Police Shoot Man For Recording Them With Phone, They Feared For Their Lives

CFM said:
Good. I hope it was painful.

Are you saying the innocent ones killed by drunk drivers have no rights?
Click to expand...

I also had my cousin murdered by his best friend using a gun. should that make me start pushing for more intrusive background checks on private sales of firearms? registration to prevent these acts? gun control period? or maybe repealing the 2nd Amendment?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
:chuckle:

hey, got a question for you. what mental block do you have that prevents you from seeing police as nothing more than a government enforcement agent? or maybe a better question is what drug do you take that lets you believe cops are seperate from their government employers and are not bound by the rule of law, but do all they can to protect people like superman? can you answer either of those?
Click to expand...

None
They're not
None
They are
He doesn't need it
Yes
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
None
They're not
None
They are
He doesn't need it
Yes
Click to expand...

wait.....police officers are NOT government enforcement agents? they ARE bound by the rule of law?

if they are NOT government enforcement agents.....what are they? please be very specific

if they ARE bound by the rule of law, then why are they not required to know the law like the everday civilian is? why are they allowed a 'qualified immunity' status that civilians are not? why are they given a greater degree of credibility than the everyday civilian? why do they have their own seperate bill of rights that civilians do not enjoy?

PLEASE answer these questions, thanks.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
hmmm, thanks, but the problem is going to be people with your mindset anyway. You've publicly said that you would do everything cops tell you to because they enforce law and keep order. So what makes you think that I believe you actually want to see these cops prosecuted????
Click to expand...

It's one thing to tell someone to drop what they have in their hands, and then open fire if they refuse to comply.

But I can't find anything in the article that says the police told the man with the camera to drop what he had BEFORE they fired.

They just turned, saw "something that scared them" and opened fire.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
first gulf war, fuckhead. wanna try again?



why didn't you just say you're a closed minded badge blowing moron? I could accept that much better than someone who claims to be a small government conservative while promoting an all invasive and pervasive police force you think will protect you.
Click to expand...

What's wrong, son, police tell you that you couldn't do something you thought you had the right to do and now you hate all cops? Is that close?
 
CFM said:
Since you oppose things that could keep drunk drivers off the road, I look forward to the day one of them hits you or a loved one.
Click to expand...

and HERE!!!!!! might be another very good reason why your bullshit drunken driving prevention bullshit is exactly that.......BULLSHIT!!!!!!

The head of a state crime lab office was fired Monday after investigators found that staff withheld exculpatory evidence from defense lawyers in thousands of drunken-driving cases since 2011, a disclosure that could threaten many convictions.

In a report released Monday, state public safety officials concluded that the Office of Alcohol Testing routinely withheld documents from defense lawyers in a lawsuit challenging the reliability of breathalyzer test results due to an “unwritten policy not to turn these documents over to any requester.”

The documents included evidence that breath testing devices had failed to properly calibrate during the office’s certification process, the report found.

“We conclude that OAT leadership made serious errors of judgment in its responses to court-ordered discovery, errors which were enabled by a longstanding and insular institutional culture that was reflexively guarded . . . and which was inattentive to the legal obligations borne by those whose work facilitates criminal prosecutions,” the report found.

The most important word in the above excerpt is “culture.” The drug tests scandal was blamed on a single analyst, Annie Dookhan. But these sorts of things rarely happen in isolation. Now we have an entire “office” within the crime lab accused of not turning over exculpatory evidence. At some point, we need to start asking pointed questions. Among them: Why would crime-lab analysts feel pressure to fake incriminating test results and to hide exculpatory results? Are they feeling pressure from police or prosecutors? We already know that, incredibly, some crime labs only get funding when their analysts produce results that help win convictions. Is that what’s happening here? There are numerous public and private grants and awards tied to driving-under-the-influence enforcement, both for police departments as a whole and for individual officers. Was that a factor here?

Crime-lab analysts should be neutral. Their job performance should be evaluated based on their accuracy. Clearly, something is making at least some of these analysts think there’s a “right” and a “wrong” answer when conducting these tests. Perhaps it’s right there in the name: the Massachusetts State Police Crime Laboratory. A forensic analyst shouldn’t be considered on the same side or team as the police. Hosting these labs under the auspices of police or district attorney’s offices is a big part of the problem.

If the lab was indeed withholding exculpatory test results, that almost certainly means some people were wrongly convicted of DUI. In Massachusetts, a first-time drunk-driving conviction can bring a one-year suspension of your driver’s license, possible probation and a mandatory 16-week alcohol awareness class (that you’re required to pay for), and thousands of dollars in court costs, attorney’s fees and fines. The conviction remains on your record permanently. If you had a child in the car at the time, you’re looking at 90 days to two years in prison and a one-year license suspension. And none of this accounts for the harm done to your career and reputation. A DUI conviction can be used against you in divorce and child custody cases. It can be devastating if you’re on parole or probation.

