Pixiq

THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS ISSUE TO LIGHT. AT THE VERY LEAST, FOREVER 21 AND THE LAPD SHOULD PROVIDE THE PUBLIC WITH EXPLANATIONS.

cuz he’s black? maybe? just an idea…

Forever 21 is a POS Company, and anyone who shops there should be ashamed of themselves [ http://www.madeinla.com/ ]
Porcupine Picayune recently posted..Police Love The iPhone

Every state has different rules on shoplifters and such. Indiana law states the following:

IC 35-33-6-2 Probable cause; detention; procedure; statements by juveniles
Sec. 2. (a) An owner or agent of a store who has probable cause to believe that a theft has occurred or is occurring on or about the store and who has probable cause to believe that a specific person has committed or is committing the theft:
(1) may:
(A) detain the person and request the person to identify himself or herself;
(B) verify the identification;
(C) determine whether the person has in the person’s possession unpurchased merchandise taken from the store;
(D) inform the appropriate law enforcement officers; and
(E) inform the person’s parents or others interested in the person’s welfare that the person has been detained; but
(2) shall not ask the person to make a statement that acknowledges that the person committed the theft or conversion or waives any of the person’s legal rights if:
(A) the person is less than eighteen (18) years of age; and
(B) the person has not been afforded an opportunity to have a meaningful consultation with his or her parent, guardian, custodian, or guardian ad litem.
(b) A statement acknowledging that a child committed theft or conversion in violation of subdivision (a)(2) cannot be admitted as evidence against the child on the issue of whether the child committed a delinquent act or a crime.
(c) The detention must:
(1) be reasonable and last only for a reasonable time; and
(2) not extend beyond the arrival of a law enforcement officer or two (2) hours, whichever first occurs.

The problem with getting any random lawyer’s thoughts are that they usually want to give statements in a general sense. Every state is different. Various state and federal courts may have made rulings affecting this exact issue.

I know for a fact that in Indiana, most stores want much more than the “probable cause” standard due to liability reasons. There is no way the mere sounding of magnet detectors should be enough for a detainment in my opinion. The fact that those things constantly get set off when there is no theft pretty much blows any credibility those devices have. Maybe a judge in CA ruled their activations are reliable and credible that stealing may be afoot, and that owners/agents/whoever may forcible detain based on their activation.

If the man in fact stole something, I can’t really fault the security guard/agent in the video. Is a lasting choke hold a wise move, no way, but unless the person really passes out, dies, or suffers some sort of collapsed throat/airway, I don’t really see the harm done. With the video, we only see a portion of the incident, not the entire thing. Yea, the guy is deaf, but if he stole something, he knows he stole something and should give up. He never just lays down and puts his arms out, it is like he wants to continue to wrestle until he finally gets put in the choke hold, then I think fear finally sat in and he seems to mellow out after that. You combine that, with some guy who keeps running around, the situation isn’t good for anyone. I understand why is brother was running around, especially if he didn’t know his brother took anything.

For some folks though, it doesn’t matter, just let folks steal stores blind if agents use too much force in their opinion. One such fool is the guy who shot the video. He states in the article: “If anything I’d like this store, Forever 21, to go ahead and give a public apology, regardless if it was them shoplifting or not,” Fountain said. Fountain, lets see these guys take your phone and see how happy you are about that, or how about your car??? If they the cops stop them for stealing something of yours, that you reported stolen, and they are injured as a result of your police report and desire to press charges, should you apologize to the suspect(s) if the cops have to fight them a little more rougher than normal??

No wonder this country is heading toward one big massive burn-off. The idea that retail shops should just allow themselves to be victims of repeated theft is laughable.

Then of course GLAD has to make a statement. Ugh, hate to burst your bubble GLAD, but just because someone is deaf doesn’t give them the right to resist, nor does it mean agents of a retail store can’t lay hands on them. If that were the case, deaf people would steal constantly, and never stop running/walking away, claiming they can’t understand police/security/management when they are yelling “STOP! YOU STOLE SOMETHING, STOP!” Wonder if GLAD would like a deaf person to go to their offices and walk out with a computer, then when an agent came after the person and used force to retrieve the computer, they could resist and cry brutality??

