Pixiq

Now the fickle press will take there focus off the murder of a mentally ill man. Now anonymous is the story. The Chief must be breathing a sigh of relief. The pressure is off and now he is a victim. The old story is now dead. I SINCERELY hope that I am wrong.

The internet is a threat to the power of the state. Law abiding citizens holding the government accountable is a actual threat. How does the state combat this. They can not sell a attack on our rights when we are simply using our rights. Well first you need an enemy. A anonymous threat. A threat that can never actually be stopped. A terrorist organization, that will justify laws that remove our rights in the name of safety. How will the state murder without being held accountable when information goes viral? How will they protect the ruling class? Create FEAR. Create ANONYMOUS.
It just might work.

"Most witnesses say Thomas just ran off after being apprehended because was scared and most likely off his meds"

So the witnesses knew he was scared and most likely off his meds? How did they know so much about what was going on?Were these witnesses friends of his? How did they even know he was on meds? If they are friends of his maybe they are a little biased?

Maybe Anonymous can get the videos that the public is demanding that they are hiding. The police don't get the option granted to them to hide the videos from the public. That is not an option they have. But to withhold public property from the public is criminal. In many instances, all other remedies have been exausted and when repeated request for correction are met with repeat injury then the right of the people to step up action is necessary, proper and is right.

Some of you people are really overly paranoid. Anonymous is not a made up group, created by the police force to try and divert attention away from the murder. Ten seconds on google will give you that information. And I highly doubt that Anonymous will derail the case like all of you are complaining about; internet terrorism is not something normal people are afraid of, at all. Most likely, they will fight alongside anonymous in the streets and support them. They are more powerful then most of you know, they kept New Zealand's government web page down for almost a week when they announced a new law pertaining to youtube videos and how they could not be watched anymore without being heavily fined.

I am very interested as to how this turns out and I wish Anonymous luck, they will not stop until some serious stuff goes down. Police brutality like this and senseless murdering that looks like it was done for fun or out of boredom is just sickening, If only somebody with some sense could have been there to try and stop it. Judging from the picture it was a "oops! Hit him on the head a little too hard" kinda deal, he was attacked. They all deserve to be tried in court on murder charges.

There's a lot of Anonymous/Lulsec actions I don't agree with lately, but this is one I can stand behind for a good cause :)

I agree with not releasing the video. First of all if these officers are charged they have the right to a fair trial. Releasing the tape could taint the jury pool. Secondly, like this article mentions it could taint any potential witness testimony.

Does anybody even know the cause of death. Was he high on drugs? Was it blunt force trauma? Is this a case of excited delirium? Let them do their investigation, your curiosity to see the tape doesn't outweigh their rights.

Bart - does this mean that you would agree with releasing all people convicted in the past that had any video/audio of them released prior to the trial? To me this is an all or nothing situation. Either all tapes are public or none of them are.

I know that I can look at the picture and there is no doubt in my mind that the beating is a major factor, if not the only factor, in the death of Thomas. I have been in emergency medicine for almost thirty years and just based on the photo it would be hard to get me to change my mind.

On the other hand even with seeing the picture I know that I can take the facts as presented and give a fair opinion in a trial.

I don't believe that showing a video/image or audio recording denies someone a fair trial. If it is then we should adopt laws that make everything private for every trial until the case is decided. I think this would be a mistake.

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

See more here.
www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm

Very well said as I researched other sites that agree with your statement freedom fighter as I would not want to post any court rulings that could be misinterpeted and get someone hurt.As with all such cases it is up to you to collect your facts to argue your case in court and let the jury decide.And don't forget the judge is just a referee and decides if the law applies to your
case and the jury has the final say and agrees and if the law is correct they get to decide if you should be guilty or nullify the law and not be guilty

"Just because someone says it's debunked doesn't make it so"

Just because someone says it isn't so doesn't make it isn't so. Everybody falls back on this stupid case during every argument and it's getting almost as old as the case itself. It's been debunked and I thought we saw the last of this silly argument but here we are again.

This has probably been posted before too.

A lot of officers suffer from "noble-cause corruption," experts said. They bend or break some rules in order to make an arrest.

"Police are corrupt in a goal because they think it's a worthy goal," O'Donnell said. Those police think, "So what? He's a felon. I'm protecting the public."

Police might falsify reports or information when arresting someone because they want to make sure a criminal stays behind bars, said Jeanne Stinchcomb, a Florida Atlantic University criminology professor.

"You can test for IQ, you can test for physical fitness but there's no instrument that enables you to determine how strong a person's ethics are," Stinchcomb said.

On the subject of whether it's justifiable to oppose cop(s) when they're attempting to do something illegal. In my opinion, from a moral standpoint, it's clearly proper. No matter what they think, cops DON'T become gods when they put on their clown suits; they have no rights that don't belong to everybody. Any level of necessary force is justified to stop a cop from doing something illegal (commensurate with the severity of his crime). If a cop is beating someone gratuitously in a way that might kill the subject, well, I don't have to spell out what level of opposing response is justified.

But moral and practical are completely disconnected in morally bankrupt America. Here, even tapping a cop on the shoulder may get you convicted of a felony, but the cop can beat you to a pulp, and still get YOU convicted of a felony for resisting arrest.

Supreme Court citations from a century ago do buttress the moral argument, but are (I'm guessing) completely non-applicable to today's "justice" system.

I'mma just leave this right here:

https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6587214/Shooting_Sherriffs_Saturday

Well the site is still up, so it was a false threat or they aren't as good at hacking as they claim to be.

Ahhh so many sites so little time.
*sigh*

It doesn't mean they didn't follow up on the email spamming and fax bombing.

I thought it was standard procedure and normal police protocol for officers involved in either a shooting death, or any death, to be relieved of duty pending an investigation. So, even if that is not the case, any intelligent 'leader' would have done so just because, either as a precaution, politics, how it looks to the public, SOMETHING, and also the officers would have been given mandatory counseling, etc.

I saw a video related to this, where you could not see what was happening but just some people looking way down the street and yelling at cops to stop, and 'he's not fighting back what are they doing' and (this is SAD) that Kelly Thomas was screaming DAD DAD (that really actually brought tears to my eyes, he was crying for his dad to help him). I also read that Mr. Thomas (the father) is a retired police officer, so the way they are treating him is even just a little bit more heinous to me.

This is just a mentally ill man, who did not even fight back (or not much) I mean at some point he was doing nothing but screaming for his dad, and his face looks like some torture image from SYRIA, okay? Those officers had to know they were going too far. Are they saying they could not flip him over and cuff him?

I usually ALWAYS will defend police officers on lethal shootings, etc., and when I can. But I have seen this and read this and this shit is just wrong. They need to admit it.