BART Shooting

imported post

Dustin wrote:

...SNIP

Click to expand...

See there you go again,saying that we keep our opinions to ourselves. What is is with you wanting to muzzle our freedom of speech ?

Click to expand...

Yes I am saying that in this society, this man has a right (which you are trampling) to due process, without prejudgement from ANYONE, including you. By stating your "opinion" as to his guilt or innocence you (and others) are damaging his right to enter a courtroom with the presumption of innocence.

Now I suppose that is only important to him and his family, and should be of no concern to you, unless you want to live in a society like China, where you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent. I for one do not like that approach and I prefer to argue for a mans innocence until he is PROVED guilty in a court of proper jurisdiction. You obviously feel different.

Your opinions as to what you postulate may have happened are legit, so are discussions in other areas, but where people cross the line is with statements that prejudge this mans guilt. So yes I will argue for his rights just as I would for yours. You have a right to an opinion, but you do not have the right to prejudge this man under our laws. By the way, I have the right to MY opinion that you are violating his rights and should not do so.

Please cite legal precedent or code sections if your opinions on prejudgmentdiffer.


My view come from HERE-

"Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. "




Edit to add citation

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Dustin wrote:

...SNIP

Click to expand...

See there you go again,saying that we keep our opinions to ourselves. What is is with you wanting to muzzle our freedom of speech ?

Click to expand...

Yes I am saying that in this society, this man has a right (which you are trampling) to due process, without prejudgement from ANYONE, including you. By stating your "opinion" as to his guilt or innocence you (and others) are damaging his right to enter a courtroom with the presumption of innocence.

Now I suppose that is only important to him and his family, and should be of no concern to you, unless you want to live in a society like China, where you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent. I for one do not like that approach and I prefer to argue for a mans innocence until he is PROVED guilty in a court of proper jurisdiction. You obviously feel different.

Click to expand...

where the @#$% have you been? "normal" people are always guilty until proven innocent in our country today, at least in LE's book. you know this... if this weren't the case we wouldn't have OCers stopped every day to prove they're not felons.

this person, and everyone else DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT for other citizens not to "pre-judge" him, or consider him guilty.'

he only has "guilty until proven innocent" rights in court.

its a hard tough dirty job, but someone has to do it! thank me

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

Heh... 'ReckonI been had. 'Ain't been to a 'walk-in' movie since '98, soI don't pay much attention to that stuff.

But actually... I've saved lives (temporarily) 4 times. I say temprorarily 'causeI only prolonged their dyin' by a dayor less. They were pretty far gone.

Click to expand...

i haven't either. but i'm gunna see this one... too funny to wait for dvd.

guess you didn't save em after all. you might not have what it takes to be a hero like i do

imported post

Is a taser, by itself, a deadly weapon? Many people in the US have died from the use / misuse of the taser.

It is often used as a police compliance tool. Not always unjustified, but with many documented abuses, the taser seems to be the equivalent of the billy club. When used by striking the thigh, it is an effective , less than lethal weapon. When used to crack skulls the effect is more lethal and denigrates the police force that uses the tactics. Same with tasers.

IMHO the use of a taser is an assault with a deadly weapon. It may be justifiable or excusable, but the use for crowd control or compliance is wrong. The people are human beings. We don't use cattle prods and electric c shock, nor should we use tasers, except when the use of deadly force is justified.

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Dustin wrote:

...SNIP

Click to expand...

See there you go again,saying that we keep our opinions to ourselves. What is is with you wanting to muzzle our freedom of speech ?

Click to expand...

Yes I am saying that in this society, this man has a right (which you are trampling) to due process, without prejudgement from ANYONE, including you. By stating your "opinion" as to his guilt or innocence you (and others) are damaging his right to enter a courtroom with the presumption of innocence.

Now I suppose that is only important to him and his family, and should be of no concern to you, unless you want to live in a society like China, where you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent. I for one do not like that approach and I prefer to argue for a mans innocence until he is PROVED guilty in a court of proper jurisdiction. You obviously feel different.