I am so sick of criminals and criminal apologists. This country is doomed. This mentality we see will just make criminals more bold in their ways, while all the law-abiding people will turn into blissninnie liberals. Hopefully when the riots start, I will be far, far away from most of the urban areas in this country.

I can easily believe the deaf guy had no idea who had him in a choke hold and may have thought he was being mugged.

What is disturbing to me about the video is that no one kicked that security thug in the balls. The deaf person was turning purple, as several in the video pointed out. Struggling for your life is -not- resisting arrest.

@Johnathan Doe – Dude, you couldn’t possibly be more off base. Nobody is making any claims that deaf people should be able to go around stealing whatever they want, and get away with it. Deaf people, however, need to be handled differently so that they can understand what’s going on and communicate. A blind man could see that both of these men were deaf.

If he indeed stole something, fine, he should face the consequences, though store security handled it ALL wrong. It appears that he was not given the opportunity to come back into the store to settle the matter peacefully at all, just tackled from behind and placed in a choke hold without warning.

Carlos can tell you that I’m a staunch conservative libertarian, and my politics don’t always mesh with his liberal views, but this isn’t about politics. It’s about a little God damned human decency, which is apparent that these security guards lack.

Unfortunately, if the deaf man stole something, because of the guards actions and lack of good judgement, I doubt that he will see 1 more minute in jail. If he didn’t steal anything, he has one helluva good case for a lawsuit.

I am such a badge licker.

There fixed it for you Jonathan Doe.
Steve Verdon recently posted..DC Traffic Guide

Let’s see if we get any more info as to whether or not they actually stole anything. If they didn’t, high hell should break loose.

Glad I waited to comment. Looks like carlos hit another home run when it comes to not getting the facts right. So the poor deaf guy is a thief and has a history of being a thief. If it takes a choke hold to stop a thief so be it.

Mike, do I sometimes troll, I would have to plead guilty but for the most part I give an honest opinion from a cops perspective.

If your still upset over us catching you contradict yourself get over it, it happens to everybody. Next time just choose your words more carefully. I don’t think anybody less of you because you contradicted yourself.

Seriously Mike? I can barely think of a post I’ve commented on that you haven’t decided to respond with some off-topic condensing insults and personal attacks. Now Oscar and I catch you in a screw up and we don’t let you weasel out of it.

Your response is to go crying to Carlos about it? Man that is so serious hypocrisy on your part. Perhaps you are not the l33t Internet forum warrior you think you are.

Note- condensing is supposed to condensending. Damn mobile phones.

Yeah, JL/O, keep repeating that line. If you repeat it enough, it might come true! XD
Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

(BTW, another fine example of usefully advancing the discussion. Especially from someone who’s already made it clear they don’t respect photographers and think it’s OK to appropriate their work without compensation.)
Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

“Johnny Law” said in part..

Johnny Law // Aug 14, 2010 at 8:08 PM

In answer to your question, yes there have been stories posted here where I think the officers are out of line.

————————————–

It’s one thing to say “you think they’re out of line”.. and another to actually say: “They were WRONG and should have punishment taken against them”.

————————————————-

I disagree with many of the stories that show officers telling photographers to turn their cameras off IF they are in a public place and not interfering with police action.

It’s interesting that you disagree with the stories.. but NOT with the Officers actions.

If you really were against the officers actions you would have said something to the effect of: “It was WRONG for the Officers to tell the photographers to turn off their cameras even though the photography was being done in a public place.”

—————————————————

I think the NYPD officer was out of line for striking a prisoner after a foot chase.

Once again.. “JL” thought the cop was ahhhh out of line, but not WRONG doing what he did.

————————————————–

I don’t speak up if I don’t has anything to say.

That’s right. You don’t speak up when cops do WRONG.. but just use weasel words and soft sell the whole situation, while leaning toward the position that “Cops Can Do NO Wrong!”

——————————————–

Now I would like to pose a question to the likes of “Rail Car Fan”. Do you ever see a story on here where you think the police might be in the right? You would think that with all these stories, you would read one that seems like maybe just maybe the police were simply trying to do their job in a stressful situation.

It’s one thing to doing your job while in a stressful situation.. and quite another to use your gun, badge and limited authority to harass and intimidate the law abiding public.

————————————————–

Of course I know the answer to this question. Those guys have no open mind and their hatred for authority has clouded their critical thinking.

NO “Johnny Law”.. you don’t know the answer. As I have said on a previous thread here “JL”: “I don’t hate you.. I don’t even dislike you”.

What I do hate and dislike are those in law enforcement who use NO common sense when it come to those situations and circumstances where common sense is due.. but instead see themselves a Lord and Master who lets their position of LEO over run their brain.

————————————————-

Sad really.

Yes I AGREE with you. It is sad that there are those in the “Thin Blue Line” who go out of their way to bring dishonor and discredit to those LEO’s whose good actions and common sense we all commend them for.

Rail Car Fan

I think Rail Car really made a kick ass point here: “That’s right. You don’t speak up when cops do WRONG”. Their silence on the clear cut cases really speaks volumes does it not?? But whenever the situation is even -slightly- debatable oh boy are the citizens in the wrong… Police could change their culture of corruption if they wanted to. But they clearly do not care.

@Johnny Law #91 “Those guys have no open mind and their hatred for authority has clouded their critical thinking.”

heh, that’s a fallacy. http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/10/the_appeal_to_b.html

I really have no interest in this because security guards aren’t police, and have no more power than a civilian does. However this works out in court will suit me fine.

Sarah,

You really think Rail Car made a “kick ass point”? He can’t form a coherent argument to save his life and spends all his time putting words in my mouth. He complains that I say cops can do no wrong but when I say that I disagree with some actions, he moves the goalposts and complains that I don’t use strong enough language.

Then he ignores my question and goes off on some tangent. I hate to see what you think is a bad point.

Gene,

That’s a great link but it doesn’t change my point. There are certain folks (including you) who refuse to try to see any situation from the point of view of the officer. If that isn’t closed mindedness, I don’t know what is.

Johnny:
I think the problem lies here. Recently, more people are able to film and publish video of police in action. The outrage at what police are doing and then OTHER police saying “what, that’s totally normal” or “well, what happened before” is sort of missing the point.

You, as police, see the world a certain way. We, the public, see what you, the police, do on a daily basis, and say “that is completely fucked up.”

now, whether or not it is fucked up is irrelevant, the only reason it is even an issue is because of the video. Police tend to say things like “yeah, but he’ll lose his job over this nonsense” and the public is saying “he should lose a lot more than his job” because if one of us did the same thing (like repeatedly hit someone with a bat(on) or whatever) – we’d expect the justice system to step up and do something about it.

The fact that the justice system doesn’t really do much about it can say one or/of two things: A) police are above the law; or B) what the police are doing isn’t criminal.

That’s really where the debate is. thanks for responding, and i hope this message makes sense.

Gee, oscar, don’t you want to wait for the facts to emerge? You seem to want to do that in every instance where a cop brutally abuses an innocent person. I think that what this shows is that you don’t really care about facts, but you’re all in favor of brutal abuse. I reiterate what I said to you earlier: if you’re a cop you’re a bomb waiting to go off and you should seek clinical help for your anger issues.

And to reply to your last sentence:

We, the public, are not required to see the world through your eyes. In fact, you, as public servants, on the public dole, are legally and ethically required to explain to us exactly why and what you are doing. And why it is necessary. And the “waffling” that goes on in that department by chiefs of police and commissioners and various other public facing figures is what drives us insane. You’re here at our behest doing a job we’ve given you to do.

The whole “no, you’re close minded” shit really gets on my nerves. It’s a conversation ender. That’s why i pointed you toward that link. And that also explains the anger in this response.

Gene,

You just stated that you have no obligation to try to see things from the point of view of the officer yet you are angry about being called closed minded? Good grief man. You just confirmed it with that last post.

