Gunned Down Cold In A Raw Deal

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
I did, but that is an apples to oranges argument. This cop didn't abuse any power that I could see..., it wasn't intended, I'm just responding to your previous statement.
he abused the power of a firearm. a man DIED. have you accepted that yet? a father is dead. tell his family the truth. jesus christ!!!!!!!!!!! :cuss:
how about a private statement? sit down with the kids mom maybe. something? anything?
 

SocataSmoker

Well-Known Member
"immediately"
Within 2 days of the shooting he was receiving threats, his child was born the week previous... :wall:

he abused the power of a firearm. a man DIED. have you accepted that yet? a father is dead. tell his family the truth. jesus christ!!!!!!!!!!! :cuss:
how about a private statement? sit down with the kids mom maybe. something? anything?
A firearm he could've well thought was a tazer, and it's not uncommon for an officer to draw his firearm when another officer is handcuffing, the suspect is most able to do some sort of action against the officer while in the process of being cuffed. Sit down with the kids mom, I wouldn't agree with, there are many precautions to take and I am sure that there is a better course of action than a face to face meeting of the man who shot her son... that situation sounds extremely volatile to me. I am not sure why the officer isn't talking at the moment, but I am more than sure of what he feels right now... you can't honestly believe he doesn't feel for the family because of what he did.
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
Within 2 days of the shooting he was receiving threats, his child was born the week previous... :wall:



A firearm he could've well thought was a tazer, and it's not uncommon for an officer to draw his firearm when another officer is handcuffing, the suspect is most able to do some sort of action against the officer while in the process of being cuffed. Sit down with the kids mom, I wouldn't agree with, there are many precautions to take and I am sure that there is a better course of action than a face to face meeting of the man who shot her son... that situation sounds extremely volatile to me. I am not sure why the officer isn't talking at the moment, but I am more than sure of what he feels right now... you can't honestly believe he doesn't feel for the family because of what he did.

no, he doesn't care. they are black. why would he? :lol:

BART themselves said "it would be very hard to confuse a firearm with a taser. they are on opposite sides of the belt."
he had his taser out earlier. he may have had a "brain-fart" and fucked up, yes, i agree. but why the fuck is he HIDING? why not immediately sit down with IA and give a statement. just like everyone else. you continue to avoid this question. all they want is a statement. how much worse could a statement make it? "think about it." they are threatening him because he WON'T GIVE A STATEMENT!!!!!!!!
:bigjoint:
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
Within 2 days of the shooting he was receiving threats, his child was born the week previous... :wall:



A firearm he could've well thought was a tazer, and it's not uncommon for an officer to draw his firearm when another officer is handcuffing, the suspect is most able to do some sort of action against the officer while in the process of being cuffed. Sit down with the kids mom, I wouldn't agree with, there are many precautions to take and I am sure that there is a better course of action than a face to face meeting of the man who shot her son... that situation sounds extremely volatile to me. I am not sure why the officer isn't talking at the moment, but I am more than sure of what he feels right now... you can't honestly believe he doesn't feel for the family because of what he did.


maybe i'm being opinionated, ....... http://socialistworker.org/2003-2/472/472_05_OaklandCops.shtml
 

thcheaven

Well-Known Member
I have a famous quote for all of you! "Can, Can, Can't we all, just get along?""
The fucking cop fucked up real bad, and will probably get away with it. I am not condoning it, but, come on guys. Is it really any reason for you to fight amongst yourselves? This shit happens all over, it is not isolated to Oakland. Rioting is never the way to anything accomplished. Peaceful rallies, voting in New, Better politicians, I don't have the answer here, but I do know fighting about it wont help anyone, hell I'm stressed out just reading your posts...lOl

:peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace::peace:
 

SocataSmoker

Well-Known Member
why not immediately sit down with IA and give a statement. just like everyone else. you continue to avoid this question
:bigjoint:
Actually I answered it a few pages back, but here it is again, and no worries thcheaven, fdd and I aren't fighting... he's like a brother to me :bigjoint: and I do agree rioting and calling the officer a cold blooded murderer aren't going to solve anything... not a one of us knows for sure and we won't until the trials over a long time from now.

By resigning his position, the BART officer made the tactical decision that it was better to do so than to refuse a direct order to talk about the case to his department's Internal Affairs division. If he'd waived his rights and spoken with the IA investigators, his statements would be used against him in any future criminal proceedings. If he refused to waive his rights, but provided details about the incident after being ordered to, he might still have those statements used against him in Federal violation of civil rights criminal trial, possibly in criminal trial in state court (there's some recent cases allowing this) and would certainly have those statements used against him in civil (state or federal) court. A refusal to talk at all would have led to automatic termination.

Any way you look at it, resignation was probably the best tactical decision for him at the time (given the circumstances), since he's a lot more concerned about the threat of criminal prosecution (possibly just to "calm" the public?) than his employment at this point.
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
Actually I answered it a few pages back, but here it is again, and no worries thcheaven, fdd and I aren't fighting... he's like a brother to me :bigjoint: and I do agree rioting and calling the officer a cold blooded murderer aren't going to solve anything... not a one of us knows for sure and we won't until the trials over a long time from now.

By resigning his position, the BART officer made the tactical decision that it was better to do so than to refuse a direct order to talk about the case to his department's Internal Affairs division. If he'd waived his rights and spoken with the IA investigators, his statements would be used against him in any future criminal proceedings. If he refused to waive his rights, but provided details about the incident after being ordered to, he might still have those statements used against him in Federal violation of civil rights criminal trial, possibly in criminal trial in state court (there's some recent cases allowing this) and would certainly have those statements used against him in civil (state or federal) court. A refusal to talk at all would have led to automatic termination.

Any way you look at it, resignation was probably the best tactical decision for him at the time (given the circumstances), since he's a lot more concerned about the threat of criminal prosecution (possibly just to "calm" the public?) than his employment at this point.
criminal proceedings? i thought it was an accident. now i'm really confused. lololol and stoned. :bigjoint::bigjoint:
 

onthedl0008

Well-Known Member
All i wanna know is if u were listening to slayer when u thought of this haha im so messed up right now. I cant believe how controversial this thread has become man.
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
All i wanna know is if u were listening to slayer when u thought of this haha im so messed up right now. I cant believe how controversial this thread has become man.

[youtube]gW8nh9c1C3A[/youtube]





Expendable Youth

[King/Araya]

Gun down cold on a raw deal
Home turf my battlefield
In no one's way caught in a crossfire
Stray bullets can kill

[CHORUS]
Expendable youths
Fighting for possession
Having control the principle obsession
Rivalry and retribution
Death the only solution

Inured soul lies on the ground
Head blown off face down
Lying in a pool of blood
An accidental death homicide

[CHORUS]

Struggling to survive
The drug induced warfare
To have control and principle obsession
Expendable youth fighting for possession
Violence is only a friend

[CHORUS]
 

onthedl0008

Well-Known Member
I knew it! Damn.Expendable youth. Skeletons of society. Classic. One of the first songs i learned how to play!Anyways im out. Im enjoying the controversy. Cool
 

SocataSmoker

Well-Known Member
criminal proceedings? i thought it was an accident. now i'm really confused. lololol and stoned. :bigjoint::bigjoint:
Of course it was an accident, but he will still be charged and tried, that is a criminal proceeding... if you get drunk and hit someone and cause wreck, expect to go through a criminal proceeding even though it may have been an "accident". He is essentially using his 5th amendment right.
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
Of course it was an accident, but he will still be charged and tried, that is a criminal proceeding... if you get drunk and hit someone and cause wreck, expect to go through a criminal proceeding even though it may have been an "accident". He is essentially using his 5th amendment right.

drunk driving is NOT an accident. :wall:

stuck on verbiage. lol
 

SocataSmoker

Well-Known Member
drunk driving is NOT an accident. :wall:

stuck on verbiage. lol
Ok fine... how about you're sober driving... and you cause a wreck which then causes the passenger of the other vehicle to be ejected and killed, you would then be facing a criminal proceeding for involuntary manslaughter.
 

stumps

Well-Known Member
thats true he is or was a cop. So what happens to a cop when he scews the pooch I'll bet it will be some kind of manslater charge...if the courts find he ment to have his tazer out and not his gun.
 

SocataSmoker

Well-Known Member
It would be manslaughter unless they can prove he intended to shoot and kill him or had previously thought about shooting and killing the deceased.
 

stumps

Well-Known Member
well he did pull his gun and shoot the guy in the back.
So first off..
was the guy still resisting
was the the guy threatening the cops
was there even a reason to taze the guy?
I can't tell form what I saw on video.
I would think there beter be a good reason the cop was thinking tazer, if not manslater would be a bit weak for killing a guy in cold blood.
 

ToastedFox

Well-Known Member
Seems he should have left his bullet in his pocket.... Man, my worst fear is a Barney Fife on my ass.. These are the results of overzealous police officers.


I don't blame guns on this death, I blame the person at fault. A gun wasn't even warranted for the ordeal...



I'm surprised no rioting has happened..
 
Top