Your opinions as to what you postulate may have happened are legit, so are discussions in other areas, but where people cross the line is with statements that prejudge this mans guilt. So yes I will argue for his rights just as I would for yours. You have a right to an opinion, but you do not have the right to prejudge this man under our laws. By the way, I have the right to MY opinion that you are violating his rights and should not do so.

Please cite legal precedent or code sections if your opinions on prejudgmentdiffer.

Click to expand...

I'm not violating his rights with my freedom of speech.

Your arguing that he is innocent until a court proves him guilty. I'm not arguing against that, but IN MY OWN OPINION, he is guilty. I'm entitlted to that opinion. So stop telling me I can't have it. It's like your just trying to derail this topic like you've done the past 3 that were open. How about we stay on topic. Which is discussing the shooting and not telling people to hold their own opinions until later.

We live in a police state. We are all guilty until proven innocent, EXCEPT IF your a COP.

For example, Is theCOP that did thisin Jail right now ? - Nope

If this were a civilian, where would they be ? - JAIL !

This is why they are rioting. This is why people are pissed. This is why LEO in America is looked down upon.

Every civilianisGuilty until proven innocent, only LE have the right to be Innocent until proven guilty.


He'll sit there in his home, until they look over all the evidence, and then decide to go an arrest him.



You, me, we'd be in Jail Buddy !

imported post

Hey Paul,

Don't denigrate mall cops. Many of them are hard working and friendly. If you want to create havoc go to officer.com or some other similar site and let them know that private security gets the job done when LEOs fall short.

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Dustin wrote:

...SNIP

Click to expand...

See there you go again,saying that we keep our opinions to ourselves. What is is with you wanting to muzzle our freedom of speech ?

Click to expand...

Yes I am saying that in this society, this man has a right (which you are trampling) to due process, without prejudgement from ANYONE, including you. By stating your "opinion" as to his guilt or innocence you (and others) are damaging his right to enter a courtroom with the presumption of innocence.

Now I suppose that is only important to him and his family, and should be of no concern to you, unless you want to live in a society like China, where you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent. I for one do not like that approach and I prefer to argue for a mans innocence until he is PROVED guilty in a court of proper jurisdiction. You obviously feel different.

Your opinions as to what you postulate may have happened are legit, so are discussions in other areas, but where people cross the line is with statements that prejudge this mans guilt. So yes I will argue for his rights just as I would for yours. You have a right to an opinion, but you do not have the right to prejudge this man under our laws. By the way, I have the right to MY opinion that you are violating his rights and should not do so.

Please cite legal precedent or code sections if your opinions on prejudgmentdiffer.


My view come from HERE-

"Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. "




Edit to add citation

Click to expand...

This is not about prejudgement, it is about probable cause.

Arrest in California is based upon probable cause. You know this. There is plenty of probable cause for manslaughter in the video. Once charged with manslaughter the prosecutors can make a judgement as to whether to indight for murder or not.

imported post

Dustin... As a former copI have to agree with you. Reality sux, but there it is. Part of why I'm no longer a cop... but that was awhile ago. On the street... you have a carte blanche license to do whatever you want. Only person who's gonna second guess you or tell ya you're wrongis a Judge (after the fact). Anybody thinks this doesn't breed abuse of police powersis naieve.

imported post

Dustin wrote:

...SNIP

Click to expand...

I'm not violating his rights with my freedom of speech.

Your arguing that he is innocent until a court proves him guilty. I'm not arguing against that, but IN MY OWN OPINION, he is guilty. I'm entitlted to that opinion. So stop telling me I can't have it. It's like your just trying to derail this topic like you've done the past 3 that were open. How about we stay on topic. Which is discussing the shooting and not telling people to hold their own opinions until later.

We live in a police state. We are all guilty until proven innocent, EXCEPT IF your a COP.

For example, Is theCOP that did thisin Jail right now ? - Nope

If this were a civilian, where would they be ? - JAIL !

This is why they are rioting. This is why people are pissed. This is why LEO in America is looked down upon.