Yes the police are public servants but that does not relieve you of the obligation of trying to see the whole picture before rushing to judgement. You pretty much just admitted that you are going to find the police to be in the wrong and to blazes with anything that may prove otherwise. Remember, there is usually alot going on that the camera misses.

I am sorry to harp on this but that is the epitome of being close-minded.

Quick story here to emphasis my last response to Gene.

Once while working surveillance on some street dealers, we observed this one guy keeping crack cocaine in his mouth. Everytime he sold a rock he would spit it in the hands of the other person.

Keeping it in his mouth lets him be able to swallow it as soon as he sees the police approach. We hid around a corner and let him walk past us then we jumped on him. To prevent him from swallowing the crack, on officer applied upwards pressure under the guys tongue while I applied a pressure point on a nerve.

We were able to get the guy to spit it out and we cuffed him up. Some outraged citizen came charging up and started yelling that we just grabbed that guy and choked him for no reason. I tried to explain that he wasn’t choked and was a dealer but the guy wouldn’t listen. To him we choked the guy and it was excessive and nothing would convince him otherwise.

My point is that are often reasons for things officers do. Yeah they sometimes screw up but sometimes (often here) folks refuse to consider any other factors that might be in play. Of course gene just said he didn’t need to consider that and previously Dodge Ball said he didn’t need all the facts so there you go.

You’re right JL, there is a lot that the camera misses. This includes what is taking place at the time of the recording as well as the misconduct that can’t be recorded because the camera wasn’t there.

More camers = less abuse of authority.

Taking into consideration a different point of view, and then finding that while it may explain the misconduct but does not mitigate it in the particular circumstance is not being “close-minded.”
Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

You are right Mike. But that is not what gene said. But there are situations where the different point of view not only explains things but it also justifies the course of action taken. Of course folks will never know if they refuse to even consider it.

Why do so many of you excuse the actions of criminals if they are mistreated by police. If a guy robs a bank and the cops beat him up when they catch him he is still a bank robber. Like this deaf thief, even if he gaurds were out of line he is still a thief.

If the cops came along and arrested the gaurds like many of you wanted and then used excessive force on the gaurds would you automatically forgive the gaurds for what they did?

Johnny Law // Aug 16, 2010 at 2:09 AM

Sarah,

You really think Rail Car made a “kick ass point”? He can’t form a coherent argument to save his life and spends all his time putting words in my mouth.

Johnny, Johnny, Johnny.. it looks like you’re trying to use the politics 101 gambit which says: “if you have NO substantial facts to back up your argument, then just attack your opponent with frivolous and unfounded accusation’s”.

YOU are the one who made the statement:

“I DISAGREE with many of the STORIES that show officers telling photographers to turn their cameras off IF they are in a public place and not interfering with police action.”

So how is the above statement (worded EXACTLY as YOU said/wrote) them, putting words in your mouth? And as I responded to THAT statement saying:

“It’s interesting that you disagree with the STORIES.. but NOT with the Officers actions!”

——————————————————-

He complains that I say cops can do no wrong but when I say that I disagree with some actions, he moves the goalposts and complains that I don’t use strong enough language.

NO Johnny! Once again you’re trying to weasel word yourself out of the situation. It’s one thing to say “I THINK” someone is.. and/or “I THINK” something is.. but it’s a whole ‘nother ball game to see a egregious action taken against someone and then stand back and not admit that it happened.

——————————————————

Gene,

“That’s a great link but it doesn’t change my point.”

“JL”.. you’ve hit the nail right on the head.. and that is what the problem is. It seems that YOUR ATTITUDE of “it doesn’t change my point (mind?)”.. and the way you go about projecting it leads most of the people here to think of you the way they do.

——————————————————-

There are certain folks (including you) who refuse to try to see any situation from the point of view of the officer. If that isn’t closed mindedness, I don’t know what is.

How does seeing the point of the officers change the situation any when (as a example), they’ve got a person lying down on their belly, arms handcuffed behind them and NOT resisting when cop #1 is kicking the guy in the ribs.. cop #2 has kneed him in the back and is slamming his face into the ground while cop #3 has already sprayed him in the face?

