Police shoot man 81 times *WARNING THIS IS GRAPHIC AND UNEDITED*

[HERESY]

heresy you're totally missing my point, which is still valid. the dude coulda saved his own life, he chose to risk it and paid the consiquences. what pisses me off about this whole thing is that he didnt get treated like he should of AFTER he was no longer a threat, as i stated on the first page of this thread.

Listen, either you are on a serious narcotic, you are doing this for attention, or you're just plain dumb. Why is it that I have to type the same thing over and over, and why do you assume that I am missing your pitiful point when I have already stated the guy COULD have done something to save his own life. Do I need to dig up all the times I typed it? Seriously, stop wasting your time going over the same thing, and what is obvious is that you are missing my point--DEPENDING ON THE MANS MENTAL CONDITION AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT, HE MAY NOT HAVE KNOWN RIGHT FROM WRONG AND MAY NOT BE LIABLE FOR HIS ACTIONS. For some reason you, and several others, want to sidestep this issue and not address, yet you want to focus on his actions at the time of the shooting. LMAO!


@Nitro, read the words in bold and your question will be answered.

 

[Ethereal]

I have already taken that into consideration. Likewise, he could be an alien from another galaxy. He could have also killed 10 cops before he was caught by the LAPD, but because I don't know that I'm not going to use it to validate anything that I say. And because I don't know of any mental illness he might have had, I'm going to believe it did not exist.

 

[HERESY]

I have already taken that into consideration.

Doesn't seem like it but ok.

Likewise, he could be an alien from another galaxy.

Unlikely.

He could have also killed 10 cops before he was caught by the LAPD, but because I don't know that I'm not going to use it to validate anything that I say.

According to the info I previously posted he did not kill ten police officers. The officers were called to the home for a domestic dispute, he jumped out a window, ran to a different house (the one you see on the film) and everything goes downhill.

And because I don't know of any mental illness he might have had, I'm going to believe it did not exist.

Nitro, toss mental "illness" out the window and focus on mental "condition."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

 

[Cmoke]

so where are you getting this mental illness shit? link me. cuz i didnt hear a thing about it, other then from you. oh ya and chill out with that weak ass drug attack. dont need to get mad bro we are discussin shit.

 

[Ethereal]

Doesn't seem like it but ok.

It doesn't seem like it because I have not heard anything that tells me I should focus on a "mental condition".

Unlikely.

Nevertheless.

According to the info I previously posted he did not kill ten police officers. The officers were called to the home for a domestic dispute, he jumped out a window, ran to a different house (the one you see on the film) and everything goes downhill.

People commit crimes that go undocumented all the time so he could have still killed 10 police officers before the confrontation thereby rendering him extremely dangerous.

Nitro, toss mental "illness" out the window and focus on mental "condition."

It could be argued that every criminal has a mental condition and in that respect, without anything telling us the condition is significant, it does not afford this person any exemption for the position he put himself in.

 

[HERESY]

It doesn't seem like it because I have not heard anything that tells me I should focus on a "mental condition".

No, you have been given multiple reasons as to why you SHOULD focus on the persons mental condition, but you simply don't understand WHY you should do it. Again, in a situation like this, you MUST consider the mental condition of the victim. In addition, the questioning of the officers mental condition will come from investigations into whether they followed policy AND if a reasonable officer with similar experience and expertise would come to the same conclusion as they did (and if the info I posted is correct, a resonable officer didn't come to the same conclusion and was removed because he protested the use of the dogs.)

Nevertheless.

Like I said unlikely.

People commit crimes that go undocumented all the time so he could have still killed 10 police officers before the confrontation thereby rendering him extremely dangerous.

Again, according to what I have previously posted (which was done by searching the net and actually calling the numbers for his aunts organization), there is no documented case of this guy having killed ten officers, and if he did kill ten officers, that doesn't mean THESE officers where in the jaws of death.

It could be argued that every criminal has a mental condition and in that respect

Listen, you still are not getting it. You are still equating "condition" with an illness or something being wrong with the person. Condition = the frame of mind or coherency at the time the act was commited--did the person kow right from wrong. Refer to the link I posted for further insight.

without anything telling us the condition is significant,

Again, we are not talking about the person being a head case (that actually comes later.) What we are talking about is his MENTAL STATE at the time all of this occured. Did he know he was doing wrong, was he truly aware of his activities? These types of questions (and more) would need to be answered by the M'Naghten Rules, and judging from the video it could swing either way as to if this guy knew what he was doing was wrong.

it does not afford this person any exemption for the position he put himself in.

see above.

