Pastor Killed in Drug Investigation

[Carnivore]

imported post

Bankhead would not disclose the identity of the woman who was in Ayers' car, but said she's been charged with cocaine possession and distribution.

Was this a prior conviction, or a conviction at the scene of the alleged crime??

That would weigh a whole lot on the innocense of the preacher!

 

[NightOwl]

imported post

From what I could tell from the video and surrounding story, it does appear that the police were way out of line and did murder that man. Plain clothes+gun+yelling "freeze police" does not in any way indicate to me that it's an officer. That was not "resisting efforts to question him", that was a psychotic rush with guns drawn by the officers involved.

I'd try to avoid people in street clothes with guns pointing my direction too. I hope I never need to be "questioned" by those police for anything, sounds scary...and fatal.

While lawsuits against police departments for minor things aren't really something I support (with some exceptions), this is a major issue and I hope that his wife sues that department into extinction. Not that it will bring her husband back...my heart goes out to that poor lady...

 

[chiefjason]

imported post

So they could not follow him till a marked unit gets there? Maybe try to catch him in the store. Drug possession on the pastors part would not even justify this to me. I hope the family makes all involved pay dearly. There is a difference in justice and forgiveness. You can seek one will still giving the other.

 

[smoking357]

imported post

codename_47 wrote:

FYI 357, pro-se means for yourself

Literally, it means "through him- her- or itself", and how is the Latin at issue?

Further, your little pro se suits won't make it past dismissal, and the only way you can sue, pro se, is if you have standing. You can't appear "pro se" on behalf of another, as appearance is the practice of law.

That means, in order to sue, you have to be the one receiving the police abuse. If you've received police abuse, they're going to charge you with something. If you sue during the pendency of your criminal case, the prosecutor will go to the wall against you to ensure that the cops and the governmental unit do not face civil liability.

The only way we will achieve justice is for prosecutors to start pursuing police for every crime committed against the citizens, however small, with unbridled vigor. Judges need to become protectors of the citizens, instead of employees and servants of the state. Juries need to return to being skeptics of each and every government action, returning "not guilty" verdicts for silly and stupid "crimes."

When a cop is forced to work with one foot in the jailhouse, and when the prosecutors and judges learn that the people aren't going to throw people in jail because some stupid "law" claims to command it, we'll finally get a police department that serves the citizens and a criminal court that forces police to solve real crimes.

Unfortunately, America is full of poenamates, and seeing one's neighbor suffer is great penny theater. So many Americans are broken people, composed of the wrong moral elements. Unless we improve ourselves, until we practice compassion and temperance to one another, we're going to suffer in this Hell.

 

[Jim675]

imported post

True.

 

[codename_47]

imported post

Further, your little pro se suits won't make it past dismissal, and the only way you can sue, pro se, is if you have standing. You can't appear "pro se" on behalf of another, as appearance is the practice of law.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I think people who have a beef with the cops should represent themselves in court as opposed to waiting on the prosecutor or a lawyer to do it for them. I don't mean that people should represent others unless they are lawyers.

That means, in order to sue, you have to be the one receiving the police abuse. If you've received police abuse, they're going to charge you with something. If you sue during the pendency of your criminal case, the prosecutor will go to the wall against you to ensure that the cops and the governmental unit do not face civil liability.

Umm, that isn't necessarily true that they are going to charge you with something, and even if they do, fine hit back. The prosecutor can go against the wall, but if they have no case, they have no case, period. I disagree with that strategy, if they are going after you, you go after them. Can you cite one case of a prosecutor going to the wall in response to a civil suit?

The only way we will achieve justice is for prosecutors to start pursuing police for every crime committed against the citizens, however small, with unbridled vigor. Judges need to become protectors of the citizens, instead of employees and servants of the state. Juries need to return to being skeptics of each and every government action, returning "not guilty" verdicts for silly and stupid "crimes."

Well, don't hold your breath. If you want, you can join me back in reality and take action that might actually change things.

 

[smoking357]

imported post

codename_47 wrote:

Can you cite one case of a prosecutor going to the wall in response to a civil suit?

Friend, trial cases are not published in the reporters.

 

[Deanimator]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

codename_47 wrote:

Can you cite one case of a prosecutor going to the wall in response to a civil suit?

Friend, trial cases are not published in the reporters.

So not one has EVER even been in the news?

I guess the answer to the original question is "no".

 

[smoking357]

imported post

Deanimator wrote:

smoking357 wrote:

codename_47 wrote:

Can you cite one case of a prosecutor going to the wall in response to a civil suit?

Friend, trial cases are not published in the reporters.

So not one has EVER even been in the news?

I guess the answer to the original question is "no".

Why are you guessing when you're being told how the system works? Call any criminal defense attorney and see if they're willing to bring a 1983 action during the pendency of a criminal case. Like you, I wish the reality was something else, but it isn't.

 

[Deanimator]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

smoking357 wrote:

codename_47 wrote:

Can you cite one case of a prosecutor going to the wall in response to a civil suit?

Friend, trial cases are not published in the reporters.

So not one has EVER even been in the news?

I guess the answer to the original question is "no".

Why are you guessing when you're being told how the system works?

Told by whom? You? And with no evidence?

I don't accept "believe!" as a reason from Obama or Fred Phelps. I'm sure not accepting it from you.

 

[smoking357]

imported post

Deanimator wrote:

smoking357 wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

smoking357 wrote:

codename_47 wrote:

Can you cite one case of a prosecutor going to the wall in response to a civil suit?