The point is.. it doesn’t matter what happened 30 seconds, 3 minutes, or 3 days before that. IT DOES NOT MATTER!!

As a LEO.. your fellow officers are paid to act within the law.. and NOT as a licensed group of vigilante’s who wear a shield and carry a gun. That’s the bottom line.

—————————————————-

“Johnny Law”.. I have said it before.. and I will say it again. I DON’T hate you.. nor do I dislike you. It’s your on going attitude (through the way you post), that leads one to conclude you lean toward the side of “Cops Can Do NO Wrong”!

Until a change (by you showing us that we could be wrong) happens, we have no other alternative but to think the way we do. It’s nothing more.. nor nothing less.

Rail Car Fan

@Oscar

Because we live in a society where police enforce laws and courts impose punishments after a trial (or plea bargain).

If you are unsatisfied with that sort of society, feel free to move to a country where people don’t have such rights and suffer accordingly.
Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

(You know, that whole “due process,” innocent until proven guilty thing, which you seem to have skipped in this case. You don’t know the person who was assaulted was a thief, they haven’t been found guilty of this crime, and you’ve just committed defamation in labeling him a thief.)
Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

Rance,

So a guy breaks in your house and attacks you. You scream at him to stop but he doesn’t. Are you going to write him a note to see if he’s deaf before you defend yourself?

In this case you have no clue as to what happened before the video started do you? How do you make a judgment without facts?

He is a thief and he has a prior. On this incident your right he is innocent until proven guilty and so are the gaurds. He has been charged so he has a good chance of being proven guilty. he gaurds were not charged and therefore will never be proven guilty so I guess the gaurds will always be innocent of any crime, thanks for agreeing with me.

Rail Car,

I would love to respond to your comments but I really don’t understand what you are talking about.

When I said “I DISAGREE with many of the STORIES that show officers telling photographers to turn their cameras off IF they are in a public place and not interfering with police action.”

you replied “It’s interesting that you disagree with the STORIES.. but NOT with the Officers actions!”

Umm hello? When I said I disagreed with the stories about the officers, that meant I disagreed with actions of the officers within that story. Sorry if that wasn’t clear enough for you.

You then wrote” NO Johnny! Once again you’re trying to weasel word yourself out of the situation. It’s one thing to say “I THINK” someone is.. and/or “I THINK” something is.. but it’s a whole ‘nother ball game to see a egregious action taken against someone and then stand back and not admit that it happened.”

I have no clue what you are trying to say. I provided examples where I thought the officers acted wrong. Now what? I think the problem with you is that you want to me comment exactly as you do. First off, I can’t do that because my grasp of grammar makes your writing style painful. Second, I come on here to defend the police when I think they are being bashed unfairly. If I agree that the police acted poorly, I let the cop haters rage on them. That in no way negates when I defend actions I approve of.

You then wrote”How does seeing the point of the officers change the situation any when (as a example), they’ve got a person lying down on their belly, arms handcuffed behind them and NOT resisting when cop #1 is kicking the guy in the ribs.. cop #2 has kneed him in the back and is slamming his face into the ground while cop #3 has already sprayed him in the face?

The point is.. it doesn’t matter what happened 30 seconds, 3 minutes, or 3 days before that. IT DOES NOT MATTER!!”

I don’t know of the specific situation you are talking about but it does sometimes matter what happened before the camera came on. Your refusal to understand that is part of your problem.

oh and just to make you happy “COPS CAN DO NO WRONG!!!”

There.

oscar finch // Aug 16, 2010 at 12:33 PM

Why do so many of you excuse the actions of criminals if they are mistreated by police. If a guy robs a bank and the cops beat him up when they catch him he is still a bank robber. Like this deaf thief, even if he gaurds were out of line he is still a thief.

Oscar..

Why is it YOU think its perfectly OK to (as in your own words), MISTREAT and BEAT anyone.. be it a criminal or not. That’s the whole problem with a number of LEO’s these days. In their eyes it is perfectly OK and legal to do so because they’re the ones wearing the shield and carrying the gun.

Also.. just by what you just said/wrote, it now gives us a insight as to your mentality when it comes to how you police/interact with the public.

————————————————–

If the cops came along and arrested the gaurds like many of you wanted and then USED EXCESSIVE FORCE on the gaurds would you automatically forgive the gaurds for what they did?

There you go again Oscar, ie: USING EXCESSIVE FORCE!! Why would you want to use excessive force and not just the amount of force needed to do what needed to be done?

After reading these words for a second time, one really has to wonder if my first observation might not be closer to the truth than we really thought.

—————————————————-

NO one here.. and I’ll repeat that again: “NO ONE HERE” is asking to forgive the guards.. nor is anyone asking to excuse the actions of criminals.

Just like “Johnny Law”. I don’t hate you Oscar, nor do I dislike you.. but when you start saying/writing that it seems to be OK for LEO’s to “MISTREAT” and “BEAT” people and “USE EXCESSIVE FORCE”.. then I begin to wonder how you react to situations in real life.

Rail Car Fan

“JL” said:

RCF: “The point is.. it doesn’t matter what happened 30 seconds, 3 minutes, or 3 days before that. IT DOES NOT MATTER!!”

“JL”: “It does sometimes matter what happened before the camera came on. Your refusal to understand that is part of your problem.”

NO “JL”. IT DOES NOT MATTER!”.. and THAT’S your whole problem.

There is NO act/crime done by someone (criminal), that LEGALLY allows any LEO to step outside of the law, rules and regulations to met out their own punishment.. no matter how bad that crime might have been. I challenge anyone here to show me differently.

Granted.. and I admit, sometimes there are situations where we want to take the law into our own hands because of what the criminal did.. but that is what our system of laws and the courts are for.

When LEO’s step over that line they then become NO better than the criminal their arresting. The sooner you realize that.. the better we’ll all be!

————————————————

oh and just to make you happy “COPS CAN DO NO WRONG!!!””

It’s NOT what makes me happy.. it’s about what’s right and what’s wrong. The problem is “JL”, it seems like at this point in your life you still don’t get it!

Rail Car Fan

Rail learn how to read, I didn’t say it was ok to mistreat and beat people. Either you are a liar or you don’t have any reading comprehension skills.

As far as your reply to my question about cops using excessive force. If you think asking a theoritical question about excessive force gives you any insight into me then I would have to say your an idiot on top of a liar.

I was asking why some people in here seem to forgive criminal actions when the criminal is abused by the police. Since many people in here feel the guards actions were criminal I wanted to know if they becasme victims of police abuse would it suddenly make what they did to the deaf guy ok. It seems stealing is ok if afterwards you are beat up by the authrities.

It wouldn’t make any sense to ask that question without the excessive force since that was the point of the question.

Mike, since you now agree with me that the guards are innocent of any crime does that mean I caught you contradicting yourself for a 2nd time.

“He is a thief and he has a prior.”

RTFA – “Police said one of the men apprehended by the security guards, Alejandro Rea, was charged with robbery, but did not say what he stole. He had a prior record but officials also did not say what for. ”

He hasn’t been convicted of stealing in this case, and you have no actual knowledge or evidence of what his prior record is… unless you have another source that tells us what he was arrested for, much less convicted.

“On this incident your right he is innocent until proven guilty and so are the gaurds.”

The guards haven’t been charged with an actual crime, no. As of yet.

“He has been charged so he has a good chance of being proven guilty.”

“Probability of conviction” does not equal “conviction.” That’s why they teach you to use the word “alleged ” in journalism school. (To avoid defamation suits for one thing.)

“he [sic] gaurds were not charged and therefore will never be proven guilty so I guess the gaurds will always be innocent of any crime, thanks for agreeing with me.”

The guards haven’t been charged yet, but that does not mean they cannot be. To say they will always be innocent of any crime implies you either can read the DA’s mind or that you can foretell the future somehow. Lacking the power to read minds or foretell the future, no, I don’t agree with you, because I can’t agree with such an illogical conclusion.

