Police Execution Squads, the Tyrannical Government that Supports them.

The FACT is the driver did not harm the other two teens in any way what so ever, rambo however served and protected by shooting them both.

 

You are claiming that a cop has no responsibility to make decisions, no obligation to act based on the actual circumstances he encounters.

Examine the video of the incident.
1 - No shoppers were worried about Crawford, everyone was shopping calmly and quietly. Clearly there was no active shooting.
2 - Ritchie's 911 call did not state there was shooting, only that there was a man pointing a rifle and acting in a threatening manner.
3 - When the cops found Crawford, Crawford was facing the shelves calmly talking on his phone, he was not facing the cops, the BB gun was not pointed at any cop.

Open carry is legal in that part of Ohio, so having a firearm in his hands was not a crime, and the simple possession cannot be taken as a threat.

You are claiming that the cops had no obligation to evaluate the true situation, all they had to do was go shoot Crawford based on a 911 call. A single 911 call. Not a flurry of calls from panicked people in a crowded WalMart where a guy was running around with a rifle threatening people. One call.

Totally wrong. Watch the video. The cops went through the WalMart, the looked around the aisle and peeked at Crawford, they co-ordinated their approach. They had plenty of time.

But they had a killer mindset and so they did not think, they did not evaluate the true situation. They went in with the attitude that there was a person who needed to be killed, they executed their plan, and they murdered an innocent man.

The shooter cop should be in prison for murder.

 

Got it but I was wondering if Brown crossed the state line.

 

Then pray tell what course of action is being proposed by yourself to deal with such incidents? What manner of engagement should be utilized when an individual is traveling at such dangerous speeds, in a stolen motor vehicle, and putting others in the way of harm by traveling as such speeds in the first place? Anyone who is struck at one hundred and three miles, even with a glancing blow, is going to die as a result of being struck. Realistically speaking, the actions of those whole stole the motor vehicle, were little different than randomly discharging a firearm in a public area. Simply because no one was killed as a result, does not mean the act is acceptable, or tolerable.

So once again, the question must be asked. Exactly what alternative course of action is being proposed by yourself?

 

you are demanding an 'after the fact' solution.

Instead why dont you tell us why its imperative to initiate a high speed chase in the first place if there is a high probability the car is stolen, and especially now with police cars that are virtually indistinguishable from other traffic?

 

No such statement was made on the part of myself. Rather it is being questioned what alternative course of action is being suggested by yourself? Are there any alternatives to be presented in this discussion? Or is there merely contentment on the part of yourself to complain about the problem, while doing nothing to suggest ways of fixing the problem?

 

Well put that way, the solution is to fix the justice system, affectionately known as the 'just-us' club, and legislatures to be in conformance with the constitution and respect the rights of the people as per the requirements of the gubmints authority to exist in the first place.

The constitution does not grant authority to create a shoot first ask questions later police state.

 

And pray tell, just how exactly will such go about being done?

What was presented is nothing more than something that sounds good in theory, but is devoid of any actual meaning. Nothing that was presented on the part of yourself does anything to explain how the proposal would lead to any significant difference than what is currently in place, and currently being ignored by those who are tasked with interpreting the law, and deciding who will and will not be tried for what crime.

At best what is being presented amounts to nothing more than yet another in a long line of calls for the ever-greater expansion of government at both the federal and state levels, in an attempt to address and attempt to compensate for what is ultimately human behavior, being perpetrated by flawed individuals who have managed to gain the trust and respect of others by virtue of their position in the inner workings of government.

It is quite apparent from the above statement that there is no understanding on the part of yourself, of either the inner workings of the united states government and its various branches, just how widespread the system-wide corruption extends, or how intertwined the two have become in one another. What is being proposed on the part of yourself is nothing more than a placebo. It presents the concept of amounting to something, but it ultimately amounts to nothing whatsoever.

What is either not understood, or simply not acknowledged on the part of yourself and countless others who have raised this issue before, is that if the desire for real and meaningful change is actually real, then it requires a significant and involved degree of work to do such. It would require what may come to be the bloodiest and most violent coup in the history of the entire united states. Every single individual who currently holds some position of authority in government would need to be systematically removed from not only that position of authority all at the same time, but they would need to be removed from the equation, as doing otherwise would allow them to spread their message of what they believe is acceptable, to others who may also share their world view, and believes that the ends justify the means, regardless of what must be done to get there. Those who hold a particular viewpoint would quite literally need to be killed for having the wrong ideas about how the nation should work.

Once said individuals are removed from the equation, it would be an absolute necessity to completely dismantle government at all levels to ensure that all elements of corruption have been removed from the equation due to exposure to said corrupting influences, and start over fresh from the ground up, without drawing on anything that existed beforehand. It may be necessary to go back to drafting the united states constitution all over again, to address whatever shortcomings were present in the first version, to prevent things from so easily becoming corrupt again, and leaving you back where you started in the first place.

