1 day, 2 shootings in spotlight:

[GMDino]

(09-28-2016, 04:49 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: When someone introduces something new, and its commented on and used as reference, you cant just suddenly dismiss it and say we're talking about something else. It all ties together in determining a threat or not.

Sorry if you think I dismissed it.  I was just reading as those are some of the ways things could be considered legally threatening and that did not mean there could not be other ways.

[fredtoast]

(09-28-2016, 02:17 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Heres my question. Was he threatening me or giving me advice, due to the bad dudes that hang around that area and are usually up to no good?

Cursing at you and refusing to answer your question proves he was not trying to help.

[fredtoast]

(09-28-2016, 11:14 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: I'm not trying to be condescending..... but do you ever walk any streets, in larger cities ?
There are crazy/drugged/bored people yelling things, all the time.
I truly hope you are not fearful, every time you experience such a thing.
That would be most unpleasant.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

And you think there is never any crime to be afraid of on the streets of large cities?
I hope you are not that naive.
That could be most unpleasant for you.


We are not talking about soem crackhead.  We are talking about an off duty cop with a thug attitude.  And if I walk up to a guy like that just to ask what time it is and he tells me to **** off and never come around there again I am going to take that as a threat.  And if I decided that I would not let a stranger intimidate me I could press charges.  And I say any judge or juror would agree that SSF was of sound mind and clearly intended what he said to be a threat. 

And my ability to defend myself has nothing to do with defining the threat.  In fact self defense is only justified if there is a reasonable threat.

[*rfaulk34*]

(09-29-2016, 12:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Cursing at you and refusing to answer your question proves he was not trying to help.

That very well may be the case, but non-help doesn't automatically lead to a chargeable verbal threat. 

Even if he or anyone said, "get the hell out of here or i'm going to beat the shit out of you", without advancing towards him or giving any indication the beating was imminent, i have a hard time seeing anyone arrested. And i'd love to see any case where it has happened.

[*rfaulk34*]

(09-29-2016, 12:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And you think there is never any crime to be afraid of on the streets of large cities?
I hope you are not that naive.
That could be most unpleasant for you.


We are not talking about soem crackhead.  We are talking about an off duty cop with a thug attitude.  And if I walk up to a guy like that just to ask what time it is and he tells me to **** off and never come around there again I am going to take that as a threat.  And if I decided that I would not let a stranger intimidate me I could press charges.  And I say any judge or juror would agree that SSF was of sound mind and clearly intended what he said to be a threat.

And my ability to defend myself has nothing to do with defining the threat.  In fact self defense is only justified if there is a reasonable threat.

That's all assumption. You have no idea the other guys motive. You weren't there to see his delivery and can only imagine what it was like. 

Since we are assuming, let's say the guy was actually a criminal and he had a friend or several nearby and his intent was to gauge those 2 dudes to see if he was going to jack them or not. What then? Since the guy simply walked away, it didn't seem like he felt it was necessary to report it to anyone. That's a small fact that's been glossed over the entire time.

[GMDino]

(09-29-2016, 02:25 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: That's all assumption. You have no idea the other guys motive. You weren't there to see his delivery and can only imagine what it was like. 

Since we are assuming, let's say the guy was actually a criminal and he had a friend or several nearby and his intent was to gauge those 2 dudes to see if he was going to jack them or not. What then? Since the guy simply walked away, it didn't seem like he felt it was necessary to report it to anyone. That's a small fact that's been glossed over the entire time.

That's the same assumption absolute knowledge the yeller had. Which is why he had to have a "strong response".

This is not say he was wrong (we know that may never have happened) but rather whether if he was would it have been seen as a threat.  Heck even if the possible certain criminal had bad intentions it could have been seen as a threat.  Just because you think know exactly what the other person is thinking/going to do does that mean you are not making a threat?

[*rfaulk34*]

(09-29-2016, 02:33 PM)GMDino Wrote: That's the same assumption absolute knowledge the yeller had. Which is why he had to have a "strong response".

