SouthernBoy
Regular Member
If it did, that would be justifiable use of deadly force... against the police.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Holy Gang Beating!!!
- Thread starter usamarshal
- Start date
If it did, that would be justifiable use of deadly force... against the police.
eye95
Well-known member
I would have said, "If it did, that would be justifiable use of deadly force... against the officers involved in the illegal beating.
KBCraig
Regular Member
Texas Penal Code 9.31(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified
1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
Last edited:
Kirbinator
Regular Member
Well, they were tried in a fair court of law and found not guilty. I may not like it.
Robin47
Regular Member
So here is the million dollar question...why would the local, state, federal govt's try to block the release of this video? What would be there reasoning? I will be contacting Dana Scully and Fox Mulder to follow up with an investigation...
"There is an agenda "! This is an example of what this police state, is coming to.
So feds and even local police, are all now working together.
Look up This : "Operation Falcon".
http://www.usmarshals.gov/falcon/index.html
I can only wonder when they will come for gun owners, who refuse to comply ?
Robin47 Sad
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
That question was a rhetorical one directed at apologists who refuse to recognize systematic corruption and abuse, clinging to their "few bad apples" mythology of yore.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Or, as Radley Balko at Reason says, "another isolated incident." As in another isolated incident. How many incidents does it take before the situation is not really "isolated" and is an obvious trend?
SouthernBoy
Regular Member
Good correction, thank you. That was my intent.
Nevada carrier
Regular Member
Costco, Las Vegas, Nevada, July 10, 2010. Crime: Murder. Officers involved: 3. Indictments issued: 0. Convictions: 0.
One of the officers involved but found justified in the murder has been formally relieved of duty for his involvement in a separate criminal act. The crime in question that got him removed from the force was that he transfered a firearm to someone he knew to be a felon; and get this, the transaction took place the day after he participated in the murder of Erik Scott at the Las Vegas Costco.
One down, two to go.
Last edited:
eye95
Well-known member
*sigh*
You can tell the credibility of that charge by the off-handedness with which it is mentioned.
A man was acting erratically, opening packages and swapping out product. He had enough drugs in his system to kill most of us, but had been using drugs long enough and taking enough of them to have built up a tolerance. He had been "doctor shopping" to facilitate his prescription drug use. He had a gun in a holster that had been concealed but was spotted by an employee. He was told he could not have it in the store, but he wouldn't leave.
911 was called. The dispatcher was told of an armed man acting erratically. The store was evacuated and the police responded. Despite the evacuation, the man with the gun kept shopping.
When he finally came out, he was told to show his hands and get on the ground. Instead, he reached back to where the police had been told he had a gun. He pulled it out and pointed it at one of the officers. He and the other officers shot the man.
It turned out that the gun was still in its holster. However, the officer reasonably believed that he was in imminent mortal danger because, in the split second he had to decide what to do, he saw a gun pointed at him. He was not the only one who saw a gun (as opposed to a holstered gun). Civilian witnesses testified that the man pointed a gun at the officer (not a holstered gun).
Why the shooting happened?
1. The man carried while under the influence of a large amount of prescription drugs.
2. He did not leave the store when told he was not allowed to have a gun there.
3. He did not follow the instructions of the officers to show his hands and get on the ground.
4. He reached to where it was known he had a gun.
5. He pulled out something, which in the split second in which a life-and-death decision had to be made, looked like a gun to almost all of the witnesses, civilian and police, and pointed it at one of the officers.
For these reasons, the shooting was ruled by a jury to be "justified."
Don't take the word of the person who made the off-handed remark. Heck, don't take my word, even though I laid out the detailed situation. Read it for yourself. Read the testimony or, if you don't have the time to go through a week's worth of testimony, read the excellent summaries of each day's testimony.
I will edit my post to add the links to those summaries as soon as I can dig them up--yet again.
The links:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/22/coroners-inquest-erik-scott/
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/23/erik-scott-day2/
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/24/coroners-inquest-day3/
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/25/erik-scott-inquest-day4/
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/27/erik-scott-day5/
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/28/erik-scott-inquest-day6/
You can tell the credibility of that charge by the off-handedness with which it is mentioned.
A man was acting erratically, opening packages and swapping out product. He had enough drugs in his system to kill most of us, but had been using drugs long enough and taking enough of them to have built up a tolerance. He had been "doctor shopping" to facilitate his prescription drug use. He had a gun in a holster that had been concealed but was spotted by an employee. He was told he could not have it in the store, but he wouldn't leave.
911 was called. The dispatcher was told of an armed man acting erratically. The store was evacuated and the police responded. Despite the evacuation, the man with the gun kept shopping.
When he finally came out, he was told to show his hands and get on the ground. Instead, he reached back to where the police had been told he had a gun. He pulled it out and pointed it at one of the officers. He and the other officers shot the man.
