Bad Boys II

[Dill]

(06-29-2020, 04:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Incorrect.  The taser use was directly mentioned as the main justification for the types of charges filed.  The defense attorney's for some of the officers are already all over this.

Maybe a few links then? That might bridge the gap I referred to earlier.

(06-29-2020, 04:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Then you haven't been paying attention, at all.  I will never directly state what I do or who I work for, especially not in today's climate, and I've given my reasoning for that in the past.  Many people have tried to trip me up with LEO questions, and I've never gottetn them wrong.  Fred, on the other hand, has made blatant errors about the law in his posts.  He did go back later and amend his error, but he still made it.  Also, Fred is a DPD, he is paid to defend people who can't afford a private attorney.  Lastly, LEO's are paid to read, understand, interpret and apply the law as well, far more frequently than a DPD btw.

Sounds like someone needing a defense attorney could hire an LEO then.

Lot's of us would like to keep our privacy in today's climate. Not a problem. But most anyone can state his profession without "directly" stating who he works for or where he lives. I choose not to even do that. But it sounds like you are saying you are an LEO, but not really, but really claiming LEO expertise. 

And however expert you are, you lose credibility with me by explaining differences of opinion in terms of the other guy's character flaws. That generally signals lack of expertise. Nothing "professional" about that that I can see.

(06-29-2020, 04:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have offered a logical, cogent and consistent argument.  You choose not to agree with it.  I have a feeling if Fred was making the exact same argument you'd find it much more palatable.  I suppose we can sit back and see if i turn out to be right, the same exact way I was 100% correct about all the Freddy Grey officers walking.  Was that demonstrating expertise?  Probably not to your apparently lofty standards.

Freddy Grey was a little different. No video. Failure to interview relevant witnesses, etc. An easy strike. The Brooks case is different because there is video and proper witnesses, and it arrives at a moment of national challenge to a police culture of diluted accountability.

But we've got your prediction here, from post #971.

The officer in question had to make a split second decision and IMO, he did not act inappropriately.  I do appreciate your statement though, it shows just how unreasonable many people can be when analyzing police use of force decision.

What defense?  Has the former officer been charged with a crime?  Also, if charged the officer will certainly go for a bench trial in which he will be sure to walk.  Quite honestly, if the DA files charges he'll just be pulling a Mosby, filing charges to appease a mob instead of actual doing their job properly.  Even if you disagree with the use of force, there is zero chance that a provable crime was committed.  Not only that, but the officer is almost certainly going to get his job back based on the lack of due process in his firing.  This is not a blatantly obvious abuse of authority like tasing those two college students.  At worst this is a debatable shooting, there is no criminal conduct in this incident by the officer visible to any reasonable, fair minded person.

And if Rolfe goes to court, is convicted of criminal conduct, and doesn't get his old job back, then your rep is still protected by the "fair minded" codicile, right even when wrong.

I'd appreciate links to "defense attorneys all over this." Other than that, most of our discussion can surely wait until the trial actually begins.