This is not say he was wrong (we know that may never have happened) but rather whether if he was would it have been seen as a threat.  Heck even if the possible certain criminal had bad intentions it could have been seen as a threat.  Just because you think know exactly what the other person is thinking/going to do does that mean you are not making a threat?

Of course not. The threat is preemptive in that case. 

Is it up to you or the person it's directed at to decide if it's unnecessary or not? Since no report has been made, that we know of, it seems his actions could be construed as proper. None of that last sentence is a certainty, but it's just as easy to assume it was. 

An off duty police officer is going to get the benefit of the doubt in his particular instance because...he's a police officer, trained a particular way for particular circumstances. A regular Joe on the street is going to be looked at differently. But the verbal threat still has to carry a reasonable belief that it's going to be carried out before a person can be charged. 


Notice how i was able to type that reply, snark-free? :)

[GMDino]

(09-29-2016, 02:43 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Of course not. The threat is preemptive in that case. 

Is it up to you or the person it's directed at to decide if it's unnecessary or not? Since no report has been made, that we know of, it seems his actions could be construed as proper. None of that last sentence is a certainty, but it's just as easy to assume it was. 

An off duty police officer is going to get the benefit of the doubt in his particular instance because...he's a police officer, trained a particular way for particular circumstances. A regular Joe on the street is going to be looked at differently. But the verbal threat still has to carry a reasonable belief that it's going to be carried out before a person can be charged. 


Notice how i was able to type that reply, snark-free? :)

Aha!  And there's the rub.  Said officer believes what he did was not a threat because...police officer.

Back to the original topic at last: Can the actions of officers be wrong and can they be prosecuted or should we chalk them up to "shit happens" because...police officer?

All the way back on page 1, post 1, this started because two people were shot and killed by officers.  Now we are arguing if an off duty officer "legally" threatened someone he "knew" was up to no good because....police officer.

What people want to talk about is why these "rare occurrences" seem to get brushed aside rather than looked at to see if there is a lesson to be learned...even by the police.

I have no idea what you mean about snark...  

[*rfaulk34*]

(09-29-2016, 02:55 PM)GMDino Wrote: Back to the original topic at last: Can the actions of officers be wrong and can they be prosecuted or should we chalk them up to "shit happens" because...police officer?

All the way back on page 1, post 1, this started because two people were shot and killed by officers.  Now we are arguing if an off duty officer "legally" threatened someone he "knew" was up to no good because....police officer.

What people want to talk about is why these "rare occurrences" seem to get brushed aside rather than looked at to see if there is a lesson to be learned...even by the police.

Of course they can be wrong--and they have and should be prosecuted when they are. 

I don't think they get brushed aside. I've seen cases where i thought an officer wasn't charged when he should have--specifically one that happened about 10 minutes away from where i live, in the city that my kids went to school in--and cases where they should have and were. Some cases aren't in the news as long as others, for several reasons, but i don't know of any that were just "brushed aside". 

With how much it's been covered the last couple years, i have no doubt you're going to see an uptick in charges and convictions going forward. The hope is that all are reviewed with a fine tooth comb and appropriate actions are taken, be it charged or acquitted. 

[Rotobeast]

(09-29-2016, 12:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And you think there is never any crime to be afraid of on the streets of large cities?
I hope you are not that naive.
That could be most unpleasant for you.


We are not talking about soem crackhead.  We are talking about an off duty cop with a thug attitude.  And if I walk up to a guy like that just to ask what time it is and he tells me to **** off and never come around there again I am going to take that as a threat.  And if I decided that I would not let a stranger intimidate me I could press charges.  And I say any judge or juror would agree that SSF was of sound mind and clearly intended what he said to be a threat. 

And my ability to defend myself has nothing to do with defining the threat.  In fact self defense is only justified if there is a reasonable threat.

I'm not naive or ill-prepared.
I've watched a hell
of a lot of Chuck Norris movies.


Seriously though, I'm good, unless it's the roughest of neighborhoods.
I'm cool in C-bus, but there's a couple spots in C-land and the Nati I'd rather not tread (maybe in the daytime).
But... screw Detroit...lol

Anyway, I'm nobody special.
I just dress like I'm poor and I can talk to anyone.

[GMDino]

I'll just add this one here:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/09/28/police-shooting-el-cajon-san-diego-law-enforcement/91207454/

So I have a serious question:

The Department has a policy, enacted within the last year, to hold any and all video of incidents so as to "not taint a potential jury".


But they released a still image from the video to refute "inaccurate" information that has been said by the public.

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-el-cajon-tape-20160929-snap-story.html

Quote:Tanya Sierra, a spokeswoman for the district attorney’s office, said the video of Olango would be released “as soon as we can.” She added that officials decided to release the still image “to stop some of the inaccurate narrative forming about the incident, such as that the subject of the shooting had his shirt off and his hands up when he was shot.”

Does that not also potentially taint a jury?

[NATI BENGALS]

Well. PCP was found in Mr. Crutcher's system.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-30-2016, 08:56 AM)GMDino Wrote: I'll just add this one here:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/09/28/police-shooting-el-cajon-san-diego-law-enforcement/91207454/

So I have a serious question:

The Department has a policy, enacted within the last year, to hold any and all video of incidents so as to "not taint a potential jury".


But they released a still image from the video to refute "inaccurate" information that has been said by the public.

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-el-cajon-tape-20160929-snap-story.html



Does that not also potentially taint a jury?

How does the inaccurate information reported by the "public" not taint a jury?

[*bfine32*]

https://www.yahoo.com/tv/oklahoma-cop-race-didnt-factor-shooting-black-man-153303767.html

Quote:TULSA, Okla. (AP) — A white Oklahoma police officer charged with manslaughter for fatally shooting an unarmed black man last year says the man's race had nothing to do with her decision to fire her gun.
Tulsa officer Betty Jo Shelby told CBS's "60 Minutes" in an interview that aired Sunday that she used lethal force because she feared 40-year-old Terence Crutcher was reaching inside his SUV for a gun.
"I'm feeling that his intent is to do me harm and I keep thinking, 'Don't do this. Please don't do this. Don't make this happen,'" Shelby told correspondent Bill Whitaker in her first interview since the Sept. 16 shooting.
Shelby said she remembers the moment Crutcher appeared to reach inside.
"And it's fast. Just that would tell any officer that that man's going for a weapon," she said. "I say with a louder, more intense voice, 'Stop. Stop! Stop!' And he didn't. And that's when I took aim."

[GMDino]

(04-03-2017, 02:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: https://www.yahoo.com/tv/oklahoma-cop-race-didnt-factor-shooting-black-man-153303767.html

Whoa.  The accused is defending herself.  That's some news! 

[*michaelsean*]

(04-03-2017, 03:19 PM)GMDino Wrote: Whoa.  The accused is defending herself.  That's some news! 

Are you saying her side of the story is irrelevant on the thread that is about her?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-03-2017, 04:41 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Are you saying her side of the story is irrelevant on the thread that is about her?

Are you actually bothering to ask Dino if police innocence matters?  

[GMDino]

(04-03-2017, 04:41 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Are you saying her side of the story is irrelevant on the thread that is about her?

I'm saying this has been covered that she claims she was afraid or some such thing.  Bringing the race card back into it reeks of desperation.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-03-2017, 07:33 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'm saying this has been covered that she claims she was afraid or some such thing.  Bringing the race card back into it reeks of desperation.

So nobody actually said race could have something to do with it.  She's just getting out in front of the story by bringing it up first.

[GMDino]

(04-03-2017, 10:29 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So nobody actually said race could have something to do with it.  She's just getting out in front of the story by bringing it up first.

From the beginning of the story race was part of it.  Read the first post with the story in it.  Posting a story from 7 months later that the officer says "race had nothing to do with it" is inane.  She's said that all along because others tried to make it about race.  She's not bringing it up first.

He  "looked" like a bad dude.  She was "afraid".

She gets charged and then the courts do their thing.