What would ultimately be necessary for achieving the desired results, is similar to the need of utilizing radical chemotherapy for treating aggressive strains of cancer. The disease is not cured by the physician simply removing the tumors and declaring it to be good enough. Absolutely every last trace, every last suspect cell, must be completely obliterated from existence to present the disease from coming back again.

Does anyone have the appetite for such an approach to eliminating corruption? Is anyone willing to kill hundreds of thousands, if not potentially millions of individuals, on the sole basis that they cannot and will not hold themselves to high moral standards of doing what is the right thing, simply to prevent corruption from becoming entrenched into the system of government once again? Does anyone possess the constitution of character to pursue true and equal justice to this degree? Or will such be considered too much work?

 

well lets see, we would have people being tried by a jury instead of rambos trigger finger for starters, hence the now victims would have the right to 'due process' and a fair trial instead of summary execution as it is now.

Yes summary executions ignore the persons right to life.

presented by whom? Not me

any time you want to go 10 rounds on the inner workings of the mafia we call daMobcracy let me know.

Whats being called for is accountability as it has been since the destruction of our rights by the courts.

Nope the only thing need be done is fix the courts and a few other changes the courts made as a result of their legislating from the bench contrary to the peoples agreement.

Thats not the case what so ever, it only took a few decisions and changes to create the problem it would only take a few changes and decisions to dissolve the problem.

Sure, its called a revolution, history has proven that it will come to that if we continue on the course we are presently on.

Its already in the music.




I dont want that.

 

And precisely how would such be achieved. Precisely what course of action would be undertaken and implemented, that would actually prevent law enforcement officers from needlessly killing individuals in the course of their duties? Do not give vague generalities, break it down in a manner that demonstrates how such an approach could be made to actually work, and would not simply be ignored.

That is because nothing of actual significance has been presented.

Pray tell what nonsense is being discussed now?

And as has been witnessed, such calls have been routinely ignored time and time again at all levels involved. What is going to make this time any different from any of the other times? Law enforcement officers have been caught on camera committing various illegal acts, and both the courts and even juries have forgiven them of any wrongdoing. How can accountability possibly be had?

The united state supreme court itself went out of its way when it crafted the legal concept of qualified immunity, and applied it to law enforcement officers. This concept has only been expanded on in recent decades. Never once has this concept ever been rolled back, or otherwise restricted.

No court in the united states has the appetite necessary for such. Even if one did attempt such, the united state supreme court would simply reverse it, as it has time and time again when a lower circuit court has attempted to hold law enforcement responsible for its actions. That is why nothing short of starting over from the very beginning will amount to any actual change.

 

and vague generalities is all you are going to get unless you intend to pay me to work out all the details. Its easy for you to sit behind the keyboard and make demands.

because you fail to recognise the significance does no mean none have been presented.

nonsense? its comon practice for people call anything outside their knowledge base nonsense you know

The road to accountability starts with public recognition of the problem.

the scrotus also established themselves as the final word on the law and that is not true, and then the courts went on to bury the fact that juries are not only the trier of fact but also have the authority to judge the fairness of any law or regulation, we do not have have fully informed juries. technically the people are the final judge of the law though the just-us club stole it for themselves.

when that happens its the juries duty to acquit.

 

Note that it is not only the government that supports them (as police, they are part of the government), it is also the right wingers who do so as well. This despite their professed ideals of limited government.

Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the far right hypocrites who so ardently demand 2d Amendment rights defend rather than condemn the criminal actions of the government.

 

If the problems lay with the right wing side of politics, then why has the left wing side not stepped up to thoroughly address the matter in a meaningful fashion? During the first two years of the administration of Barack Obama, when democrats held both the house and senate of congress, why did they not utilize their veto-proof majority to implement wide reaching changes to law that would prevent abuses by law enforcement from continuing?

 

Another murder by cop:

A judge in Cincinnati on Monday dismissed the charges against a white police officer who fatally shot an unarmed black motorist during a traffic stop, after a county prosecutor declined to pursue a third murder trial in the case.

Hamilton County Judge Leslie Ghiz declined to acquit former University of Cincinnati officer Ray Tensing in the shooting of Sam DuBose, but she dismissed the murder and voluntary manslaughter charges in a way that blocks retrial on those counts.

"It's sort of a note of finality, which is what we were looking for, although we still have the potential for a federal civil rights investigation," defense attorney Stewart Mathews said afterward.

Two juries couldn't reach unanimous agreement on the state charges, leading to mistrials. County Prosecutor Joe Deters said he felt "badly" about dropping the case but had concluded that he wouldn't be able to get a jury to convict Tensing.

Tensing, now 27, shot the 43-year-old DuBose in the head after pulling him over for a missing front license plate on July 19, 2015. The shooting is among numerous cases nationwide that have called attention to how police deal with blacks, and it highlights the challenges prosecutors face in getting jurors to convict police officers for shooting when they say they're under threat. [they dont have to prove it]

Tensing, who was fired after the shooting, testified at both trials and said he feared he was going to be dragged or run over as DuBose drove away.