 

[HERESY]

so where are you getting this mental illness shit?

He COULD have had a mental illness which contributed to him NOT knowing his actions were wrong. You all are saying "common sense says blah blah blah", but I am trying to show you guys that his common sense, at the time of the shooting, is questionable. Also, I am getting it from M'Naghten Rules which are used to establish insanity, and in this case (especially if the guy had lived) M'Naghten Rules would have been brought up in his first day of court.

cuz i didnt hear a thing about it, other then from you.

Because you don't understand anything about the criminal justice system and how cases flow. In order to establish a liability or case you must establish MENS REA and ACTUS REUS. One is the MENTAL STATE at the time of the act and the other is THE ACT. What I am trying to show you guys is before you go off and say "he was liable" or "he was wrong" you MUST have these two things in place.

oh ya and chill out with that weak ass drug attack. dont need to get mad bro we are discussin shit.

I'm not getting mad at all. I simply came to the conclusion that a narcotic, a lack of intelligence or attention seeking is leading you to say the same thing a multiple of times.

 

[Cmoke]

could or could not. and accroding to your theory of could or could not happen its just as likley if not more likley that the person did NOT have mental issues.

 

[HERESY]

could or could not. and accroding to your theory of could or could not happen its just as likley if not more likley that the person did NOT have mental issues.

This doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[Ender]

The man said he would give up if they let him talk to his pregnant girl. And they weren't tryin to hear it. He was outgunned and in the open.

That tells me he wasn't tryin to commit suicide. The mothafucker was AFRAID. He obviously thought he was gonna die no matter what he did. He was only tryin to bide time with what little influence he had. And wanted to talk to the girl he loved and say his peace.

I don't know too much about the police brutality situation in compton or the rest of the U.S.. But I do know that when you have an oppressed people with no fear of the law that they say is oppressin them. And the government starts losing control over these people. So then the government creates a new rule that basically says you have the freedom to kill whoever you want cuz our jails are overcrowded and we need to strike fear in the hearts of the people and erradicate any and all opposition by any means necessary. Two things are gonna happen. Either you will destroy the will of your enemy or strengthen and prove their belief that they are bein oppressed and breed warriors.

Those officers came to kill that man. Plain and simple. They used the dog as an excuse to shoot him. And since a police dog is held in the same esteem as an officer, that blatantly shows you how corrupt and infected those officers have become. We all have a sense of justice it is what makes us human. But since we follow an imperfect law and believe and fight for imperfect things we lose that sense of justice.

Granted I don't know all the facts of what led up to that incident. But I do understand war and pride. I do understand greed and power. And I know you can only be oppressed for so long be for you are unafraid to die.

In Iraq we would suround towns that we knew had insurgents. Then we would kick EVERYBODY out. As in you have three days to get the fuck out cuz we're gonna bomb the fuck outta this place. What it did was help to eliminate the immediate threat i.e. anybody who stayed didn't fear us and would be exposed, and the rest could be controlled. It didn't eliminate the latter threat of, live to fight another day cuz you only fight battles you can win. That is a war of ideals. I always thought it was a sloppy halfass way to fight war. It caused more damage then good.

What does that have to do with anythin? The problems are universal. And if this shit is happening here and there. Then it tells me that we are all confused. And leads me yet again to the theory of do good. Own up to what you did wrong and learn from it. Forgive don't forget.

You have to get to the root of your problem and fight it there. It is not all police are bad, it is not all gangmembers are bad. It starts with the individual who creates a bad idea. It is fought with truth. And then with justice. Spiritual then carnal.

Is what they teach you good? Is what you seek to learn good?

In a perfect world we wouldn't need drugs or money. We should all only seek to better ourselves and to better one another. I think that is the answer to all our problems.

 

[Cmoke]

This doesn't make any sense at all.

and neither does you bringing up mental illness into a case where there are no signs or reports of it. coulda woulda shoulda. you hang on little possibilities and treat them as if they are the cause, then when confronted you say " well i said he COULD have" covering your ass with wording and not making a point worth a shit.

 

[HERESY]

no.....

and neither does you bringing up mental illness into a case where there are no signs or reports of it.