Given the stakes, and what we now know about the crime lab, if you find yourself pulled over on suspicion of DUI, you might be tempted to refuse to take a breath test. Generally speaking, unless you were driving really recklessly, or there are other signs of obvious intoxication, it takes a positive breath test to get probable cause to arrest you and subject you to a blood test. But refusing the test won’t help. Massachusetts is also one of the majority of states that mandates an automatic license suspension if you refuse to take a breath test. (Unless, of course, you’re a police officer, and have been extended “professional courtesy” by your fellow officer.)
Click to expand...
 
SmarterthanYou said:
wait.....police officers are NOT government enforcement agents? they ARE bound by the rule of law?

if they are NOT government enforcement agents.....what are they? please be very specific

if they ARE bound by the rule of law, then why are they not required to know the law like the everday civilian is? why are they allowed a 'qualified immunity' status that civilians are not? why are they given a greater degree of credibility than the everyday civilian? why do they have their own seperate bill of rights that civilians do not enjoy?

PLEASE answer these questions, thanks.
Click to expand...

What was it that you wanted to do that a police officer told you that you couldn't do? Drive drunk? Beat your wife? Use some sort of illegal drug? It's something. Are you not man enough to say?
 
CFM said:
What's wrong, son, police tell you that you couldn't do something you thought you had the right to do and now you hate all cops? Is that close?
Click to expand...

why don't you take a shot at answering the questions I posed to USF, if you're not too much of a pussy that is, and go from there?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I also had my cousin murdered by his best friend using a gun. should that make me start pushing for more intrusive background checks on private sales of firearms? registration to prevent these acts? gun control period? or maybe repealing the 2nd Amendment?
Click to expand...

Unless the gun shot itself, sounds to me like what should have been punished was the one misusing it.

I've said for months that you're willing to let innocent people die because you're not willing to tell a drunk driver no. You denied it. Why have you been lying and why do you think the rights of the drunk driver are on a higher level than those of the INNOCENT victim?
 
ZappasGuitar said:
It's one thing to tell someone to drop what they have in their hands, and then open fire if they refuse to comply.

But I can't find anything in the article that says the police told the man with the camera to drop what he had BEFORE they fired.

They just turned, saw "something that scared them" and opened fire.
Click to expand...

and during our open carry debates, you were all about letting police shoot people open carrying because they had a gun.
 
CFM said:
What's wrong, son, police tell you that you couldn't do something you thought you had the right to do and now you hate all cops? Is that close?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that's close. Has to be.

look I'm not saying that cops are the all end all.
Of course someone in charge to uphold the law must act within the law, in principle.

But I am ok with giving them a little more rope than most. the streets are nasty from where they stand. You beat my grandma up, I have a problem, you beat up a drug dealer i'm good with that.
 
CFM said:
Unless the gun shot itself, sounds to me like what should have been punished was the one misusing it.
Click to expand...
oh, oh, it almost sounds like you're saying that people shouldn't be charged with a crime unless they actually commit a crime...........

CFM said:
I've said for months that you're willing to let innocent people die because you're not willing to tell a drunk driver no. You denied it. Why have you been lying and why do you think the rights of the drunk driver are on a higher level than those of the INNOCENT victim?
Click to expand...

why do you continue to ignore the FACT that my argument was about checkpoints, not DUI stops because of reasonable suspicion?
 
Getin the ring said:
I'm guessing that's close. Has to be.

look I'm not saying that cops are the all end all.
Of course someone in charge to uphold the law must act within the law, in principle.

But I am ok with giving them a little more rope than most. the streets are nasty from where they stand. You beat my grandma up, I have a problem, you beat up a drug dealer i'm good with that.
Click to expand...

then you don't really care about the law, only what you think is right. just admit that and we can go on.
 
Getin the ring said:
I'm guessing that's close. Has to be.

look I'm not saying that cops are the all end all.
Of course someone in charge to uphold the law must act within the law, in principle.

But I am ok with giving them a little more rope than most. the streets are nasty from where they stand. You beat my grandma up, I have a problem, you beat up a drug dealer i'm good with that.
Click to expand...

Like any other profession, there are good and bad. To Arrogant Dumbass, all are bad because one told him he couldn't do something the little spoiled brat wanted to do.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
oh, oh, it almost sounds like you're saying that people shouldn't be charged with a crime unless they actually commit a crime...........



why do you continue to ignore the FACT that my argument was about checkpoints, not DUI stops because of reasonable suspicion?
Click to expand...

Your argument opposed doing things that could protect the right to life of an innocent victim. By doing that, you place the drunk driver above the innocent person.

Drunk driving isn't a crime? Murdering someone isn't a crime?
 
CFM said:
Your argument opposed doing things that could protect the right to life of an innocent victim. By doing that, you place the drunk driver above the innocent person.

Drunk driving isn't a crime? Murdering someone isn't a crime?
Click to expand...

see, this is what i've been saying all these months. you IGNORED and AVOIDED my issue about CHECKPOINTS, but we all know why now....don't we?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top