tvc184

  Let's see, he has the internet, global warming, the hanging chad...... he might soon be up there with Thomas Edison. 

  Out of the approximately 14 million arrests each year, neither were millions of blacks.    The odds of being killed by the police in an arrest is about 20,000+ to 1. If people would quit fighting and comply with arrest, it would go down to almost zero.    I have no clue what George Zimmerman has to do with the millions of other arrests that year that didn't end in a fatal incident but apparently it makes some sense to you. 

    Let's see, in the video John Crawford appears to be carrying an AR15 or similar rifle. A person calls 911 and tells the dispatcher that a man is in the store with a rifle and waving it around. The police then arrive thinking that they may be walking into an active shooter situation.    They spot a guy with a rifle just as the caller said. The police naturally point their weapons at the person and challenge him. What comments or questions should they make or ask?   A. DROP THE WEAPON!   B. Time out sir. Sir, is that a real weapon? If it is in fact a real weapon, do you intend to use it or are you simply scaring people? Please let us know and can you please not do move or we will have to challenge you louder.    All the while the officers know that it takes about one second for the person to bring the rifle up and fire at them. I am assuming that the responding officers should have simply waited to see if one of them got shot first. If the guy did actually kill an officer, it would then be acceptable for the other officers to return fire.    In fact this guy on the video appeared to be acting strange. He was seen pointing the rifle and ducking around the corner of an aisle. Sometimes he looked like he was shouldering the weapon and going to attention like he was in the military. No one will ever know why he was doing that but in fact he was acting strangely. After the police entered, he fled around the corner and then came back and appeared to lunge at the rifle.    It is easy to look back on it and see it as a tragedy although Crawford acted in a manner that brought attention to himself. The officers are faced with making a decision that may cost their lives if they hesitate. It is an unfortunate problem of the world we live in today. In this year alone officers murdered in the line of duty are up 50% from the previous year. Officers seriously injured are at an all time high and the only reason that more officers are not killed is from modern life saving techniques and responding officers saving their partner's lives with tourniquets and other things that were not done or taught in the past.    Yet again, there is a way to stop the violent encounters..... stop resisting and fleeing.   

  "I heard"? There is ironclad innuendo and speculation.    No matter, that guy had a gun that looked real. Your silly "if it would have been a black guy" doesn't seem to bear out that millions of blacks are arrested each year and not shot. How did they manage to go to jail without being shot and without needing to be treated at the hospital for a violent arrest?   Oh, I know. They complied when told that they were under arrest. Amazing how that works. 

No.

  I know that facts and reality have no basis in your opinions and rants but look at this.   From wikipedia:   Police arrived within 90 seconds and found at least three .40-caliber handgun magazines, a shotgun and a large drum magazine on the floor of the theater.   police apprehended Holmes behind the cinema, next to his car, without resistance.   He left his guns in the theater and the police found him behind the theater. He was not running away and was not charging them. According to the article they did not even know that he was the actor at first (since he wasn't acting crazy) and he did not resist.     I have said it before and I will stick with it. All of these claimed police abuses are the result of the suspect resisting or attacking officers. There is a very easy way to stop them. Quit resisting.    If you want to contest your case, the lawful way is in court, not at the roadside where the laws and Supreme Court decisions clearly are in favor of the police using force to protect themselves and others from what the officers "reasonably believe". 

I read it. It was not Fox News but a local Fox affiliate in Somewhere, USA. 

  Why change spots now?

LOL is right. WOW, the UN doesn't like something that the US does.    I'm glad I read this thread, I would have never known any of this............  :D

The Ice Age is upon us.

  Except for the other family.................... 

  It is not an unusually long time. Trials normally get put on a docket and then get reset and reset and............   This has a lot to do with the legal maneuvering that the defense is putting up on sanity issues. It is not because the DA wants to wait two years for a trial but there is no need to hurry when he is still locked away. 

Awaiting a trial seeking the death penalty.

Victim. He was a victim of his own choosing by robbing a store, attacking an officer and trying to take his duty weapon and finally being a victim of his own demise by not continuing to run away or submitting to a lawful arrest but instead again attacking the officer.

  Well, considering that it started crashing when the Republicans lost Congress................ 

The stock market is doing great.    I am not sure how that helps the people that need help but after 6 years, people finally have to buy big tickets items. No matter how bad the economy gets, it will always recover and things have to be replaced. This isn't Cuba where those big items have to last 40 years. 

  Maybe... but does it really matter? What does a pattern prove?   There is a reason that you can't bring up prior history in a criminal trial. Because you were speeding several times in the past and paid for citations (admission of guilt) so I can give you a speeding ticket today solely on history. If a guy is a convicted felon that doesn't mean an officer can shoot him without further cause because of prior history shows that he had a violent demeanor. An officer that was punished internally doesn't mean that he can't lawfully use force to defend himself.    What matters is what happened at the moment in question. Prior history might tend to show cause for people looking for a "reason" that something happened but it doesn't mean that a person is always right or wrong. That is also a reason that criminal charges do not require a "motive". The only issue is that the crime was committed and why is not an issue except at the punishment phase of a trial after guilt is established.     What about from the opposing viewpoint? Most often brought up is bad history but if an officer or anyone else shoots someone and he has no history, does that then mean that he is right? I have 31 years in law enforcement and haven't had any disciplinary suspensions for any cause much less use of force. Does that mean that if I kill someone that is a two time convicted violent felon that I am automatically right because I have a "good history" and he has a "bad" one?   That is why I could care less what Trayvon Martin had for a history. What I cared about was proof that Zimmerman killed him without cause. There was none.    Whether this officer had a checkered past or not does not mean that he is guilty of anything. What if the kid was a habitual criminal even at that young age and was accused of several crimes and convicted in juvenile court? Is that evidence that the officer is justified?    About the only thing I care about in the area of history is a possible understanding of the person's thought process because we like to speculate on those kinds of things. In my opinion it is meaningless at the moment in question however it might give us that "ahhhh...." moment later.    Ahhhhh... THAT'S why he did that crime.    EDIT: "haven't had any disciplinary suspensions"

I notice that the mother made the routine statement in many of these incidents, he "was trying to get his life back together".    Of course this was after he was expelled from school and she was "urging him" to join the Job Corps. 

  I am sure they will but I highly doubt it will add anything. Eye witness testimony is some of the worst evidence out there. That is especially true on cases where shots are being fired and people are generally getting the heck out of the area. Many times they think they see something but the physical evidence does not match the testimony. 

  I guess if an officer has a gun drawn on him, he needs to call time out, activate the camera on his uniform (if he has one) and then go back the the gunfight.... after he swings his arm in a big circle signalling roll the clock. 

  What if the other witnesses at the scene back up the officer's side of events.... which the physical evidence already appears to back up. 

This is like beating a dead horse but it is still simple. When the police tell you to stop then stop. When the police tell you that you are under arrest, the only legal answer is "okay" and submit to the arrest. When the police say stop resisting, it means stop resisting. When you charge an officer, attempt to pull your weapon, attempt to grab his weapon, point what even looks like a weapon or are fighting and start to get the upper hand, prepare to have it ended negatively in the officer's favor.    All of this nonsense would stop as soon as people stop resisting lawful authority. Of course that will not happen but therein lies the answer. 

The reports say that the deceased pull a gun and it was found at the scene. Unless there is evidence that the police planted the gun, case closed. Don't fight or pull weapons on the police. I am assuming that there are segments of the community that believe the police should just allow themselves to be victims.

  They throw gasoline the fire.     An estimated 600 people are killed by the police each year and there are about 15 thousand homicides. There is no story in that many events if there is no controversy.