It turned out that the gun was still in its holster. However, the officer reasonably believed that he was in imminent mortal danger because, in the split second he had to decide what to do, he saw a gun pointed at him. He was not the only one who saw a gun (as opposed to a holstered gun). Civilian witnesses testified that the man pointed a gun at the officer (not a holstered gun).
Why the shooting happened?
1. The man carried while under the influence of a large amount of prescription drugs.
2. He did not leave the store when told he was not allowed to have a gun there.
3. He did not follow the instructions of the officers to show his hands and get on the ground.
4. He reached to where it was known he had a gun.
5. He pulled out something, which in the split second in which a life-and-death decision had to be made, looked like a gun to almost all of the witnesses, civilian and police, and pointed it at one of the officers.
For these reasons, the shooting was ruled by a jury to be "justified."
Don't take the word of the person who made the off-handed remark. Heck, don't take my word, even though I laid out the detailed situation. Read it for yourself. Read the testimony or, if you don't have the time to go through a week's worth of testimony, read the excellent summaries of each day's testimony.
I will edit my post to add the links to those summaries as soon as I can dig them up--yet again.
The links:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/22/coroners-inquest-erik-scott/
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/23/erik-scott-day2/
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/24/coroners-inquest-day3/
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/25/erik-scott-inquest-day4/
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/27/erik-scott-day5/
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/28/erik-scott-inquest-day6/
Last edited:
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
eye95 clearly had never heard of this incident but, somehow, finds himself needing to rush to the defense of police he's never met. This is, of course, to be expected of apologists. These are the same apologists who decry in the strongest possible terms the undeniable misconduct of individuals, but fail to be concerned when those individuals are let off with impunity, and fail to recognize that there are any systematic problems.
Meanwhile, other folks are more interested in the truth:
http://govtricks.blogspot.com/2010/07/erik-scott-las-vegas-costco-shooting.html
Let's see, recording conveniently missing: check. Convenient testimony from cops, supported by a few vague witnesses, and contradicted by numerous highly specific witnesses: check. Attempts to try this guy in the media by claiming he was a "roid rager" (despite the lack of any evidence that a roid rage occurred): check.
Add it all up and what do you get? Oh yeah, totally a good shoot. No doubt in my mind.
Come one, eye95, this is Vegas. You really think the cops wouldn't make such a mistake and cover their asses?
rodbender
Regular Member
Hey, cops are the good guys....................................Aren't they?
rodbender
Regular Member
Let it go, eye. Take a nap. They ain't listenin".
Last edited:
CalicoJack10
Regular Member
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
That was truely hilarious!!!!
eye95
Well-known member
The vast majority of the time, the cops are the good guys. As with any segment of the population, they have members of their group who are morality-challenged. Unfortunately, when they step over the legal line, they are doing so with the power of the State--making their crimes more dangerous. That's no reason for some here to go after cops in general. As I said, most are good guys.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Yes it is reason to go after cops in general but not individually. Individually there are good cops and bad cops.
We need to go after reducing them and their affect in our society to constitutional levels.
We need to hold whole departments accountable for the actions of the "few". Since they allow it.
We need to stop culturally accepted crimes by LEA's such as perjury.
We need to stop hiring, aggressive personalities, we need to stop training them to shoot first ask questions later.
We need to go after reducing them and their affect in our society to constitutional levels.
We need to hold whole departments accountable for the actions of the "few". Since they allow it.
We need to stop culturally accepted crimes by LEA's such as perjury.
We need to stop hiring, aggressive personalities, we need to stop training them to shoot first ask questions later.
rodbender
Regular Member
It's almost epidemic...'nuff said.
http://vodpod.com/watch/2093527-the-largest-street-gang-in-america
http://vodpod.com/watch/2093527-the-largest-street-gang-in-america
REALteach4u
Regular Member
Wow!
Would that be considered a gang beating or a 'friendly' game of stomp the perp?
Somebody has anger issues.
By statute in Missouri it would qualify as "gang action".
But I expect the card that will be played is: They're cops, those laws don't apply to them.
How can they not? PD's are some of the biggest "gangs" by definition around the world.
And why are they getting Police Department and/or Union lawyers, likely on the taxpayer dollar? These folks need to be paying out of pocket for a lawyer and stripped of any ability to access anything related to the LE community....pronto!
Last edited:
CalicoJack10
Regular Member
Again, I have to say, as someone who knows or has known far too many cops to count, it is nearly impossible to find a cop that has not used their badge to get away with something at some point. I agree, not all cops are bad, but the good ones are a serious minority at this point.
END_THE_FED
Regular Member
It looks like at least one of the "officers" involved, will be reinstated thanks to the Union.
The city is appealing the decision to reinstate Gaudencio Saucedo.
I hope that the next time this thug assaults someone the union is held responsible.
The city is appealing the decision to reinstate Gaudencio Saucedo.
I hope that the next time this thug assaults someone the union is held responsible.