Every civilianisGuilty until proven innocent, only LE have the right to be Innocent until proven guilty.


He'll sit there in his home, until they look over all the evidence, and then decide to go an arrest him.



You, me, we'd be in Jail Buddy !

Click to expand...

Actually you are. You are certainly entitled to your opinions. But you are NOT entitled to do things with those opinions that affect this mans right to an impartial jury. This is an Internet forum. It is read by people all over the world. That would include those in the potential jury pool in the Bay area in California. So yes youcertainly have a right to your opinion as to the guys guilt, you do not have a right to use that opinion to influence the jury pool in his trial.

As to derailing threads. It is in fact those of you who insist on prejudging this man and making posts like the one quoted above that are in fact getting these threads closed. DID YOU READ THE OP FOR THIS THREAD!

What you wrote is the very kind of LEO bashing that John was talking about. You will not find that in any of my posts. All I have asked is that people not express their opinions on THIS FORUM as to this mans guilt, or what should be done about it. We all can see that it looks bad, and it may be but it is not your place or mine to prejudge that.

I have posted as to the weaknesses in the technology used to reach some of the conclusions people are jumping to. Those limitations are real and if you do a Little research you will see that they do in fact degrade your ability to determine what actually happened in this case.

Despite your opinion to the contrary, I also have a right to my opinion that you are wrong to do what you are doing. Now please provide a citation supporting your position as I have already done.

imported post

Thundar wrote:

Tasers are not an appropriate tool for the police.  Many are killed by the continued over use of the weapons and poor training of police in their use.

Click to expand...

BART police should be unarmed like Bobbies.

Overarmed police lead to escalation. We should trend towards armament of citizens and disarmament of police, rather than our current diametrically opposed tack.

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

SNIP Paul Blart is a character in the new movie "Paul Blart: Mall Cop" that is a theater near you right now.

The particular person now using that name here, has been banned under other handles in the past and is now trying to fly under the radar. He is actually a "20 something" who has trolled the forum under at least the two previoushandles of"JonnyB", and "MrBiggles". Both of those handles are now banned, and I expect "PaulBlart" will not be far behind.

(Watch this space and you will see what I mean)

Click to expand...

What y'all have to understand is that in this thread Not-JohnnyBart is using a time-honored style. He's deliberately satirizing by writing as though he isa cop.

THIS IS GREAT!!!

Why didn't I think of this?

If he can pull this off--walk that razor-thin line between satire and cop-bashing--this could be really, really interesting.

I wish him success.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Thundar wrote:

Tasers are not an appropriate tool for the police. Many are killed by the continued over use of the weapons and poor training of police in their use.

Click to expand...

BART police should be unarmed like Bobbies.

Overarmed police lead to escalation. We should trend towards armament of citizens and disarmament of police, rather than our current diametrically opposed tack.

Click to expand...

+1

The BART guys should have been armed with ONLY non lethal controls. Tazers at most, batons on the low end.

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Actually you are. You are certainly entitled to your opinions. But you are NOT entitled to do things with those opinions that affect this mans right to an impartial jury. This is an Internet forum. It is read by people all over the world. That would include those in the potential jury pool in the Bay area in California. So yes youcertainly have a right to your opinion as to the guys guilt, you do not have a right to use that opinion to influence the jury pool in his trial.

As to derailing threads. It is in fact those of you who insist on prejudging this man and making posts like the one quoted above that are in fact getting these threads closed. DID YOU READ THE OP FOR THIS THREAD!

What you wrote is the very kind of LEO bashing that John was talking about. You will not find that in any of my posts. All I have asked is that people not express their opinions on THIS FORUM as to this mans guilt, or what should be done about it. We all can see that it looks bad, and it may be but it is not your place or mine to prejudge that.

I have posted as to the weaknesses in the technology used to reach some of the conclusions people are jumping to. Those limitations are real and if you do a Little research you will see that they do in fact degrade your ability to determine what actually happened in this case.

Despite your opinion to the contrary, I also have a right to my opinion that you are wrong to do what you are doing. Now please provide a citation supporting your position as I have already done.