Friend, trial cases are not published in the reporters.

So not one has EVER even been in the news?

I guess the answer to the original question is "no".

Why are you guessing when you're being told how the system works?

Told by whom? You? And with no evidence?

I don't accept "believe!" as a reason from Obama or Fred Phelps. I'm sure not accepting it from you.

Why not?

 

[HankT]

imported post

I think, S357, you're looking bad on this one....

http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129083

 

[Deanimator]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

smoking357 wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

smoking357 wrote:

codename_47 wrote:

Can you cite one case of a prosecutor going to the wall in response to a civil suit?

Friend, trial cases are not published in the reporters.

So not one has EVER even been in the news?

I guess the answer to the original question is "no".

Why are you guessing when you're being told how the system works?

Told by whom? You? And with no evidence?

I don't accept "believe!" as a reason from Obama or Fred Phelps. I'm sure not accepting it from you.

Why not?

I don't have "faith" in a supernatural god. I sure don't have any in you.

 

[smoking357]

imported post

HankT wrote:

I think, S357, you're looking bad on this one....

http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129083

Actually, it looks like they've admitted the bill, in toto. Truly disgusting and contemptible comments there.

 

[smoking357]

imported post

Deanimator wrote:

smoking357 wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

smoking357 wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

smoking357 wrote:

codename_47 wrote:

Can you cite one case of a prosecutor going to the wall in response to a civil suit?

Friend, trial cases are not published in the reporters.

So not one has EVER even been in the news?

I guess the answer to the original question is "no".

Why are you guessing when you're being told how the system works?

Told by whom? You? And with no evidence?

I don't accept "believe!" as a reason from Obama or Fred Phelps. I'm sure not accepting it from you.

Why not?

I don't have "faith" in a supernatural god. I sure don't have any in you.

Then run the game plan your way and know that many people in the gun community will reflexively side with the police against you.

Best of luck.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

HankT wrote:

I think, S357, you're looking bad on this one....

http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129083

Actually, it looks like they've admitted the bill, in toto. Truly disgusting and contemptible comments there.

No doubt. As bad as some people here...........

 

[Jim675]

imported post

"Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice...."

You know folks, for those of you jumping on S357, you may want to look at the underlying messages of him and his detractors, including our unlamented late compatriot Nitrovic.

S357's message is consistently one of increased freedom for everyone. The only way for the people to have more freedom is for the government to have less power. The police are that power expressed.

Nitrovic, his followers on the other forum, and not a few here, are saying your freedoms should be curtailed. Your freedom of speech, your freedom to be armed, your freedoms against unjust search and seizure are all subordinate to current public opinion or the whims of the police.

What will happen to crime rates if 10% of the population carries OC? What will happen to police budgets? Think about the definition of success for group involved. Who do want to win?

 

[codename_47]

imported post

Why are you guessing when you're being told how the system works? Call any criminal defense attorney and see if they're willing to bring a 1983 action during the pendency of a criminal case. Like you, I wish the reality was something else, but it isn't.

Well, not sure about things in your neck of the woods, but I see very few criminal defense lawyers that do civil rights work. Just because a criminal defense lawyer doesn't think it is a good idea doesn't mean it isn't a good idea. I seriously doubt many cops have been on the instant receiving end of a lawsuit. I think it would work wonders.

Most lawyers are just lazy and don't want to do the work when they may only get paid on one end. Most lawyers wouldn't want to sue over a non-arrest case or some of the OC harassment that we get. Doesn't mean it isn't a violation of your rights.

Defense vs Plaintiff work is VERY different. Most lawyers stay on one side or the other.

Again, I have heard all sorts of opinions and views from prosecutors, surely someone has to have some sort of source or trends or something for this notion that fighting back will make the other side try to convict you of something (as if it is solely up to them...)

 

[FrankC]

imported post

Reading on that site gives me the impression that many leos are not very well versed in the laws they are supposed to be upholding.

"I have said in the past that OC is an anti-police site, and this proves it. I'm just glad these OC morons in my state know that it's only legal to OC UNLOADED. They still get proned, cuffed and detained until I figure out what's going on with the weapon though." -FJDave

Good show of an abusive cop there...I bet he wonders why some people don't like/trust the police too! The reasoning is amazingly simple in most cases, when someone is treated poorly by someone/something they can't defend against it rubs them the wrong way. When that type of thing happens multiple times it pisses them off. I would think this would be a compelling reason for them (abusive cops) not to be jerks to people all the time.

"The posters response was to the story about the pastor being killed by police for running them over during an encounter. Having said that, what situation would his response be deemed appropriate? That site is notorious for taking things out of context and in some instances simply making things up. I'm not doing the same, go to the post in question on their site and see. It's in the general forum." -nitrovic

....We all saw the video.

" My grandfather is the same way. He can't stand me wearing a badge and tells me all the time that he can't trust anyone who wears one. He thinks that the police are going to pull him over because he is old and beat him up." - TXCountySheriff

I wonder what gave him that idea...Maybe it came from knowing his grandson?

It looks like there are some decent people on that site and a few of the type that give the rest a bad name, much like here.

Is it just me or does hank post as DAL over there?

 

[Theseus]

imported post

It makes me wonder though, what is the difference between criticizing and bashing?

I mean, they rolled up on that car very agressively with no indication that they were LE. Several men jumping out of a truck that just pulled up on me like that would have a similar reaction except that I am typically armed, and likely would have opened fire.

IMHO these officers should be charged. If found guilty hung. But I don't think we hang people anymore. . .