Posted on 06/28/2007 4:25:54 PM PDT by CAWats
I just notice that he has never answered the qustions. Just spouts nonsense.
Here kiddies....have yourselves a touch of education on the case:
http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_webb29.3ffad56.html
Listen slick I would bet I was defending this country when you were in diapers so stop with the condescending crap.
Second once again I see no FACTS about this case. Yes, maybe the prosecution was inept (maybe on purpose?) but the FACTS speak quite clearly for themselves for all who have eyes to see and ears to hear.
You keep alluding to some insider intelligence about the case that would make a reasonable person change his mind. I have not seen or read any such information in the links and remarks provided by you.
See the difference between what you say and what you provide?
“. . .I dance a happy little jig when I hear about bad things happening to our government masters.”
Yeah, I usually have a problem feeling bad too. Sometimes, but seldom.
And you know, doggone it, this klutz is still in danger, and if not from himself then others he might talk to.
Certainly wouldn't put the man in a public contact job Fur Shur.
Dude, the guy wasn’t driving the car and the video doesn’t show him reaching into his waistband for anything. It does show a cop telling him to get up repeatedly then shooting him after he follows the command.
the guy wasn’t driving the car
Irrelevant. He was detained during a felony stop. Anyone I know, cop or not, would be reasonable to treat such an individual with extreme caution.
and the video doesn’t show him reaching into his waistband for anything.
I beg to differ. I think it shows that the suspect reached toward his waistband on at least two separate occasions, and then try to get up in a position that would have allowed him to reach the deputy for a takedown.
It does show a cop telling him to get up repeatedly then shooting him after he follows the command.
I heard that too -- I think the deputy's tactics and commands were less than sound (which, by the way, is why he was fired) however, once he had decided to conduct the stop from a position where the suspect could have engaged him, he exhibited restraint.
What I think happened? The deputy kept giving orders to "shut up" and "lie down", which the suspect chose to ignore -- he was clearly non-cooperative, and as an MP, should have known better. The statement to "get up" was poor tactics -- in the context, and given the tone of voice it was a warning given as "go ahead and get up and see what happens". Maybe the MP misunderstood the comment as a command, though I don't really think so. Clearly, the jury didn't think that given the totality of the circumstances, the deputy's use of force was criminal. Bad tactics, well, hard to argue otherwise. Bad training, probably. Criminal? I'm with the jury on this one -- no.
So you agree that he actually told the guy to get up? Then he shot the guy for following his directions? How is that not criminal?
I was not on the jury, and they heard more evidence than the tape.
They made their decision based on all of the evidence, not on media reports.
He shot the guy because he (correctly, per the jury) needed to stop a threat. He stopped shooting him when he was no longer a threat.
But, you don’t really have a problem with me. You seem to have a problem with the jury, which I can’t help you with.
I don’t have a problem with you at all. I was just trying to figure out why you thought he should be fired for his actions, but at the same time didn’t think he was criminal in his actions.
If you guys remember reading about this incident when it happened and seeing the video, then you’re just not going to believe this.
To clarify: I did not say that he should be fired, but that he has been fired. The department decided that he had violated their standards by placing himself in a poor tactical position, so they rolled him up. My opinion of this is that they threw him under the bus to reduce their civil liability.
The use of force issue has been well hashed on this thread. I think the jury made the right decision -- they were not evaluating his tactics, but his use of force once he found himself standing in front of the suspect.
bookmark
Well yeah, but the shootee has his own affiliations. He is Hispanic and he's a member of the Big Blue Gang, the U.S. Air Force. A Sky Cop no less. I'd advise the deputy to not find himself on or near any military bases anytime in the next century or three.
Maybe a small "training accident" which results in an LGB coming through his bedroom window at Oh Dark Thirty? Ooops, sorry about that. Just a "bad decision" in the "line of duty" . The video is at the link, and it's damming. The deputy clearly orders the Airman to get up, and then shoots him when he complies, after indicating that he was going to get up. Then the deputy has the arrogance to put out a "shots fired" call, not bothering to say it was he who fired the shots.
What a travesty.
You can't appeal a jury verdict. At most you can appeal for a new trial based on errors committed by the judge. The prosecution hardly ever does this, and they won't in this case either.
He clearly did. He advised the deputy that he was getting up. Being doubly careful.
Also, the Sky Cop was much too coherent to have a BA of 0.18, even for a 23 y/o man in good condition.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.