Click to expand...

So if a protester stood outside the courthouse, with a sign that said, "Guilty" they would be wrong in your opinion ?

My post were about what I thought happen during the shooting. Then you come in and start crying about us not posting our own opinions.

How am I derailing the topic ? I'm on topic, by talking about the shooting! If you don't like the topic, than Go Away !

Also what you quoted has NOTHING to do with whether or not I can say what the hell I want to say. it only speaks of what the courts are to give him. NOT the People.

I haven't bashed any COPS, but if the Truth hurts, and is considered bashing, than so be it.

Even the former COP Sonara agrees to that.

imported post

Think about the huge difference in mindset that would foster...

Imagine the difference between signing up to be the privileged armed figure of authority amongst the disarmed masses, as compared to becoming the collected voice of reason who must work within protocol to resolve disputes and maintain peace without the force of the threat of a gun amongst an armed populace.

That's the kind of police I want.

imported post

Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship or limitation. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to denote not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

imported post

Thundar wrote:

Hey Paul,

Don't denigrate mall cops. Many of them are hard working and friendly. If you want to create havoc go to officer.com or some other similar site and let them know that private security gets the job done when LEOs fall short.

Click to expand...

its just a joke. i've never met a "mall cop" but the movie is hilarious and the play on the stereotype is funny.

just a joke in a very serious world.

imported post

Dustin wrote:

See there you go again,saying that we keep our opinions to ourselves. What is is with you wanting to muzzle our freedom of speech ?

Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with stating an opinion, but there are those that are taking a bit far and literally calling for the guys head over what may be no more than an extremely unfortunate accident. There are also a few encouraging riots on grounds that justice will not be done before there has even been an investigation.

imported post

Dustin wrote:

...SNIP

Click to expand...

Also what you quoted has NOTHING to do with whether or not I can say what the hell I want to say. it only speaks of what the courts are to give him. NOT the People.
SNIP...

Click to expand...

This is the part you just don't seem to get. Under our Constitution The government IS the people. So in fact those two guarantees in the BOR are a giant red arrow pointing right down at all of us both individually and collectively. Read the first part of the fifth amendment again very slowly and I think you will see what I am trying to say.

IF that were not the case, then no single individual could ever be arrested for violating the constitutional rights of another. Strange that the courts seem to be filled with cases of one individual violating the rights of another.

Just so you know. You would not be allow to stand in front of the courthouse with your sign. You would be forced to move across the street. I wonder why?


Again a citation supporting your view would be where?


EDIT FOR SPELL CHECK

imported post

FogRider wrote:

Dustin wrote:

See there you go again,saying that we keep our opinions to ourselves. What is is with you wanting to muzzle our freedom of speech ?

Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with stating an opinion, but there are those that are taking a bit far and literally calling for the guys head over what may be no more than an extremely unfortunate accident. There are also a few encouraging riots on grounds that justice will not be done before there has even been an investigation.

Click to expand...

Right which I've clearly not done. I just said what I saw in the video.

Eitherway You boys have a great weekend, and if your feeling sparky, try this on your significant other,

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a13_1231524153

:shock::celebrate:lol:

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Dustin wrote:

...SNIP

Click to expand...

Also what you quoted has NOTHING to do with whether or not I can say what the hell I want to say. it only speaks of what the courts are to give him. NOT the People.
SNIP...

Click to expand...

This is the part you just don't seem to get. Under our Constitution The government IS the people. So in fact those two guarantees in the BOR are a giant red arrow pointing right down at all of us both individually and collectively. Read the first part of the fifth ammendmend again very slowly and I think you will see what I am trying to say.

IF that were not the case, then no single individual could ever be arrested for violating the constitutional rights of another. Strange that the courts seem to be filled with cases of one individual violating the rights of another.

Just so you know. You would not be allow to stand in front of the courthouse with your sign. You would be forced to move across the street. I wonder why?


Again a citation supporting your view would be where?

Click to expand...

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Gulty until proven innocent in my mall.