Actually, some of his actions COULD very well be attributed to mental illness. However, mentall illness could be one of many factors that prohibted him from using correct judgement, and this is what you and several others are failing to notice. You all are jumping from A to Z and assuming this man should know right from wrong, but what I am telling you is he may NOT have known right from wrong, and if he didn't, one of the possible reasons could be a mentall illness. So yes, it makes complete sense, but to someone who has probably never watched a court case in real life, probably never took an intro to criminal justice class, and lacks knowledge pertaining to the subject it doesn't makes sense and looks like "duay8b7287tusgdfgf=----up up, down down, left right, left right, B A, Start--7fb6864b"

coulda woulda shoulda

Is that the only thing you can type? Instead of focusing on the mans mental condition at the time (which does NOT mean mental illness) you want to focus on the act. What I am showing you is that THE LAW requires two things to be established when it comes to liability--THE ACT and the MENTAL CONDITION at the time of the act. Again, you and several others are focused on his ACT and making him appear liable when you haven't considered his frame of mind at the time the shooting occured.

you hang on little possibilities and treat them as if they are the cause, then when confronted you say " well i said he COULD have" covering your ass with wording and not making a point worth a shit.

You don't get what I am saying. Again, either you are on a narcotic, you are not the sharpest knife in teh drawer, or you are typing the same thing for attention. If the man had a gazillion and one mental illnesses at the time of the shooting that COULD have led to him not being able to comprehend his actions at that point in time. I simply gave you one example of many, now if you would like for me to educate you on more possible reasons as to why he could not have comprehended his actions at the time of the shooting I can address that, but considering the fact that I honestly don't consider you intelligent, I see no use in explaining it in detail. Again, in order to establish a liability or case, you must establish MENS REA and ACTUS REUS. One is the MENTAL STATE at the time of the act and the other is THE ACT.

 

[Cmoke]

your entire arguement is a "what if" and "it could be" barrage of bs.

 

[HERESY]

Again, in order to establish a liability or case, you must establish MENS REA and ACTUS REUS. One is the MENTAL STATE at the time of the act and the other is THE ACT.

 

[EAT]

Heresy, it's cute how you are so intent on flexing your intellectual muscles. I'm impressed with your knowledge of mens rea and actus reus. You seem sure of the necessity for officers to adhere to these procedures. Would you be willing to put yourself in a position where you are threatening officers and trust that they will apply their extensive training of mens rea and actus reus before apprehending you?

If you ride a motorcycle without a helmet and get hit by a car, even though it's the car's fault for hitting you (it was illegal, against the law for them to go over the yellow line!), you have to take some responsibility for your resulting death. If you are unable to make the distinction that you would be putting yourself in a potentially fatal scenario, I would call that "natural selection".

 

[HERESY]

Heresy, it's cute how you are so intent on flexing your intellectual muscles. I'm impressed with your knowledge of mens rea and actus reus.

Thanks for the compliment, but too bad I can't reciprocate.

You seem sure of the necessity for officers to adhere to these procedures.

No, I'm not talking about the officers. Please, practice critical reading.

Would you be willing to put yourself in a position where you are threatening officers and trust that they will apply their extensive training of mens rea and actus reus before apprehending you?

SEE ABOVE. You are trying to discuss concepts of the CJ system and you don't know what you are talking about.

If you ride a motorcycle without a helmet and get hit by a car, even though it's the car's fault for hitting you (it was illegal, against the law for them to go over the yellow line!), you have to take some responsibility for your resulting death

Actually, your example could go either way depending on circumstance and if any criminal negligance were present. I think you should use another example or analogy.

If you are unable to make the distinction that you would be putting yourself in a potentially fatal scenario, I would call that "natural selection".

You can call it whatever you like, but that is NOT what the courts define it as.

 

[Ethereal]

No, you have been given multiple reasons as to why you SHOULD focus on the persons mental condition, but you simply don't understand WHY you should do it. Again, in a situation like this, you MUST consider the mental condition of the victim. In addition, the questioning of the officers mental condition will come from investigations into whether they followed policy AND if a reasonable officer with similar experience and expertise would come to the same conclusion as they did (and if the info I posted is correct, a resonable officer didn't come to the same conclusion and was removed because he protested the use of the dogs.)

I acknowledge that it is possible the suspect might not have known right from wrong. I acknowledge that he might have killed a cop before he was approached by the cops in question. Neither of these have any significant influence on how I view the actions of both sides.