However, while not having been charged with and convicted of a crime, looking at the update:

“Update: Forever 21 released the following statement Friday, according to ABC: “We recognize that the security guard used excessive force, which is against our store policy and have suspended him indefinitely.””

He has broken store policy on the use of force and the employer has stated he used excessive force under their policy.

Whether or not he has used criminal excessive force under the law is up for a DA to decide to charge him with and for a court/jury to find him guilty of.

“If the cops came along and arrested the gaurds like many of you wanted and then used excessive force on the gaurds would you automatically forgive the gaurds for what they did?”

This doesn’t even make any sense, as we can’t forgive the victims of the guards for doing anything yet – they’re not convicted of anything, and we have yet to actually see any evidence that they have done anything – and even if the victims had done something wrong, that wouldn’t excuse the guards using excessive force.

Neither guards nor police get to punish suspects, whether they are later found guilty of anything or not. Ever.
Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

“Mike, since you now agree with me that the guards are innocent of any crime does that mean I caught you contradicting yourself for a 2nd time.”

I think the only thing you’ve managed to prove is that you can’t read very well, can’t not troll a thread, and have some kind of creepy fixation/insecurity issue.
Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

“I think the only thing you’ve managed to prove is that you can’t read very well, can’t not troll a thread, and have some kind of creepy fixation/insecurity issue.”

Once again, pot please meet kettle.

*reminder

Trolls need responses to survive. If one of our LEO’s sways waaaaay off topic as usual, begins inflammatory comments, or just pulls “facts” out of their rectal file, DO NOT REPLY. Only you can stop trolling…

@Rick: so a guy walks across your lawn. Do you get in your car, chase him down and run over him?

Or are you more like me and yell at him to get off the damn thing?

Kids…

I really didn’t think you (two) could behave like decent people for more than a few hours, JL/O.

But then, I’ve actually had you held accountable for your wrongdoing before, and I know that’s the one thing you can’t ever forgive or forget, Johnny. A mere citizen having you held accountable. Oh, how that must irk you.

But I guess everyone can see that.
Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

Mike you seem to be the insecure one, you can’t stand the fact that some people, citizens employed as police officers to be specific, have authority over you.

Since you said innocent until proven guilty you are saying the gaurds are innocent as of right now so at least we agree on something.

Oscar has a good point Mike. Or are you going to do your usual and deny you ever said that? And then after Oscar points it out to you, are you going to get all butt-hurt and go crying for comment moderation again?

“he [sic] gaurds were not charged and therefore will never be proven guilty so I guess the gaurds will always be innocent of any crime, thanks for agreeing with me.”

As I stated, no one can agree with this statement, that doesn’t claim to know the future.

“Since you said innocent until proven guilty you are saying the gaurds are innocent as of right now so at least we agree on something.”

I agree with your new statement.

See how easy that is Oscar?
Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

See how easy that was mike. Now I don’t want to go back through all the comments but I hope you were not one of the people advocating violence against these two innocent gaurds.

Mike,

Have it ever been pointed out to you that you have a huge personality flaw that completely prevents you from admitting that you were wrong about something? I’ve noticed several times when you just flat out lied about what you said or meant in order to keep from having to admit a mistake.

A flaw like that will really hold you back in life. Perhaps that is why you fix bikes for a living.

Rail Car,

Do you read the posts before you reply to them? You asked, “There is NO act/crime done by someone (criminal), that LEGALLY allows any LEO to step outside of the law, rules and regulations to met out their own punishment.. no matter how bad that crime might have been. I challenge anyone here to show me differently.”

We are not talking about stepping outside the law. We are talking about situations where initially something may look improper. However if you go back and look at additional information, that action would be justified. You get it?

Without additional information = improper.

With additional information = justified.

There are times when you see some video and shriek about how the police are out of control. However if you look at it from the perspective of the officer, it was justified based on the totality of the circumstances.

I don’t know how to explain it to you any further. Do you need examples of things that may look bad taken without the necessary additional information?

I’m sure you will start typing nonsense in all caps in response to this so have at it. Make sure to throw in some quotes that I never actually said too. Keeps it real.