1 day, 2 shootings in spotlight:

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-21-2016, 12:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You claimed that there was not pobable cause at the scene.  I asked what evidence was not at the scene and you have refused to answer.

There were 3 officers at the scene who all agreed deadly force  was not appropriat.  What more is needed to establish probable cause?

I'll reiterate since you're having difficulty.  I have explained this, in detail, in this very thread.  A person who says they're a criminal defense attorney should have no difficulty understanding.  But, you have gotten basic facts about the law completely wrong in the past so...

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I'll make it even easier for you Fred; suppose you're the DPD for this female officer.  What would be your defense strategy in court?  Now assume you're the DPD for a person who is not an LEO who is accused of shooting someone, how would your defense strategy be different?

[fredtoast]

(09-21-2016, 01:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll reiterate since you're having difficulty.  I have explained this, in detail, in this very thread.  A person who says they're a criminal defense attorney should have no difficulty understanding.  But, you have gotten basic facts about the law completely wrong in the past so...

In what post was it explained?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-21-2016, 06:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: In what post was it explained?

It's in this thread.  A sharp legal mind like yourself should have no trouble discerning it from the others.

[fredtoast]

(09-21-2016, 07:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's in this thread.  A sharp legal mind like yourself should have no trouble discerning it from the others.

And someone who actually made a valid argument would be proud of it and have no problem citing it.

I am guessing you are referring to the claim that the evidence of probable cause was not at the scene of the shooting.  And your refusal to explain what evidence that would be explains why you are embarrassed to tell me where your alleged argument is located.

When I make a good point I am thrilled to cite it.  Guess that is not an option for you.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-21-2016, 11:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And someone who actually made a valid argument would be proud of it and have no problem citing it.

I did.

Quote:I am guessing you are referring to the claim that the evidence of probable cause was not at the scene of the shooting.  And your refusal to explain what evidence that would be explains why you are embarrassed to tell me where your alleged argument is located.

A person with an actual law degree wouldn't have to guess.

Quote:When I make a good point I am thrilled to cite it.  Guess that is not an option for you.

I'm sure.  Being right once in a while must be a huge thrill for you.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Here's the post Fred asked to be deleted.  Please Fred, with all your legal acumen, explain to the class what inaccuracy forced you to ask a mod to delete your entire post.

[fredtoast]

(09-21-2016, 11:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

Here's the post Fred asked to be deleted.  Please Fred, with all your legal acumen, explain to the class what inaccuracy forced you to ask a mod to delete your entire post.

I did not ask a mod to delete it.  I deleted it.  There was a mistake in there that I realized immediately.  Like I have said many times I will admit that I made a mistake.  I realized it and deleted the information.

Like I said before, if you forget something on the way to work or accidentaly make a wrong turn do you tell all of your friends or do you just turn around and get what you forgot.  And if you don't tell all of your friends does that mean you are "burning evidence" and can not be trusted.

Everyone here has forgotten something or made a wrong turn.  The fact that you are obsessing on something like this shows how pathetic your arguments are.  You think you are making some big point, but you are just looking silly.

No one else corrected me.  I saw the mistake myself.  It is not that big of a deal.

[fredtoast]

(09-21-2016, 12:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Source? I mean, we know there was one officer that fired the fatal shot, but were other shots fired? One officer had a taser out, but at least one other also had a weapon out, was it a sidearm? Did they fire? Did they miss something the other officer saw? Did these officers make a statements saying that is was not appropriate or are you just making an assumption because the officer that fired the lethal shot has been named and none of the others?

I saw the video.  The three other officers were right there and saw everything the shooter did.  And none of them used deadly force.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-21-2016, 11:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I did not ask a mod to delete it.  I deleted it.  There was a mistake in there that I realized immediately.  Like I have said many times I will admit that I made a mistake.  I realized it and deleted the information.

Like I said before, if you forget something on the way to work or accidentaly make a wrong turn do you tell all of your friends or do you just turn around and get what you forgot.  And if you don't tell all of your friends does that mean you are "burning evidence" and can not be trusted.

Everyone here has forgotten something or made a wrong turn.  The fact that you are obsessing on something like this shows how pathetic your arguments are.  You think you are making some big point, but you are just looking silly.

No one else corrected me.  I saw the mistake myself.  It is not that big of a deal.

What mistake please?  You said earlier you own your mistakes so kindly live up to your word.

[fredtoast]

(09-21-2016, 11:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What mistake please?  You said earlier you own your mistakes so kindly live up to your word.

You generally have to comply if the officer tells you to get out of the car.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-21-2016, 11:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You generally have to comply if the officer tells you to get out of the car.

True, you can also be arrested for getting out of the car and refusing instructions to get back in it.  It's called obstruction, anything that delays or prevents a peace officer from carrying out their duties can result in an arrest for obstruction.  Whether the DA files it is another matter, but you are certainly within your rights to arrest someone for it.


Quite sincerely, and I mean this, people who work in the criminal justice system need to be very careful when giving advice to others.  You give out bad information and someone who was privy to it can make a mistake that will really cost them.

[Vas Deferens]

(09-21-2016, 11:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You generally have to comply if the officer tells you to get out of the car.

Well that settles that. Moving on...

[Vas Deferens]

(09-22-2016, 12:07 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: True, you can also be arrested for getting out of the car and refusing instructions to get back in it.  It's called obstruction, anything that delays or prevents a peace officer from carrying out their duties can result in an arrest for obstruction.  Whether the DA files it is another matter, but you are certainly within your rights to arrest someone for it.


Quite sincerely, and I mean this, people who work in the criminal justice system need to be very careful when giving advice to others.  You give out bad information and someone who was privy to it can make a mistake that will really cost them.

Not sure which is better. 'Pant gun' or 'peace officer'


Only here folks. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-22-2016, 12:09 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Not sure which is better. 'Pant gun' or 'peace officer'


Only here folks. 

Uhm, peace officer is correct.  Pant gun is a hilarious typo.

[Vas Deferens]

(09-22-2016, 12:13 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Uhm, peace officer is correct.  Pant gun is a hilarious typo.

Ok.  I'm sure you're on the good side of LEO's, but 'peace officer' is enormously ironic given the content of the thread.  

The vast majority of LEO's are upstanding cream of the crop citizens.  The shitty ones give them all a bad name and I personally think that is just the result of inadequate hiring and underpaying this profession.  I've been the victims of said shitty policing and I can tell you my view going into encounters with LEOs will always be slightly confrontational as a result.  You just don't know if you're dealing with the 95% or 5%.  And that saddens me greatly. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-22-2016, 12:26 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Ok.  I'm sure you're on the good side of LEO's, but 'peace officer' is enormously ironic given the content of the thread.  

The vast majority of LEO's are upstanding cream of the crop citizens.  The shitty ones give them all a bad name and I personally think that is just the result of inadequate hiring and underpaying this profession.  I've been the victims of said shitty policing and I can tell you my view going into encounters with LEOs will always be slightly confrontational as a result.  You just don't know if you're dealing with the 95% or 5%.  And that saddens me greatly. 

Believe me, I completely understand that.  Sometimes I read a report or deal with someone that makes me ashamed of my profession.  No, I'm not talking criminal or censurable conduct, just plain idiocy or willful incompetence.  It's hardly a problem confined to this profession and good hiring and screening does weed out some insanely undesirable candidates.  The problem is, once out of the probationary process civil service protection makes getting rid of a bad officer difficult.  It does this by design and I think the system works more than it doesn't but your point is taken.

I'd end by pointing out that even a good officer can be a real POS on the wrong day.  LEO's are humans with lives and problems.  They also have a job where they deal with the dregs of humanity and sometimes it's hard to disconnect yourself from that mindset and not throw every civilian you deal with into the same basket.  The point I've made all along is that law enforcement does a very good job the vast majority of the time.  By the nature of the job the mistakes that are made are going to be magnified over most other professions.  It's the wholesale attack on the profession and the assertion that many LEO's are crooked that has always bothered me.  Fred thinks "pant gun" immediately and uses the fact that it's happened before as the sole evidence for it happening again.  It's frustrating, it's unfair and frankly it's bullshit.

[Vas Deferens]

(09-22-2016, 12:44 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Believe me, I completely understand that.  Sometimes I read a report or deal with someone that makes me ashamed of my profession.  No, I'm not talking criminal or censurable conduct, just plain idiocy or willful incompetence.  It's hardly a problem confined to this profession and good hiring and screening does weed out some insanely undesirable candidates.  The problem is, once out of the probationary process civil service protection makes getting rid of a bad officer difficult.  It does this by design and I think the system works more than it doesn't but your point is taken.

I'd end by pointing out that even a good officer can be a real POS on the wrong day.  LEO's are humans with lives and problems.  They also have a job where they deal with the dregs of humanity and sometimes it's hard to disconnect yourself from that mindset and not throw every civilian you deal with into the same basket.  The point I've made all along is that law enforcement does a very good job the vast majority of the time.  By the nature of the job the mistakes that are made are going to be magnified over most other professions.  It's the wholesale attack on the profession and the assertion that many LEO's are crooked that has always bothered me.  Fred thinks "pant gun" immediately and uses the fact that it's happened before as the sole evidence for it happening again.  It's frustrating, it's unfair and frankly it's bullshit.

Agree with these statements wholeheartedly.  I know and respect many LEO's.  Hell I've considered a complete career change and joining their forces on a couple of occasions because I truly believe it's a noble service when done correctly.  But it's hard not to think you're unjustly going to get your nose broken by someone wearing the same uniform as the last guy.  

We need more guys out there like you and I sincerely thank you for somehow dealing with the dregs of society that I would soon enough see dumped in the middle of the ocean without a floatations device.   I.E. Thriving heroin addicts, etc.  

[NATI BENGALS]

(09-21-2016, 12:23 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: It's a damn shame that this man lost his life.

That being said, something isn't adding up.

#1. The vehicle doesn't appear old enough to be in such disrepair that it'd stall. (although still mechanically possible)
#2. How many people park in the middle of a 2 lane highway, where there is a double line (which excludes the idea of passing and stalling). Everyone knows to pull to the right shoulder.

I think another person was involved, somewhere in the equation.
Lovers spat ?
Road rage ?
Something is amiss.

Regardless, the family deserves answers.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

Well apparently they found pcp in his car. So if he was out of his mind on that maybe he thought the middle of the road was as good a place as any to park.

[fredtoast]

(09-22-2016, 12:44 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   Fred thinks "pant gun" immediately and uses the fact that it's happened before as the sole evidence for it happening again.  It's frustrating, it's unfair and frankly it's bullshit.

And you think a person is involved in criminal activity just because he asks you what time it is.  You think you have amazing heightened sense that allow you to treat an innocent person like a criminal with out a shred of credible evidence.

It is this type of behavior that creates so many problems between police and citizens.  

It is frustrating, it's unfair, and frankly it's bullshit.