Where Does It End? WTF???

Super Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 6271
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 8:03 am
Location: FEMA SECTOR V

PostWed May 30, 2012 5:37 pm » by Seahawk


Iwanci wrote:Does anyone know the story behind that last video? Was that guy arrested for running a red light or was he some pedo or rapist or murderer running away?? Some context would be nice don't you think?

All I know is that if anyone did anything bad to me or mine, those cops would not be able to prevent what woud happen next, a kick in the guts by a bunch of cops would seem very acceptable and tame...

Then again, I have proven my own point.. I cannot be trusted with the power of self 'protection', what makes any of you believe that given the same circumstances you would react any differently to those police officers?

Great to sit by the sidelines and criticise, but if the shoe was on the other foot, lets see how many would be praying for one or all of these 'bully cops' to come to your rescue. My guess is that most people contributing to this agument have never really faced danger or violence.

Step right up folks, the world is not the fairy tale you think it is.

Yes, there are bad cops, seek them out and treat them in kind, but ffs most of these officers are as decent as you and I. My dare to any of you 'cop haters'... next time your car gets stolen, you get assualted, car jacked, burgled etc... don't call the police, sek out your own justice.. when you evntually comeout of hospital and regain your ability to write, type a reply post letting us know how much better your solution was...

:alien51:

The dog that barks most often has the smallest bite.... :flop:




By Antonio Planas
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
Posted: Feb. 28, 2012 | 1:59 a.m.
Updated: Feb. 28, 2012 | 10:53 a.m.

The Henderson police sergeant caught on video repeatedly kicking a man in the head during a traffic stop in 2010 will not be charged criminally for his actions, newly appointed Clark County District Attorney Steve Wolfson said Monday.

Wolfson said that although he and other attorneys in his office seriously considered charging Henderson police Sgt. Brett Seekatz, who is at the center of the controversial video, too much time has passed since the incident was recorded Oct. 29, 2010.

"It's a troubling video to watch," Wolfson said. "I'm troubled by the conduct that was displayed in the video. ... I don't think it's in the community's best interest to file a charge because it's so long after the incident."

The video, which was made public earlier this month, played a major role in Henderson and the state's settlement for $292,500 with the family of the man who was kicked .

Henderson Police Chief Jutta Chambers announced her retirement effective March 1, less than two weeks after the video was made public.

Wolfson, a former Las Vegas City Council member, was sworn in as the new district attorney Feb. 21 .

The video shows Nevada Highway Patrol and Henderson officers mistaking a man suffering a diabetic episode for a drunken driver during a traffic stop at Lake Mead Parkway and Boulder Highway in Henderson.

Wolfson said that because the man at the center of the controversy was an officer of the law, he gave pressing charges more serious consideration than if the video had captured a civilian beating another civilian.

Wolfson said, hypothetically, if he were district attorney and learned of the incident in a timely manner, he might have pursued charges.

Wolfson reiterated that the passage of time was the "major consideration" that factored into his decision.

He said actual statutes of limitations didn't play such a big role, noting that different laws have different statutes of limitations.

"The issue isn't could I, it's should I," Wolfson said.

Allen Lichtenstein, general counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, said Wolfson's logic is "puzzling."

"If someone has committed a crime under the color of law and the statute of limitations has not passed, I'm not sure 'not in the community's interest has any meaning whatsoever,' " Lichtenstein said.

"That particular rationale is frankly a bit irrational."

The video captured Henderson officers and Highway Patrol troopers pulling Adam Greene out of his vehicle. While on the ground, Greene was restrained by several officers.

At one point, Seekatz enters the frame and kicks Greene five times in the head. Another officer is seen kneeing Green four times in the midsection.

"Stop resisting, mother (expletive)!" an officer is heard yelling.

A Nevada Highway Patrol camera video captured the beating. Highway Patrol troopers participated in the stop but did not participate in the beating.

Seekatz was disciplined by his department, but the details have not been disclosed. He retained the rank of sergeant.

During the early morning traffic stop, Greene was driving to work about 4 a.m. when his blood sugar suddenly dropped and he became disoriented.

His first memory of the night was standing outside a police car in handcuffs, the 38-year-old told the Review-Journal earlier this month.

Moments after Greene was secured, the officers noticed insulin in his pocket and quickly realized he was a diabetic.

Green suffered broken ribs and bruises in the attack.

Henderson police spokesman Keith Paul said the district attorney's office has the right to review the actions of the department's officers.

"It's within the district attorney's authority to review any incident," Paul said Monday night. "We would always cooperate with any request from the district attorney's office regarding any investigation or incident."

Wolfson said that under his tenure, police will be held to a high standard and their actions will be closely watched.

"I hope that police officers out in the field recognize that this conduct is troubling," Wolfson said. "It's troubling to the community. It's troubling to prosecutors. ... Their (police) conduct will be scrutinized in the future."


Upload to Disclose.tv



We gather knowledge faster than we gather wisdom. - William Bell

Super Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 17794
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:20 am
Location: babysitting

PostWed May 30, 2012 6:05 pm » by The57ironman


Iwanci wrote:
...you need somebody to take care of you , right...?

...i'd like to think i could take care of myself and those i love...

if you and i were to give a criminal a warning shot , then 2 in the hat...

there'd be a lot less criminals...no need for someone else to take care of you



Seriously? What happens when one of 'our' warning shots accidently hits a by stander and we get their kin come looking for revenge partner?? Think that accidents like that do not happen?

The problem my friend is whilst all our collective good itentions are great, they are still just good intentions. The harsh realities of life teach us something quite different, we are infact incapable of takeing care of ourselves without ourselves turning into the very criminals that we are supposedly trying to fend off.

I see a lot of logic in your statement, however, highly impracticle. I know that if one of your warning shots came near me, you could expect one of mine to come near you.. steal my pony, I burn your house down... run over my child, accident or not I tear your legs off. Capish?

There in is the reason why we have laws, a means to regulate that which we ourselves cannot. We cannot be a justice onto ourselves, history has proven this time and time again, and whilst we have laws, we need people to enforce them without throwing us into anarchy.

We have a justice system, different but same in every country, and we need to trust in it.. aside from what 'we' think however, governments are formed and laws come into being through a democratic process, and guess what?? The majority vote rules, meaning that what we have in place is what the majority of the people want.

Now, if there is injustice in the system, that needs to be addresses without doubt, and if these 'cops' are doing things they shouldn't, then they need to be castrated, but that is not up to the lynch mob, that is up to the good cops to sort out.

On another directly related point... soom my friend there will come a time when your eyes will not see well enough to shoot your warning shot, and your arms not strong enough to pick up your gun, so who will protect you then? I would gladly do it my friend, but then again, that would make me a cop.

:flop:


.



Definition of ANARCHY

1
a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government





.....political disorder we got....complete freedom without government we don't got...




the ''nations'' of the great plains here in the U.S. ''did not'' have political disorder :mrcool:

....and they had complete freedom...




...laws and regulations are made....

...for morons who don't have enough ''ass'' to take care of themselves

and no righteousness (balls) to take responsibility for their actions...








...in places where everybody has a gun.....(equality)..... there is hardly any crime.. hence no need for warning shots or two in the hat....



...jus' sayin'....


:cheers: ...no disrespect , Iwanci... :hugging:


.
.






..... If you can't be kind, at least have the decency to be vague.......
.

Super Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 17794
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:20 am
Location: babysitting

PostWed May 30, 2012 8:21 pm » by The57ironman


.







..... i wish there was a way to get the cops out of their stupor...

new-video-of-police-executing-mentally-ill-man-crawling-on-h-t72951.html






.
.






..... If you can't be kind, at least have the decency to be vague.......
.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 8431
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 7:37 am

PostWed May 30, 2012 8:34 pm » by Lucidlemondrop


There are ways.

We have just been conditioned to be chicken shit
What a long strange trip it's been..............

Super Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 6271
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 8:03 am
Location: FEMA SECTOR V

PostWed May 30, 2012 9:00 pm » by Seahawk


With all these "shoot first, ask questions later" tactics- that seems prevalent now, it would suggest that the standard for the value of human life has been lowered- on some scale that is hidden, and not viewable by the general public. It seems that something has changed. Something that now makes it allowable- to do what they are doing.

I mean, we see these vids all the time now. You can see, as well as I can, that they shoot and kill people when it is obvious to us- simply by using our eyes- that they could easily have just arrested them, and taken them into custody. We don't need an investigation, when we can see it with our own eyes. (I'm just speaking generally here. I didn't want to watch the last video.)

I totally understand the questioning of shooting the man in the head, while he was injured and crawling on his hands and knees. Abominable. Let's back up a bit. Just from reading what was written about the above video, it seems to me that it is slanted, that it is somehow justified that he was shot initially, because of his "continued aggressive behaviour," because he "struck' the police- Plural? by intention? Did he have a weapon?

So, it seems that now, if you're aggressive in any manner, if you fight the police at all, and in some cases, simply by not responding to their orders, you can be shot and killed. It doesn't matter if you've, say, just been burned beyond recognition- and are in shock from an automobile accident, or if you're in a diabetic haze- from an attack, or if you're mentally disabled, or basically, whatever reason there may be, you can be shot and killed.


Upload to Disclose.tv



We gather knowledge faster than we gather wisdom. - William Bell

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 9:03 pm

PostWed May 30, 2012 9:08 pm » by Rydher


Seahawk100 wrote:the standard for the value of human life has been lowered- on some scale that is hidden, and not viewable by the general public.


The value of human life has been lowered but it's not hidden. Just look at the forums general stance on things like abortion and euthanasia.

Conspirator
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:06 pm

PostWed May 30, 2012 9:11 pm » by Mushroom


Some of the info in this thread really bemuses me :headscratch:

The authorities are willing to pay the victim of police brutality nearly $300,000 in compensation and yet refuse to prosecute the officer responsible because it was too long ago (less than 18 months). Would this refusal to prosecute be afforded to the general public if evidence of a crime became available 18 months after the event?
It is quite clear there are two sets of rules which in itself causes division and the 'us against them' attitude.

The reason that most people don't break the law is because they know the punishment they would expect for various crimes and deem it an unnecessary risk. Remove these rules and punishments ... add a uniform ... voila, the birth of the modern police force.

Police should be held MORE accountable and get MORE punishmet for commiting crime because they are receiving a paycheck to uphold the law. Getting paid for upholding laws, whilst breaking them is tantamount to fraud.

Also, a question for Rhyder ... if you don't mind.
If you walked past a police officer getting the shit knocked out of him, you would probably intervene and try to stop the assault without knowing the cause of said assault. Would you also do likewise if the roles were reversed and the cop was the aggressor?
You would be hailed a hero for saving the cop... you would be aiding and abetting a criminal in the other situation. I don't think there is any moral high ground in this topic, and like some others here I have also been subject to police corruption. I did try to sue the police and clear my name, but unfortunately you cannot prosecute the legal system using legal aid (and I couldn't afford the fees myself). I had to swallow an injustice and it is a bitter pill to swallow.

That being said, I would probably save the cop aswell.... You can't tar them all with the same brush (and the guy might have a loving family who want him to come straight home after work)

I just wish we could rid corruption from ALL our institutions... including our police

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 9:03 pm

PostWed May 30, 2012 9:19 pm » by Rydher


Mushroom wrote:Also, a question for Rhyder ... if you don't mind.
If you walked past a police officer getting the shit knocked out of him, you would probably intervene and try to stop the assault without knowing the cause of said assault. Would you also do likewise if the roles were reversed and the cop was the aggressor?


If someone was beating a cop, yes. If a cop was beating someone else, yes. But I'm not stupid either you have to evaluate each circumstance. If the cop is truly beating someone in the sense that you're proposing in the scenario you need to protect yourself. Call 911, start recording, get witnesses, do anything you can to prove the situation to a court should it come to that. Because odds are if a cop is beating someone senseless they aren't one of the good ones and won't hesitate to abuse his powers even more by making you the bad guy.

Super Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 6271
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 8:03 am
Location: FEMA SECTOR V

PostWed May 30, 2012 9:30 pm » by Seahawk


Rydher wrote:
Seahawk100 wrote:the standard for the value of human life has been lowered- on some scale that is hidden, and not viewable by the general public.


The value of human life has been lowered but it's not hidden. Just look at the forums general stance on things like abortion and euthanasia.


Well, I was addressing- specifically- within the sector of law enforcement, but perhaps you're right, in terms of it not being hidden. I mean, our president now is able to kill who ever he wants. I guess they look to him for example.

I don't think that it is true, however, that the general populace feels that way, or agree with your assessment of the forums consensus.

Where did you find individually stated opinions- regarding abortion and euthanasia- from enough members on this forum to formulate enough of a statistic to count it as a "general stance?"

Where is the evidence that supports that estimation?


Upload to Disclose.tv



We gather knowledge faster than we gather wisdom. - William Bell

Conspirator
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:06 pm

PostWed May 30, 2012 9:32 pm » by Mushroom


Rydher wrote:
Mushroom wrote:Also, a question for Rhyder ... if you don't mind.
If you walked past a police officer getting the shit knocked out of him, you would probably intervene and try to stop the assault without knowing the cause of said assault. Would you also do likewise if the roles were reversed and the cop was the aggressor?


If someone was beating a cop, yes. If a cop was beating someone else, yes. But I'm not stupid either you have to evaluate each circumstance. If the cop is truly beating someone in the sense that you're proposing in the scenario you need to protect yourself. Call 911, start recording, get witnesses, do anything you can to prove the situation to a court should it come to that. Because odds are if a cop is beating someone senseless they aren't one of the good ones and won't hesitate to abuse his powers even more by making you the bad guy.


So the bad cop gets more protection than the civilian then. Even by the civilians.
Also, I completely agree with your reply.


PreviousNext

Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook