took place inside someone's home, or involved a minor, or even a rape. But, the main thing it that body cams protect both the cops and the citizens. Body cams keep cops on their best behavior.

BTW, we have the constitutional right to record or photograph police in action, in public, as long as the activity does not obstruct their work. Do not let anyone tell you different. If any law officer demands your recording device, and/or destroys it, or the recording, that officer is obstructing justice, and could be charged. But, be careful, because it is still illegal to record audio without the person's consent under the federal wiretapping rules. Clearly, the law has yet to catch up with technology, and should be revised in some manner.

The bottom line is that law officers have to be reminded that they are not above the law. I hope the recent indictments, prosecutions, and sentencings with cause a chilling effect in all police.

I believe there are more people in favor of cops wearing body cams than not.

**Jerry Oz** · 05-04-2015, 12:09 AM

My problem with the sheriff's statement is that he was clearly hedging against the groundswell of sentiment demanding the cameras. I absolutely believe that they should be employed as soon as practicable. Common sense tells me that you only get one side of an incident via recorded images. But if the cop writes a report stating that someone reached into his pocket suddenly and was shot before he could be determined to be armed, the body camera can either support the cop or show that he acted improperly.

I did not hear him in a different context from what he meant. In his opinion, if the cop says one thing and the camera shows another, the cop should be given the benefit of the doubt. Seeing the cop in North Charleston, SC shoot that guy in the back and casually lie about why he had to do it was enough for me to want all police reports scrutinized. My trust for police officers to tell the truth has been [[perhaps irrevocably) broken. And cameras can't show the whole picture, but they can ensure that the official lie is closer to the truth.

**soulster** · 05-04-2015, 01:27 AM

Originally Posted by Jerry Oz

My problem with the sheriff's statement is that he was clearly hedging against the groundswell of sentiment demanding the cameras.

That's not the way I interpreted it. You must know something we don't about the guy that we don't.

**Jerry Oz** · 05-04-2015, 03:32 PM

I know that he's a cop. For him to suggest that we shouldn't trust visual image over the one-sided recollection of another cop in a disputed situation leads me to believe that he won't have my back as a mayor. I support the institution of law enforcement, but in this age I no longer trust the individuals performing it. We need all systemic checks and balances, to the point of redundancy to make sure that personal prejudices don't influence the actions of the police. The camera can only frame the context, not tell the whole story. For how I heard him, he should have embraced them to support his men, not viewed them as a way to challenge them.

**marv2** · 05-04-2015, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by Jerry Oz

My problem with the sheriff's statement is that he was clearly hedging against the groundswell of sentiment demanding the cameras. I absolutely believe that they should be employed as soon as practicable. Common sense tells me that you only get one side of an incident via recorded images. But if the cop writes a report stating that someone reached into his pocket suddenly and was shot before he could be determined to be armed, the body camera can either support the cop or show that he acted improperly.

I did not hear him in a different context from what he meant. In his opinion, if the cop says one thing and the camera shows another, the cop should be given the benefit of the doubt. Seeing the cop in North Charleston, SC shoot that guy in the back and casually lie about why he had to do it was enough for me to want all police reports scrutinized. My trust for police officers to tell the truth has been [[perhaps irrevocably) broken. And cameras can't show the whole picture, but they can ensure that the official lie is closer to the truth.

Ok, then I was close to understanding what you originally meant and I agree. They are already setting the body camera mandate up for scrutiny just as they are scratching and clawing for reasons why Ms. Mosby should not try the Freddie Gray murder case in Baltimore!

**Jerry Oz** · 05-04-2015, 08:29 PM

I get a kick out of their assertion that it's a 'rush to judgment' for the prosecutor to talk about the defendants as if they are guilty. They do that for everyone they prosecute. Otherwise, why pursue charges if you don't think the person is guilty? And the same guys who want to slow the roll on justice are the ones who chased and killed a man who committed no crime three weeks ago; they were pretty quick to figure out who was guilty back then, weren't they?

**marv2** · 05-04-2015, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by Jerry Oz

I get a kick out of their assertion that it's a 'rush to judgment' for the prosecutor to talk about the defendants as if they are guilty. They do that for everyone they prosecute. Otherwise, why pursue charges if you don't think the person is guilty? And the same guys who want to slow the roll on justice are the ones who chased and killed a man who committed no crime three weeks ago; they were pretty quick to figure out who was guilty back then, weren't they?

You what I find most interesting? Is that the Prosecutor out in Fergusen, MO, was not asked to step aside even though his father had been a cop that was killed by a black man back in 1964.

**marv2** · 05-04-2015, 09:33 PM

BTW that NYPD Ofc that was shot in the face over the weekend died .

**soulster** · 05-04-2015, 11:38 PM

Originally Posted by marv2

You what I find most interesting? Is that the Prosecutor out in Fergusen, MO, was not asked to step aside even though his father had been a cop that was killed by a black man back in 1964.

Of course not! Not only is he a friend to the cops, he's white. Face it: people tend to trust their own. Not only that, they knew that the Ferguson prosecutor would not indict Darren Wilson. All you have to do is look at the proof of what the Justice Department found.

**Jerry Oz** · 05-05-2015, 12:13 AM

What I found interesting was that not only was the accused permitted to give his side to the grand jury [[which is almost never allowed; grand juries examine evidence of a crime, not mitigating circumstances offered by the accused), but their main 'witness' was a White woman from outside the city who happened to be driving by when it occurred. She had a history of racist communication on the internet, but she was driving through Ferguson to go to a diner so she could interact with random Black people for enlightenment.

And she was allowed to offer a witness statement to the grand jury without any evidence that she was ever there. Bullshit, pure and simple.

**marv2** · 05-05-2015, 01:23 AM

Originally Posted by Jerry Oz

What I found interesting was that not only was the accused permitted to give his side to the grand jury [[which is almost never allowed; grand juries examine evidence of a crime, not mitigating circumstances offered by the accused), but their main 'witness' was a White woman from outside the city who happened to be driving by when it occurred. She had a history of racist communication on the internet, but she was driving through Ferguson to go to a diner so she could interact with random Black people for enlightenment.

And she was allowed to offer a witness statement to the grand jury without any evidence that she was ever there. Bullshit, pure and simple.

.and Daniel Pantaleo gets to go golfing with his buddies............................

**Jerry Oz** · 05-08-2015, 06:29 PM

The mayor has called for the Feds to investigate the police department. Better 25 years late than never, I guess. Here's an article about five other notable Justice Department investigations in the last few years.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/bal...igated-n355916

**soulster** · 05-08-2015, 09:29 PM

On a bright note that isn't being reported in the mainstream media:
http://chicago.suntimes.com/chicago-...orture-victims

**Jerry Oz** · 05-09-2015, 01:34 AM

That situation is crazy. Nearly as disturbing [[and also ignored by MSM) is what happened in San Francisco:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-fran...-review-cases/

**marv2** · 05-09-2015, 11:57 AM

Check her out. She is responding to all the Right Wing media complaining about the lack of public outcry and protests over the killing of NYPD officer Brian Moore:

**marv2** · 05-09-2015, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by Jerry Oz

That situation is crazy. Nearly as disturbing [[and also ignored by MSM) is what happened in San Francisco:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-fran...-review-cases/

This is further proof that we are dealing with a REAL and national problem here. This shit is going to come to a head...........

**marv2** · 05-09-2015, 12:05 PM

Now for a totally different perspective that we are NOT use to hearing!

**Jerry Oz** · 05-09-2015, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by marv2

Check her out. She is responding to all the Right Wing media complaining about the lack of public outcry and protests over the killing of NYPD officer Brian Moore:

The people who need to hear it will take everything she said out of context and try to make her sound as if she's defending the killer and making light of the cop's death. There's no rational basis to their supposition that cops should be defended, regardless of circumstances.

In my area, a private citizen erected a billboard that states that black lives matter. It has advice for both the police and for Black folks who encounter them. It's entirely respectful, yet our local PD is pissed off because of it. It's crazy. Please click this link [[I couldn't embed it) and watch the video:
http://mycolumbusmagic.hellobeautifu...ce-and-people/

**Jerry Oz** · 05-09-2015, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by marv2

Now for totally different perspective that we are use to hearing!

Wow. There's gonna be war on the streets in New York now that the gun nuts are happy when the overly aggressive cops are being shot. The funny thing is, they're going to be cracking Black skulls but that wasn't a Black guy on that video, but a right winger who wants to hunt and shoot us himself.

**marv2** · 05-09-2015, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by Jerry Oz

Wow. There's gonna be war on the streets in New York now that the gun nuts are happy when the overly aggressive cops are being shot. The funny thing is, they're going to be cracking Black skulls but that wasn't a Black guy on that video, but a right winger who wants to hunt and shoot us himself.

It is going to be a mess because curiously silent have been the national and local street gangs such as the Crips and Bloods and a whole host of violent , but organized street gangs............

**Jerry Oz** · 05-09-2015, 08:06 PM

'Organized street gang'? Sounds like you're describing some police departments. We need citizen review panels for every questionable incident so that they can be brought to light, whether they're caught on tape or not.

**marv2** · 05-09-2015, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by Jerry Oz

'Organized street gang'? Sounds like you're describing some police departments. We need citizen review panels for every questionable incident so that they can be brought to light, whether they're caught on tape or not.

The only difference between the street gangs and the police as far as I can see today is that one is sanctioned by the government and wear badges and get pensions. The other are self sanctioned!

Unless we are going to give citizen review panels some real power, some teeth, then they will not be very effective in stopping police crimes against humanity.

**soulster** · 05-09-2015, 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by Jerry Oz

Please click this link [[I couldn't embed it) and watch the video:
http://mycolumbusmagic.hellobeautifu...ce-and-people/

For some reason, no matter what you do, we cannot enter the entire link. The only way I got it was to reply to your post. Only then did I see the full link.

**Jerry Oz** · 05-09-2015, 11:02 PM

So, it's another protection racket. If you don't pay the local goons, they break your legs and ruin your life and business. You pay taxes for the police and if you don't, they take your business, ruin your life, and the people paid to 'protect' us are capable of beating the crap out of us without fear of repercussions. What's the difference?

**Jerry Oz** · 05-09-2015, 11:06 PM

Originally Posted by soulster

For some reason, no matter what you do, we cannot enter the entire link. The only way I got it was to reply to your post. Only then did I see the full link.

That's weird... Did you see anything in the video that should cause the cops to freak out? The billboard actually advised cooperation with the cops but all the police saw was an accusation.

**soulster** · 05-10-2015, 02:24 AM

Originally Posted by Jerry Oz

That's weird... Did you see anything in the video that should cause the cops to freak out? The billboard actually advised cooperation with the cops but all the police saw was an accusation.

The cops act like it's a war between them [[the good guys) and everybody else [[the bad guys). Maybe they should not only give cops extensive background checks and psychological testing, but term limits, too. There should also be laws that dictate that an officer has to reside in the area that they patrol. Some officers live nearly 100 miles from their work areas!

**Jerry Oz** · 05-10-2015, 02:41 PM

There should be whistle blower protections for police who witness inappropriate behavior and a legal responsibility to report other cops who operate beyond the law. There's no way cops should support each other when one clearly is wrong. If anything, they should maintain a higher standard, but be given the benefit of the doubt when they step over the line. Everybody isn't cut out for it.

**MotownSteve** · 05-11-2015, 02:43 PM

Meanwhile back in Baltimore I read something about the arrested cops wanting the States Attorney to recuse herself. Totally ridiculous. He was in their custody and he died do to THEIR neglect. Not mine, not the victim's, not yours. THEIR neglect. At the very least that is what they should pay for.

**Jerry Oz** · 05-11-2015, 04:22 PM

Yeah. You can already see that the prosecution will receive zero cooperation from the police. If this case proceeds the way they normally do, they will make threats to refuse helping in future cases unless this case goes their way.

One of the reasons cops are prosecuted as infrequently as they are is because the DA needs to maintain a close working relationship with the police and butthurt cops have long memories. If an elected DA goes after them, they have no problem with ensuring that official will not be elected again.

After all, everybody has family and family sometimes **cough, cough** gets caught doing bad things. So, either the scandal or the assurance that that embarrassing situation can be made to disappear are usually enough to assure a weak prosecutorial effort.

**marv2** · 05-11-2015, 09:00 PM

Originally Posted by Jerry Oz

Yeah. You can already see that the prosecution will receive zero cooperation from the police. If this case proceeds the way they normally do, they will make threats to refuse helping in future cases unless this case goes their way.

.

They [[the NYPD) always try that [[threaten to become non- responsive to crime or citizen's calls) If they are force to face justice for wrong doing. I always said then fire them! That's right fire those that refuse to do their jobs.

**Jerry Oz** · 05-12-2015, 01:09 AM

I read an article written by a former member of NYPD who said that he was told in the academy that 10% of the recruits were there because they were good people who wanted to protect and serve, 80% were there for paychecks, and 10% would wash out due to discipline, their own crimes, or inability to handle the stress. I still want a cop to explain why they don't police each other and also why they have one of the lowest reported industry rates for domestic violence arrests and convictions.

**MotownSteve** · 05-12-2015, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by marv2

They [[the NYPD) always try that [[threaten to become non- responsive to crime or citizen's calls) If they are force to face justice for wrong doing. I always said then fire them! That's right fire those that refuse to do their jobs.

On one job I had we were told that if a supervisor tells you to do something wrong, do it and then complain. As for fire someone who refuses to do the job? Absolutely!

**Jerry Oz** · 05-12-2015, 01:00 PM

You all might misunderstand the power of the police unions. They have cities by the nut hairs and know that their work stoppages/slowdowns/coordinated labor actions are significant. You can't fire them en masse because then you cut off your nose to spite your face and cutting a couple at a time has no systemic benefit. The only answer is increased training, improved supervision, empowered community review boards, and swift and significant disciplinary action up to termination for those found to be involved in improper activity as well as those who enable them.

**RobertZ** · 06-24-2015, 08:14 AM

Confirmation of what was already known:
"Freddie Gray’s Death Was Homicide, Autopsy Says"
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/24/us...pgtype=article

**Jerry Oz** · 07-03-2015, 08:37 PM

Sigh...

And now there's controversy over a sign on the back of a Balmer police van that reads "Enjoy your ride cuz we will!" Those cops are out of control and don't realize that they are the problem, not the community.