An expert hired by prosecutors said his frame-by-frame analysis of Tensing's body camera video showed Tensing wasn't being dragged by the car.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...-shooting-charges-dropped-20170724-story.html

 

Sad to see how many ignorant laymen sit on their oversized butts with Cheeto dust on their shirts watching TV and jumping to conclusions when they see fragments of conjecture on the boob tube about the latest police shooting the agenda-driven media has chosen to go viral with.

You don't bother waiting for the investigation to complete. You don't bother waiting to see what all people involved - including the officers - have to say about it. You don't bother waiting for documents to be released after the case has been adjudicated so you can review the case files. You don't bother requesting said case files.

Then you wonder why reality isn't matching your perception of what happened and what "should" be done.

Worse than this, you conflate these incidents with a bizarre blanket claim that cops "execute and murder" people at whim.

Intellectually lazy is the best, most complimentary thing that I can think of calling you.

 

Do you understand what actual murder entails and the burden of proof required? It seems you do not.

 

If that were the case, you'd be dead by now.

 

why are you accusing me of what you just did?

 

Proof is for the courts, the same ones that regularly acquit accused cops of wrongdoing. This is not a court of law and the reality is that murder is not a technicality, it's murder.

"Someone who does not know the difference between good and evil is worth nothing." - Miecyslaw Kasprzyk, Polish rescuer of Jews during the Holocaust, New York Times, January 30, 2005

It's a good thing I'm still alive so I can post the above. Many in my family were not as fortunate and did not survive the Holocaust. It was the end result of the Police State they were living in.

 

If you're going to smear people as murderers and an entire profession full of murderers, then you should have the ethical fortutitude to base such accusations on more than unproven conjecture from the boob tube.

As an apparently Jewish person, you should be especially sensitive in labeling people as monsters without a reasonable level of legitimate evidence shown as such, especially when the people being labeled are entire groups that share some commonality such as profession.

As I said, once these cases are adjudicated, you can request the case files and view them to see the findings. Then and only then do you have cause to cry foul that justice was derailed.

Until then, you're just a cop-hating leftist ignorant fool yelling at your television.

Do you even know what adjudication is? Of course you don't.

Yes, my family had the same problem in Yugoslavia where they were put into concentration camps at best and slaughtered at worst by Tito and the Red Army.

This is NOT a police state.

 

A moving car to an officer outside of his vehicle becomes a dangerous weapon, directed at the officer, age doesn't enter into it if your in the car then your going to possibly be shot at and they will use lethal force until the threat ends. I have a LE relative and would back them up if they were in the same situation.

 

there is no evidence that anything was directed at the rambo officer, are you just talking or do you have some evidence that you want to show us? When a car is stopped and trying to accelerate its nearly impossible to hit an officer with it unless he is a cripple in a wheel chair or throws himself under it.

 

As much as you want to dismiss the video EVIDENCE, it doesn't lie and there's way too much of it, it isn't rare.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=police+brutality+usa

I never said every cop is a murderer, but thanks to SCOTUS cops have been incrementally allowed way too much leeway.

Again, this is not a court of law. Just like everyone else, you and I are entitled to our opinions and we are apparently on opposite ends of the spectrum. As to the courts, there is not one single constitutional court of common law in the US, none, zero. Justice in the US is the best money and power can buy. The victims of police brutality deserve to have their DUE PROCESS rights protected as mandated by the Bill of Rights and as required by the Oath taken by every single cop.

The difference is I can recognize what a Police State looks like despite that you're constantly being fed the propaganda it's a "democracy". We have much different perceptions of reality.

 

The topic of police is one major issue that I am at odds with against President Donald J. Trump. As far as I am concerned, police are nothing more than armed and dangerous security guards of the corporate entity or state. All police departments in these United States came about through the incorporation (corporate state) of the state, county and local municipality. The town, in which I grew up in, did not have a police department until I was about the age of ten, when the town became incorporated. Before the incorporation, there was no local police department; the town was patrolled by state police and the county sheriff. The state police only came around when they had to go to the town courthouse for a ticket, and the sheriff only came around when someone was going to jail. It was not a city, not in the least, it was a rural town. I did not develop an opinion of police of any type until I moved to where I live now. I am not a man who commits crime, heck I do not like criminals at all, so my negative view about them does not come from a criminal background. I seriously view them (police) as armed and dangerous security guards who work to secure their employment and the state. As for criminals, I see them as partners of the various police departments.

 

What type of logic are you using? The police officer obviously did something wrong, he murdered an innocent man. Regardless if a person made a phone call to report a person aiming a firearm at others, when the officer arrived on scene, he obviously observed that the man was doing nothing wrong, so every action that the police officer took after that observation was clearly the wrong action to be taken. The problem in these United States of [North] America is the problem with hero worship. The practice of idolization of those in uniform gives the same idolized carte blanche approval of all of their behavior that is until those same “heroes” take ill-actions and behaviors that negatively affect the worshipper of those same “heroes”.