Like I said unlikely.

Nevertheless.

Again, according to what I have previously posted (which was done by searching the net and actually calling the numbers for his aunts organization), there is no documented case of this guy having killed ten officers, and if he did kill ten officers, that doesn't mean THESE officers where in the jaws of death.

The point is, just like we don't know the mental condition of the suspect we also don't know how dangerous he was or how well the cops knew of him. To sum it up you are speculating.

Listen, you still are not getting it. You are still equating "condition" with an illness or something being wrong with the person. Condition = the frame of mind or coherency at the time the act was commited--did the person kow right from wrong. Refer to the link I posted for further insight.

LOL. Man, I know what the hell you're talking about regardless of whether or not you believe so, or believe I am showing it. And I certainly don't need to click any of your links or take any classes to know this. In the heat of passion, under extreme circumstances, one can lose perception of right and wrong and act on instinct. It can be sometimes proven that the person is (or was at the time) "insane" and is unfit to stand trial.

Again, we are not talking about the person being a head case (that actually comes later.) What we are talking about is his MENTAL STATE at the time all of this occured. Did he know he was doing wrong, was he truly aware of his activities? These types of questions (and more) would need to be answered by the M'Naghten Rules, and judging from the video it could swing either way as to if this guy knew what he was doing was wrong.

See above.

 

[HERESY]

I acknowledge that it is possible the suspect might not have known right from wrong.

ok

I acknowledge that he might have killed a cop before he was approached by the cops in question.

Again, there is no history of this man killing a police officer.

Neither of these have any significant influence on how I view the actions of both sides.

The first one should, and if this man had survived it would have been the first thing mentioned at his pre trial hearing and throughout the course of his trial.

Nevertheless.

Again, unlikely.

The point is, just like we don't know the mental condition of the suspect we also don't know how dangerous he was or how well the cops knew of him. To sum it up you are speculating.

Again, what I posted was from the net and from calling the numbers for his aunts organization. There is no history of him killing ten cops, five hundred cops, 3/4 of a cop or a cops cat. What YOU are doing is speculating, what I am doing is telling you that you can call his aunts organization (she is the one who filed the lawsuit) and get the info for YOURSELF. Again, the police were called out because of a DOMESTIC DISPUTE. The police were NOT called out because the guy was a wanted cop killer who just smothered a cop eating jelly rolls.

LOL. Man, I know what the hell you're talking about regardless of whether or not you believe so, or believe I am showing it.

Seriously, it does not seem like it, and I say this based on your posts (which are focused on mental issues/illness)

And I certainly don't need to click any of your links or take any classes to know this.

When you type things that imply mental illness such as, "It could be argued that every criminal has a mental condition and in that respect", "without anything telling us the condition is significant, and "And because I don't know of any mental illness he might have had, I'm going to believe it did not exist. " you SHOULD click the links or take a class, because I'm sitting here trying to explain parts of the CJ system to people who don't really understand. The link was for EVERYONES benefit so they could start focusing on TWO parts of the situation instead of one.

In the heat of passion, under extreme circumstances, one can lose perception of right and wrong and act on instinct.

It doesn't have to be under extreme circumstances, and acting on instinct can still land you in the hot seat.

It can be sometimes proven that the person is (or was at the time) "insane" and is unfit to stand trial.

But unfit to stand trial can still land you in the mental ward until you are fit to stand trial.

See above.

see past 20 posts in this thread.

 

[Ethereal]

Again, there is no history of this man killing a police officer.

Are you an all knowing historian? NO.

The first one should, and if this man had survived it would have been the first thing mentioned at his pre trial hearing and throughout the course of his trial.

You do not know this.

Again, unlikely.

*yawn*

Again, what I posted was from the net and from calling the numbers for his aunts organization. There is no history of him killing ten cops, five hundred cops, 3/4 of a cop or a cops cat. What YOU are doing is speculating, what I am doing is telling you that you can call his aunts organization (she is the one who filed the lawsuit) and get the info for YOURSELF. Again, the police were called out because of a DOMESTIC DISPUTE. The police were NOT called out because the guy was a wanted cop killer who just smothered a cop eating jelly rolls.

Okay. You are able call his aunts organization. Got it.

Seriously, it does not seem like it, and I say this based on your posts (which are focused on mental issues/illness)

Seriously, I don't care. And seriously, these classes you're taking are making you sound like you are programmed.

When you type things that imply mental illness such as, "It could be argued that every criminal has a mental condition and in that respect", "without anything telling us the condition is significant, and "And because I don't know of any mental illness he might have had, I'm going to believe it did not exist. " you SHOULD click the links or take a class, because I'm sitting here trying to explain parts of the CJ system to people who don't really understand. The link was for EVERYONES benefit so they could start focusing on TWO parts of the situation instead of one.

I've taken classes and read plenty. You must understand that if/when people read the same things you have, even the same exact things, they are not going to just agree with you because of some new found enlightenment. And don't tell me this is not the case because it has been proven. You tell people they are not listening and to hit the links. I tell you I have taken classes and read up on it yet my opinion is unchanged. You respond with "It doesn't seem like it" or "You didn't get your monies worth" as if--because I don't agree with you--there must have been some fault in my learning.

It doesn't have to be under extreme circumstances, and acting on instinct can still land you in the hot seat.

I never spoke against these things.

see past 20 posts in this thread.

See a new school for your education.

 

[HERESY]

no

Are you an all knowing historian? NO.

What does being an all knowing historian have to do with the FACT that there is NO KNOWN RECORD of this man killing a police officer or having been involved in the death of an officer? On what grounds are you claiming the man has been involved in the death of an officer? It doesn't take an all knowing historian to dig up the guys criminal record or to search for officer related homicides in his area.

You do not know this.

These issues (of sanity) are first introduced in pretrial hearings. You don't intoduce insanity nine months down the line. LOL! In addition, good lawyers (and even bad lawyers who have nothing else to go on), will bring it up for several reasons, but I'm not going to get into it. Also, do you want me to post the stats/figures of insanity defenses in officer related killings? If so, I can post the info when I get back to california, and maybe then you'll understand why I said it would have been brought up.

*yawn*

Thats how I felt when you originally typed it.

Okay. You are able call his aunts organization. Got it.

You can also. All you have to do is click on the links I previously posted and you'll be taken to links with two numbers. I got extra credit for doing it, and when you are doing investigations or writing really good papers, it makes sense to actually call people and get info. Try it sometime, sport.

Seriously, I don't care. And seriously, these classes you're taking are making you sound like you are programmed.

No, these classes I am taking (and getting straight A's in) are opening up so many doors for me. What has your schooling done for you? Obviously nothing since you were stranded at Safeway and bagging groceries for old women and soccer moms. I'm simply not limiting the perspective to "he did it" and "he deserved it" like the majority of you all.

I've taken classes and read plenty.

Sure you have pal. If you had read books or taken anything past an intro cj class, these concepts would not appear foreign. However, you can't even begin to address how this man may not have been in his right mind at the time of the shootings.

You must understand that if/when people read the same things you have, even the same exact things, they are not going to just agree with you because of some new found enlightenment.

For the last couple of pages now you have typed nothing that would lead a reasonable and sane person to believe you know anything about the cj system. Now am I saying I am an expert? No. Am I saying I know more than you? Hell yeah! Am I saying you have not given any attention to MENS REA? Hell yeah! Again, if you had any significant knowledge of these things, you would elaborate on the concepts I am bringing to the table, but you are not doing so because you know nothing about them.

And don't tell me this is not the case because it has been proven

No, it has not been proven.

You tell people they are not listening and to hit the links. I tell you I have taken classes and read up on it yet my opinion is unchanged. You respond with "It doesn't seem like it" or "You didn't get your monies worth" as if--because I don't agree with you--there must have been some fault in my learning.

First of all, the reaosn why I don't believe you is because you aren't even using the terminology, and that speaks volumes. Second of all, the fact that you were focusing on MENTAL ILLNESS instead of his MENTAL STATE AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT speaks volumes. Third of all, you not addressing what EVERY COURT IN THE UNITED STATES HAS MADE A REQUIREMENT (two things needed to determine liability) speaks volumes. Fourth of all, you not giving us a valid reason as to why you don't believe whatever the hell it is you don't believe speaks volumes. If you had taken any type of class or had any info you would have said something to the effect of "mens rea may not be applicable in this case because of yada yada yada." Instead, you simply say "I don't believe it" LMAO!

I never spoke against these things.

No one said you did.

See a new school for your education.

Why? So I can bag groceries like you? Oh, no thanks! However, see isle 7 for cleanup. I think some lady spilled milk or something on the floor. :dead: