Repeal the Police Bill of Rights and Appoint a Panel to Prosecute Law Enforcement

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Lost in the racial stupidity is the lack of equal protection between law enforcement and the rest of us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers%27_Bill_of_Rights

There is a wiki page that describes the laws that cop unions got passed during the Nixon administration.

Amongst other things, it give them the additional rights of:



Law enforcement officers, except when on duty or acting in an official capacity, have the right to engage in political activity or run for elective office.

Law enforcement officers shall, if disciplinary action is expected, be notified of the investigation, the nature of the alleged violation, and be notified of the outcome of the investigation and the recommendations made to superiors by the investigators.

Questioning of a law enforcement officer should be conducted for a reasonable length of time and preferably while the officer is on duty unless exigent circumstances apply.

Questioning of the law enforcement officer should take place at the offices of those conducting the investigation or at the place where the officer reports to work, unless the officer consents to another location.

Law enforcement officers will be questioned by a single investigator, and he or she shall be informed of the name, rank, and command of the officer conducting the investigation.

Law enforcement officers under investigation are entitled to have counsel or any other individual of their choice present at the interrogation.

Law enforcement officers cannot be threatened, harassed, or promised rewards to induce the answering of any question.

Law enforcement officers are entitled to a hearing, with notification in advance of the date, access to transcripts, and other relevant documents and evidence generated by the hearing and to representation by counsel or another non-attorney representative at the hearing.

Law enforcement officers shall have the opportunity to comment in writing on any adverse materials placed in his or her personnel file.

Law enforcement officers cannot be subject to retaliation for the exercise of these or any other rights under Federal, State, or local law.


In addition, it's not the GJ in and of itself that is at issue but rather how the prosecutor who calls and administers the GJ is chosen that is at issue. Options to fix this are having the governor appoint a special prosecutor for each case and/or having an agency setup to handle that. Whatever the case, coworkers with obvious conflicts of interest should not be the ones to try to indict.

Personally, I put this up there with repeal of the Patriot Act, banking regulation, and limiting the rights of corporate entities as my top political priorities. We are losing our rights to equal protection regardless of race.

[Wild Cobra]

Please show me how Nixon had anything to do with this, since you invoked his name.

[Blake]

Please show me how Nixon had anything to do with this, since you invoked his name.

Wtf

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Please show me how Nixon had anything to do with this, since you invoked his name.

Seeing how it is federal law and he didn't veto it you figure it out. Talk about a red herring.

[Wild Cobra]

Seeing how it is federal law and he didn't veto it you figure it out. Talk about a red herring.

OK, why isn't the law cited? All I saw was links to jury decisions. Nixon resigned in August of that year.

How do you know it happened under his administration, or are you assuming so?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/spc/character/links/nixon_speech.html


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KGHo9lb4_M

[FuzzyLumpkins]

OK, why isn't the law cited? All I saw was links to jury decisions. Nixon resigned in August of that year.

How do you know it happened under his administration, or are you assuming so?

I'm ignoring your red herring stupidity now.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm ignoring your red herring stupidity now.
Why?

Because I am pointing out your utter stupidity?

Afraid to answer the question?

Did Nixon sign it into law as you claim?

[SnakeBoy]

Personally, I put this up there with repeal of the Patriot Act, banking regulation, and limiting the rights of corporate entities as my top political priorities. We are losing our rights to equal protection regardless of race.

Aside from posting on a sports forum what do you intend to do to effect change on these issues?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Aside from posting on a sports forum what do you intend to do to effect change on these issues?

Your interest in my private life is noted and ignored.

So far we have someone wanting to make it about me and another who wants to make it about Nixon. Anyone want to discuss based on merit?

[Wild Cobra]

Your interest in my private life is noted and ignored.

So far we have someone wanting to make it about me and another who wants to make it about Nixon. Anyone want to discuss based on merit?
I'm not making it about Nixon. You did that!

[SnakeBoy]

Your interest in my private life is noted and ignored.

So far we have someone wanting to make it about me and another who wants to make it about Nixon. Anyone want to discuss based on merit?

I'm not making about you. You said they are your top political priorities.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It was passed in 1974 after the 1972 campaign which Nixon ran on a law and order slogan and platform. You can be ignorant and incredulous all you like but the relationship between Nixon and the police unions is what it is. Perhaps you will recall Nixon's opposition's panel with Bobby Kennedy intending to create additional oversight like I am discussing right now? That was right before a series of police scandals in 1971 and 2. Conspiracy nut heaven.

Serpico talks of the issues then and now in a very good article here: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/10/the-police-are-still-out-of-control-112160.html

This is not a new issue and just because you are ignorant and incredulous doesn't change anything. Even were Nixon not involved which is absurd, the issue remains.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm not making about you. You said they are your top political priorities.

I find them important. You don't?

[SnakeBoy]

I find them important. You don't?

They aren't important to my life.

Aside from posting on a sports forum what do you intend to do to effect change on these issues?

[spurraider21]

Seeing how it is federal law and he didn't veto it you figure it out. Talk about a red herring.
how could a president veto supreme court rulings?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

how could a president veto supreme court rulings?

Those decisions only affirmed cops 5th amendment rights. They had nothing to do with controls on investigations and all of the stuff the FOP began passing nationwide in 1974. It's funny how conservatives don't seem to apply anti-union sentiment to cops and lawyers.

[Wild Cobra]

It was passed in 1974 after the 1972 campaign which Nixon ran on a law and order slogan and platform.

And it is public law 93-xxx...

Please fill in the xxx.

[spurraider21]

according to the wiki you posted, it was adopted by states, not federally. which makes sense considering states run their police departments

[Wild Cobra]

Those decisions only affirmed cops 5th amendment rights. They had nothing to do with controls on investigations and all of the stuff the FOP began passing nationwide in 1974. It's funny how conservatives don't seem to apply anti-union sentiment to cops and lawyers.

So is it your contention that police lose their constitutional rights?

[Wild Cobra]

according to the wiki you posted, it was adopted by states, not federally. which makes sense considering states run their police departments
That's my point as well.

Here our fuzzy jackass is making assumptions and pretending they are fact. Before I made my first post, I did some searching around, and all I could find was states implementing some form of it.

I thought it was highly libtarded for him to imply it was Nixon who implemented a law when now, it is absolutely obvious he didn't do any homework on the topic. Just repeating some propaganda he saw someplace. saying it happened in the administration for a reference of 1974 with no date of a passed law gives him a 2/3rd chance of accidentally being correct, but... I seriously doubt it is public law even.

Typical fuzzy...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

They aren't important to my life.

Aside from posting on a sports forum what do you intend to do to effect change on these issues?

This has no basis in the discussion at hand but I will play along a little bit.

I live in a very libertarian county and that suits me just fine. The political action I am talking about is on the state and federal level. No one has run on these issues in the GOP primary since I have lived here.

I make an effort to identify people who campaign on these issues like McCain and Warren who if they ran for president I would vote for and actively support. I do write freshman elects when there are ones. Outside of that there has not been anyone in my constituency worth support.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

according to the wiki you posted, it was adopted by states, not federally. which makes sense considering states run their police departments

that's fair. either way the special limits on investigations and prosecutions need to go.

The DoJ could sue states under equal protection. Civil rights shouldn't be an issue of race.

[spurraider21]

that's fair. either way the special limits on investigations and prosecutions need to go.

The DoJ could sue states under equal protection. Civil rights shouldn't be an issue of race.
police protection isn't an issue of race. there is equal opportunity for other races to become police officers

[Wild Cobra]

Well, I just went through the titles of all 134 Public Laws that would have been signed in 1974 by Nixon. Nothing by title matches even close.

Fuzzy, can you admit a mistake for once?

[TeyshaBlue]

Fucking hell. WC in full tard. Discuss anything but the topic.
BTW, I'll throw in w/Fuzzy. How or why are these special clauses warranted?

[Wild Cobra]

Fucking hell. WC in full tard. Discuss anything but the topic.
BTW, I'll throw in w/Fuzzy. How or why are these special clauses warranted?
It's OK when you do it though?

Let me ask you this. Do you think the protections afforded to police in the OP should be removed?


Law enforcement officers, except when on duty or acting in an official capacity, have the right to engage in political activity or run for elective office.

Law enforcement officers shall, if disciplinary action is expected, be notified of the investigation, the nature of the alleged violation, and be notified of the outcome of the investigation and the recommendations made to superiors by the investigators.

Questioning of a law enforcement officer should be conducted for a reasonable length of time and preferably while the officer is on duty unless exigent circumstances apply.

Questioning of the law enforcement officer should take place at the offices of those conducting the investigation or at the place where the officer reports to work, unless the officer consents to another location.

Law enforcement officers will be questioned by a single investigator, and he or she shall be informed of the name, rank, and command of the officer conducting the investigation.

Law enforcement officers under investigation are entitled to have counsel or any other individual of their choice present at the interrogation.

Law enforcement officers cannot be threatened, harassed, or promised rewards to induce the answering of any question.

Law enforcement officers are entitled to a hearing, with notification in advance of the date, access to transcripts, and other relevant documents and evidence generated by the hearing and to representation by counsel or another non-attorney representative at the hearing.

Law enforcement officers shall have the opportunity to comment in writing on any adverse materials placed in his or her personnel file.

Law enforcement officers cannot be subject to retaliation for the exercise of these or any other rights under Federal, State, or local law.

Do you take issue with any of those workplace protections?

Now I am one who dislikes most of what unions get agreed to. However, unions do many good things as well. Now maybe I missed an angle on one of these protections, but I don't see how it protects a police officer from abusing their power.

[Wild Cobra]

BTW, I'll throw in w/Fuzzy. How or why are these special clauses warranted?

It appears to me to be primarily a list given to officers about their workplace protections already guaranteed by existing law. So they know their rights.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

police protection isn't an issue of race. there is equal opportunity for other races to become police officers

That is besides the point I am making.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well, I just went through the titles of all 134 Public Laws that would have been signed in 1974 by Nixon. Nothing by title matches even close.

Fuzzy, can you admit a mistake for once?

Sure


that's fair. either way the special limits on investigations and prosecutions need to go.

The DoJ could sue states under equal protection. Civil rights shouldn't be an issue of race.

I think you mistake my complete lack of respect for you with an inability to admit fault.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's OK when you do it though?

Let me ask you this. Do you think the protections afforded to police in the OP should be removed?



Do you take issue with any of those workplace protections?

Now I am one who dislikes most of what unions get agreed to. However, unions do many good things as well. Now maybe I missed an angle on one of these protections, but I don't see how it protects a police officer from abusing their power.

Those aren't workplace protections. That is a limit to an investigation that they themselves do not have to honor in their own investigations. You think a DA or state police limits how and where they can interview suspects like that? Do you think they as a matter of course alert the suspect as to the particulars of the investigation? You think the DA limits their investigation of suspects to working hours?

You are so willfully stupid it's unbelievable.

[TeyshaBlue]

It's OK when you do it though?

Let me ask you this. Do you think the protections afforded to police in the OP should be removed?



Do you take issue with any of those workplace protections?

Now I am one who dislikes most of what unions get agreed to. However, unions do many good things as well. Now maybe I missed an angle on one of these protections, but I don't see how it protects a police officer from abusing their power.


The police do not need nor should they be afforded supra legal protections. They law average joes live under should suffice.

[Wild Cobra]

The police do not need nor should they be afforded supra legal protections. They law average joes live under should suffice.


Now maybe I missed an angle on one of these protections, but I don't see how it protects a police officer from abusing their power.
Fine. Specify.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fine. Specify.

I just pointed out several examples of rights to a limited investigation that the rest of society does not enjoy. I noticed you ignored it.

If you cannot figure out how that protects misconduct relative to the rest of society that is pretty sad.

[SnakeBoy]

This has no basis in the discussion at hand but I will play along a little bit.

I live in a very libertarian county and that suits me just fine. The political action I am talking about is on the state and federal level. No one has run on these issues in the GOP primary since I have lived here.

I make an effort to identify people who campaign on these issues like McCain and Warren who if they ran for president I would vote for and actively support. I do write freshman elects when there are ones. Outside of that there has not been anyone in my constituency worth support.

Thanks for the straight answer, it wasn't a trick question or anything. I don't think it is entirely off topic to ask someone what they intend to do to effect change that they believe is important.

[Wild Cobra]

I just pointed out several examples of rights to a limited investigation that the rest of society does not enjoy. I noticed you ignored it.

If you cannot figure out how that protects misconduct relative to the rest of society that is pretty sad.

Give me an example of what misconduct may occur that wouldn't otherwise please.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What the Police Bill of Rights does is akin to closed shop laws when it forces any investigation to report it to the suspect. IOW, if you are an law enforcement agency concerned about the behavior of another and want to investigate you have to tip them off so they can close ranks on you. Thin blue line GO COP UNION!

People that style themselves as conservative that are not cops and don't call for action confuse me. "The man who does not do his own thinking is a slave, and is a traitor to himself and to his fellow-men." -George Ingersoll

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Give me an example of what misconduct may occur that wouldn't otherwise please.

Choking a guy to death when he tells you he cannot breathe.

[spurraider21]

Choking a guy to death when he tells you he cannot breathe.
he didnt let go of the choke hold after hearing he couldnt breathe? did you watch the video?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

he didnt let go of the choke hold after hearing he couldnt breathe? did you watch the video?

He repeated it continually throughout the choke. It was ruled a homicide and the only way past that is to build a self defense case. What you want to bet said self defense case went uncrossed to the grand jury to prevent an indictment?

[spurraider21]

He repeated it continually throughout the choke. It was ruled a homicide and the only way past that is to build a self defense case. What you want to bet said self defense case went uncrossed to the grand jury to prevent an indictment?
can you answer my questions?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

can you answer my questions?

Whether or not I watched it? Yeah I did. Did you?

[spurraider21]

Whether or not I watched it? Yeah I did. Did you?
don't play stupid, despite your instincts

[Wild Cobra]

Choking a guy to death when he tells you he cannot breathe.
I'm sorry you believe that.

How would a rule change keep someone from breaking rules? IA can still intervene, and those changes wouldn't affect a Grand Jury decision.

[Wild Cobra]

Let me make something clear. I hate how law enforcement abuses their power.

First off, this officer will face a NYPD investigation. The protections in the OP will apply to this.

Again, the Grand jury, idiotically determined not to bring this case to trial. The protections did not apply to this.

I want to see police officers ousted and jailed for their actions when warranted, and I think these officers that chocked the man should have gone to trial and jailed. I do hope they are fired when the investigation is complete.

[DD]

Fuzzy are you bleeding again?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy are you bleeding again?

What happened to your other handle, holmes? And of course I am broken in tears.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

don't play stupid, despite your instincts

Well I answered the other question from that post. Sorry if it was not in the manner you wanted and made you mad. You need to do a better job if you want to lead me in a narrative.

How about: I never saw him release the chokehold despite the victim's pleas.

I imagine that isn't the narrative you want me to say either. Keep trying.

[spurraider21]

Well I answered the other question from that post. Sorry if it was not in the manner you wanted and made you mad. You need to do a better job if you want to lead me in a narrative.
i'm not mad. your attempts to be coy and dodge questions is amusing though


How about: I never saw him release the chokehold despite the victim's pleas.
well this one answers my question. however, i would advise you watch the video again so this mistake of yours can be corrected


I imagine that isn't the narrative you want me to say either. Keep trying.
there's no narrative i'm looking for. i watched the video and saw everything there, including a choke. i suggest you watch the video in full so you can have a more accurate assessment of the events though

[FuzzyLumpkins]

i'm not mad. your attempts to be coy and dodge questions is amusing though


well this one answers my question. however, i would advise you watch the video again so this mistake of yours can be corrected


there's no narrative i'm looking for. i watched the video and saw everything there, including a choke. i suggest you watch the video in full so you can have a more accurate assessment of the events though

I asked you what question. You asked several and then complain when I answer the one that I had not in fact answered.

You are trying to lead me into your argument and I am not going to do it. There is nothing coy about that.

If you have a time stamp of the video you think is important then say so. I watched the video I saw the takedown and the guy still choking as the cop obstructs the camera shot and shuttles them away. I saw the seizure. I saw them trying to talk to him and accusing him of playing possum. I saw that EMT arrive and take his vitals etc.

What you are being coy about is your supposed hidden revelation in the video. That is being coy. You should go meet some scientologists. They do the same shit the same way. Creepy fuckers.

[Wild Cobra]

Fuzzy are you bleeding again?

I think his pussy hurts.

[spurraider21]

I asked you what question. You asked several and then complain when I answer the one that I had not in fact answered.

You are trying to lead me into your argument and I am not going to do it. There is nothing coy about that.

If you have a time stamp of the video you think is important then say so. I watched the video I saw the takedown and the guy still choking as the cop obstructs the camera shot and shuttles them away. I saw the seizure. I saw them trying to talk to him and accusing him of playing possum. I saw that EMT arrive and take his vitals etc.

What you are being coy about is your supposed hidden revelation in the video. That is being coy. You should go meet some scientologists. They do the same shit the same way. Creepy fuckers.
i'm not leading you into anything. i simply asked if the cop released the choke hold after the man said he couldn't breathe. the answer to that is in the video. you gave an incorrect answer, so i'm suggesting you watch the vide again

[FuzzyLumpkins]

i'm not leading you into anything. i simply asked if the cop released the choke hold after the man said he couldn't breathe. the answer to that is in the video. you gave an incorrect answer, so i'm suggesting you watch the vide again

He eventually he let go but that is besides the point. There is no indication that he let go because of the protestations. There is a significant amount of time where we can see clearly he wasn't letting go despite the protestations.

It was ruled a homicide by the medical examiner.

I wish you would quit being a intellectual coward and construct an argument rather than these dissembling allusions about what I should see. If you feel scorn fine but don't be a little bitch about it.

[spurraider21]

he didnt let go of the choke hold after hearing he couldnt breathe? did you watch the video?


I never saw him release the chokehold


i'm not leading you into anything. i simply asked if the cop released the choke hold after the man said he couldn't breathe. the answer to that is in the video. you gave an incorrect answer, so i'm suggesting you watch the video again


he let go
fantastic. good to see you went back and watched the video to correct your previous error.


but that is besides the point. There is no indication that he let go because of the protestations.
i never asserted such. i merely asked if he let go of the choke after the complaints. thank you for correcting your answer.


It was ruled a homicide by the medical examiner.
we have known this for months. the medical examiner noted several contributing factors to his death, which you conveniently ignore


I wish you would quit being a intellectual coward and construct an argument rather than these dissembling allusions about what I should see.
i'm not telling you what you should see. i only asked you to acknowledge what was in the video. after initial protests you came around to it :tu


If you feel scorn fine but don't be a little bitch about it.
i'm not, im only asking for honest answers

[FuzzyLumpkins]

fantastic. good to see you went back and watched the video to correct your previous error.


i never asserted such. i merely asked if he let go of the choke after the complaints. thank you for correcting your answer.


we have known this for months. the medical examiner noted several contributing factors to his death, which you conveniently ignore


i'm not telling you what you should see. i only asked you to acknowledge what was in the video. after initial protests you came around to it :tu


i'm not, im only asking for honest answers

Again I never saw him release the chokehold. There is an interval of time where it may have happened but it was in the interim of when the cop obstructed the view.

You need to quit being a bitch and actually discuss what you think happened. You don't do that but try this condescending bitch mode.

If you want to be all smarmy because of arguments I'm not considering that you are only capable of alluding to then that is weak weak shit. I have been calling you out regarding this for quite some time but you instead double down with it regarding the medical examiner's ruling. If you are going to keep being a bitch I am just going to stop responding to you.

And in all of this you are still too coward to address my central point throughout all of this regarding the inherent conflict of interest and lack of equal protection that has nothing to do with race whatsoever. So have fun feeling put upon because of race or whatever else you are butthurt about but I have better things to do.

[spurraider21]

Again I never saw him release the chokehold. There is an interval of time where it may have happened but it was in the interim of when the cop obstructed the view.

You need to quit being a bitch and actually discuss what you think happened. You don't do that but try this condescending bitch mode.

If you want to be all smarmy because of arguments I'm not considering that you are only capable of alluding to then that is weak weak shit. I have been calling you out regarding this for quite some time but you instead double down with it regarding the medical examiner's ruling. If you are going to keep being a bitch I am just going to stop responding to you.

And in all of this you are still too coward to address my central point throughout all of this regarding the inherent conflict of interest and lack of equal protection that has nothing to do with race whatsoever. So have fun feeling put upon because of race or whatever else you are butthurt about but I have better things to do.
what i think happened? what i think happened is exactly what i saw in the video.

if you didn't see the chokehold release, then i suggest you watch the video yet again. it's all there

[Wild Cobra]

He eventually he let go but that is besides the point. There is no indication that he let go because of the protestations. There is a significant amount of time where we can see clearly he wasn't letting go despite the protestations.

It was ruled a homicide by the medical examiner.

I wish you would quit being a intellectual coward and construct an argument rather than these dissembling allusions about what I should see. If you feel scorn fine but don't be a little bitch about it.

If it was my choice, that officer would be tried, for at a minimum, manslaughter. But it isn't our choice. Is it. The grand jury looked at the evidence and decided not to try the case. That's ow our system works, like it or not. You stupid OP had no merit in the jury process.

Can you say "due process?"

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If it was my choice, that officer would be tried, for at a minimum, manslaughter. But it isn't our choice. Is it. The grand jury looked at the evidence and decided not to try the case. That's ow our system works, like it or not. You stupid OP had no merit in the jury process.

Can you say "due process?"

Can you say prosecutor with a conflict of interest?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

what i think happened? what i think happened is exactly what i saw in the video.

if you didn't see the chokehold release, then i suggest you watch the video yet again. it's all there

So your argument is that at some point the cop let go. Bravo, counselor, your articulation and logic in demonstrating an argument is well on the way to making you a glorified paralegal.

And in all of this you are still too coward to address my central point throughout all of this regarding the inherent conflict of interest and lack of equal protection that has nothing to do with race whatsoever. So have fun feeling put upon because of race or whatever else you are butthurt about but I have better things to do.

[spurraider21]

So your argument is that at some point the cop let go.
that's not an argument. that is what occurred. i'm not sure why you were denying it as long as you were


Bravo, counselor, your articulation and logic in demonstrating an argument is well on the way to making you a glorified paralegal.
:sleep


And in all of this you are still too coward to address my central point throughout all of this regarding the inherent conflict of interest and lack of equal protection that has nothing to do with race whatsoever. So have fun feeling put upon because of race or whatever else you are butthurt about but I have better things to do.
:lmao my only mention of race in this thread (post 23) was to say "police protection isn't an issue of race." you have brought race up more than i have, so keep trying to project that if it makes you feel better

[spurraider21]

:lol in all this shit people like to say "my point isn't about race" and yet thats what you keep resorting to fuzzy

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol in all this shit people like to say "my point isn't about race" and yet thats what you keep resorting to fuzzy

You try and pin this on me earlier and I said that civil rights should have nothing to do with race.

I was talking to Blake about the department saying that the cop was not taught to do that and it was not policy. He responded by saying that the union was saying he was taught that at the academy. You then responded to that by the quip "you're just being racist." That was when I pointed out that I was very clearly not making this a race issue and if you were feeling racial guilt that some introspection was in order.

You can keep telling yourself this bullshit but you are doing little more than the other nihilist dimwits do around here. I feel like chump asking you to say what you think happened on that camera. the oh so witty troll technique of ST yore.

And you are still too cowardly to discuss the obvious conflict of issue regarding the prosecutor and the lack of equal protection.

[spurraider21]

You try and pin this on me earlier and I said that civil rights should have nothing to do with race.

I was talking to Blake about the department saying that the cop was not taught to do that and it was not policy. He responded by saying that the union was saying he was taught that at the academy. You then responded to that by the quip "you're just being racist." That was when I pointed out that I was very clearly not making this a race issue and if you were feeling racial guilt that some introspection was in order.

You can keep telling yourself this bullshit but you are doing little more than the other nihilist dimwits do around here. I feel like chump asking you to say what you think happened on that camera. the oh so witty troll technique of ST yore.

And you are still too cowardly to discuss the obvious conflict of issue regarding the prosecutor and the lack of equal protection.
that was in a different thread, and it wasn't in response to you, so why does that bear any relevance at all in our exchange here? oh because you just want a cheap copout to avoid further questions

also.... "what you think happened on that camera"

what? we all see the fucking video. there isn't really much to interpret. you seem go go back and forth on acknowledging that the choke hold was released for some reason. can you just make up your mind on that so we can all move on? and if you are wrong, i will point it out again and ask you to re-watch the video until you get it right. for some reason, everybody except you has come to the same conclusion

[FuzzyLumpkins]

that was in a different thread, and it wasn't in response to you, so why does that bear any relevance at all in our exchange here? oh because you just want a cheap copout to avoid further questions

also.... "what you think happened on that camera"

what? we all see the fucking video. there isn't really much to interpret. you seem go go back and forth on acknowledging that the choke hold was released for some reason. can you just make up your mind on that so we can all move on? and if you are wrong, i will point it out again and ask you to re-watch the video until you get it right. for some reason, everybody except you has come to the same conclusion

I'm still waiting for you to make an argument about the timing of the choke hold.

And you are still too cowardly to discuss the obvious conflict of interest regarding the prosecutor and the lack of equal protection.

[spurraider21]

I'm still waiting for you to make an argument about the timing of the choke hold.

And you are still too cowardly to discuss the obvious conflict of interest regarding the prosecutor and the lack of equal protection.
i'm not even making an argument. i'm looking at the video and seeing exactly what happened. apparently you aren't even at that point yet

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh and because your quip was an interjection to a discussion he and I were having. That was explained in the beginning. If I am wrong in that perhaps you could better explain what you meant that had nothing to do with me.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

i'm not even making an argument. i'm looking at the video and seeing exactly what happened. apparently you aren't even at that point yet

I know thus me calling you a nihilist dimwit.

I looked at it and agreed with the medical examiners opinion. I'm glad your at some other point but frankly who cares, L Ron.

[spurraider21]

I know thus me calling you a nihilist dimwit.

I looked at it and agreed with the medical examiners opinion. I'm glad your at some other point but frankly who cares, L Ron.
"funny" name calling aside, have you seen the part of the video where the choke hold is released and Garner is still alive and speaking?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

"funny" name calling aside, have you seen the part of the video where the choke hold is released and Garner is still alive and speaking?

rejecting everything and not constructing at all is what a nihilist does. It may also be a name but it has been apt to this point.

your almost there. . . .

I'm not going to make your argument for you, chachi.

this is boring and its obvious that you have no interest in the OP so I'm done with this.

[spurraider21]

rejecting everything and not constructing at all is what a nihilist does. It may also be a name but it has been apt to this point.

your almost there. . . .

I'm not going to make your argument for you, chachi.

this is boring and its obvious that you have no interest in the OP so I'm done with this.
i dont even know what i'm being accused of rejecting :lol

all i'm saying is i've watched the video and saw what happened. you don't seem to have reached this same point. so why would you even discuss the incident if you clearly haven't seen it?

[TheSanityAnnex]

i dont even know what i'm being accused of rejecting :lol

all i'm saying is i've watched the video and saw what happened. you don't seem to have reached this same point. so why would you even discuss the incident if you clearly haven't seen it?
:lmao this is how he operates. This is identical to him arguing the Mike Brown witness statements having not even read them and he even followed up with a sophist and L Ron as well :lmao


Up next the hand wave, bluster, forest for the trees, critical thinking etc line

What stupid fucking blowhard :lol

[Wild Cobra]

It's that fuzzy logic.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

i dont even know what i'm being accused of rejecting :lol

all i'm saying is i've watched the video and saw what happened. you don't seem to have reached this same point. so why would you even discuss the incident if you clearly haven't seen it?

You claim to not know what you are rejecting and then the very next sentence reject my multiple statements and accounts regarding having watched the video. you never say what your interpretation of events is.

Throw in more smilies on your part and have me mindlessly repeat "you still haven't said what you thought happened" and it will be exactly like that stupid shit chump/blake vs SA210/SBM spammed in the club for a year.

I am going to put you on ignore for a couple weeks to give you a chance to find someone else to do this pointless round and round with. I am getting the feeling I'm dealing with someone feeling lonely since the bannings. You should go talk to chump. He actually will sit there and ask you what you think for weeks on end despite refusal.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao this is how he operates. This is identical to him arguing the Mike Brown witness statements having not even read them and he even followed up with a sophist and L Ron as well :lmao


Up next the hand wave, bluster, forest for the trees, critical thinking etc line

What stupid fucking blowhard :lol

And you called me a blowhard.

I'm a trend setter.
I set trends.

In your own words explain what I mean regarding the conflict of interest with the cops DA handling the prosecution. Then in your own words explain how the witness statements have anything to do with that.

In your own words explain how it has anything to do with the additional rights granted cops as opposed to the rest of us. Can you in any way demonstrate that you understand what I am talking about?

I have corresponded with you for a bout a year now and I have a pretty good feel for the level of your capacity. I can tell you don't really grasp what I am saying. So you can pipe in when I am arguing with other people but you still are only at that capacity.

ANd on a final note every time I comment on your lack of critical thinking. IT is always done with a specific example of a critical thinking failure on your part. You have issues identifying key words and ideas and are largely ignorant in how to compare, contrast, qualify, quantify, or otherwise evaluate them. You tend to fixate on stupid themes and go to questionable sources to reaffirm your worldview. You do a very poor job thinking for yourself.

[spurraider21]

You claim to not know what you are rejecting and then the very next sentence reject my multiple statements and accounts regarding having watched the video. you never say what your interpretation of events is.

Throw in more smilies on your part and have me mindlessly repeat "you still haven't said what you thought happened" and it will be exactly like that stupid shit chump/blake vs SA210/SBM spammed in the club for a year.

I am going to put you on ignore for a couple weeks to give you a chance to find someone else to do this pointless round and round with. I am getting the feeling I'm dealing with someone feeling lonely since the bannings. You should go talk to chump. He actually will sit there and ask you what you think for weeks on end despite refusal.
what is there to interpret? i watched a video which showed an officer apply a chokehold. and in the same video we see the officer remove the choke hold. that isn't up for interpretation. the fact that you are struggling to acknowledge the events of the video only tells me you haven't watched it, or are being intellectually dishonest.

i have no intentions to discuss the events with somebody that fits into either of those two categories

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So anyway. Seems that WC, TSA, nor anyone else wants to argue the OP while Teysha and others have supported the notion. That is about as close to board consensus as we will see on an issue.

[TheSanityAnnex]

And you called me a blowhard.

I'm a trend setter.
I set trends.

In your own words explain what I mean regarding the conflict of interest with the cops DA handling the prosecution. Then in your own words explain how the witness statements have anything to do with that.

In your own words explain how it has anything to do with the additional rights granted cops as opposed to the rest of us. Can you in any way demonstrate that you understand what I am talking about?

I have corresponded with you for a bout a year now and I have a pretty good feel for the level of your capacity. I can tell you don't really grasp what I am saying. So you can pipe in when I am arguing with other people but you still are only at that capacity.

ANd on a final note every time I comment on your lack of critical thinking. IT is always done with a specific example of a critical thinking failure on your part. You have issues identifying key words and ideas and are largely ignorant in how to compare, contrast, qualify, quantify, or otherwise evaluate them. You tend to fixate on stupid themes and go to questionable sources to reaffirm your worldview. You do a very poor job thinking for yourself.
I've only wanted to discuss the witness statements with you so I don't need to address any conflict of interest McColluch may or may not have had.

Have you had a chance to read the witness statements yet so we can discuss Mike Brown not having his hands up surrendering as you claimed and charging Wilson as you claimed he was too fat to do.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I've only wanted to discuss the witness statements with you so I don't need to address any conflict of interest McColluch may or may not have had.

Have you had a chance to read the witness statements yet so we can discuss Mike Brown not having his hands up surrendering as you claimed and charging Wilson as you claimed he was too fat to do.

I see no point in discussing the witness statements either. I don't agree with your assessment but I am not arguing with a fool.

Remember how I talk about how you get butthurt when I won't let you control the narrative? You're doing it again, fool.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I know! You should make another thread to call me out about it. :lol

[TheSanityAnnex]

I see no point in discussing the witness statements either. I don't agree with your assessment but I am not arguing with a fool.

Remember how I talk about how you get butthurt when I won't let you control the narrative? You're doing it again, fool.
Why do you see no point in discussing the witness statements?

[rogues]

:lol What fucking annihilation in this thread..

[Wild Cobra]

I'm a trend setter.
I set trends.


OMG....

Do you seriously think that all the dingleberry's you drop are trend setting?

LOL...

LOL...

LOL..

JI just can't copnatin my laughter.

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

[Wild Cobra]

So anyway. Seems that WC, TSA, nor anyone else wants to argue the OP while Teysha and others have supported the notion. That is about as close to board consensus as we will see on an issue.

Well, excuse me for not understanding how the protections stated in the OP would have stopped a police officer from abusing his authority if he was one to do so.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well, excuse me for not understanding how the protections stated in the OP would have stopped a police officer from abusing his authority if he was one to do so.

You not understanding is not the standard. You are demonstrably incapable of understanding many things. I remember your chart to model the behavior of the ocean and of course your not understanding the properties of capacitors and flywheels, dimwit.

This is also a red herring. Equal protection and conflict of interest (re:corruption) are what they are.

Cops have special rights to a limited investigation that the rest of the citizenry does not enjoy. The district attorney prosecuting people that he uses as witnesses and works with in investigations amongst other things is an inherent conflict of interest. I don't need to meet your arbitrary standard of what you cannot figure out. I will say that it is quite revealing of your intellect that you cannot fathom how such things could lead to abuse of power.

I bet you think the King verdict in April 1992 was valid too. Same system same abuses.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You not understanding is not the standard. You are demonstrably incapable of understanding many things. I remember your chart to model the behavior of the ocean and of course your not understanding the properties of capacitors and flywheels, dimwit.

This is also a red herring. Equal protection and conflict of interest (re:corruption) are what they are.

Cops have special rights to a limited investigation that the rest of the citizenry does not enjoy. The district attorney prosecuting people that he uses as witnesses and works with in investigations amongst other things is an inherent conflict of interest. I don't need to meet your arbitrary standard of what you cannot figure out. I will say that it is quite revealing of your intellect that you cannot fathom how such things could lead to abuse of power.

I bet you think the King verdict in April 1992 was valid too. Same system same abuses.

For a month straight all you talked about was the contractors witness statements, why do you not see the point in discussing all of the other witness statements that have been released?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

For a month straight all you talked about was the contractors witness statements, why do you not see the point in discussing all of the other witness statements that have been released?

I ignored that discussion for the majority of the time. I avoided this board mostly up until a few weeks ago when the bannings happened.

I told you before what my position is and until you show how witnesses in a corrupted GJ hearing makes the prosecutor not have used Wilson specifically as his witness in other casws as well as many other conflicts of interest then let me know. The investigation was run by his coworkers and friends.

Additionally point me to the non-law enforcement defendant that dictate time, place, disclosure, and all the other things listed in the OP that Wilson enjoyed in the investigation of his homicide.

Until you do that, I am not going to bother wasting my time with your simpleminded interpretations of events.

[boutons_deux]

http://nationalmemo.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/more-broken-windows-1024x792.jpg

[spurraider21]

oh look a comic

[TheSanityAnnex]

I ignored that discussion for the majority of the time. I avoided this board mostly up until a few weeks ago when the bannings happened.

I told you before what my position is and until you show how witnesses in a corrupted GJ hearing makes the prosecutor not have used Wilson specifically as his witness in other casws as well as many other conflicts of interest then let me know. The investigation was run by his coworkers and friends.

Additionally point me to the non-law enforcement defendant that dictate time, place, disclosure, and all the other things listed in the OP that Wilson enjoyed in the investigation of his homicide.

Until you do that, I am not going to bother wasting my time with your simpleminded interpretations of events.

You'll need to clarify the bolded before I can try to answer that, it makes no fucking sense in its current form.

You keep trying to change the subject over to the McColluch and the conflict of interest when I've clearly said I'd like to discuss the multiple witness statements that directly contradict everything you claimed. Why do you refuse to discuss the witness statements? Straight answer this time please.

[boutons_deux]

TSA pimping the TOTAL KANGAROO COURT FARCE of a the trial of Brown, aka Wilson's defense, aka Ferguson Grand Jury (in name only)

[TheSanityAnnex]

TSA pimping the TOTAL KANGAROO COURT FARCE of a the trial of Brown, aka Wilson's defense, aka Ferguson Grand Jury (in name only)

You failed to answer so I'll ask again.

You said Wilson was coached for weeks and fucking lying, were the African American witnesses who testified and supported Wilson's account coached and lying as well yes or no?

[boutons_deux]

You failed to answer so I'll ask again.

You said Wilson was coached for weeks and fucking lying, were the African American witnesses who testified and supported Wilson's account coached and lying as well yes or no?

I don't know, now GFY

If the prosecutor had not worked as a POLICE EXONERATOR, we'd get to see if under severe cross-examination IN A REAL COURT if any of the testimony would be allowed to stand.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I don't know, now GFYyou do know you are just too much of a coward to admit you were duped by the media.


If the prosecutor had not worked a POLICE EXONERATOR, we'd get to see if under severe cross-examination IN A REAL COURT if any of the testimony would be allowed to stand.we know the hands up don't shoot testimonies would be thrown out.

[boutons_deux]

Cop Mistakes Pill Bottle for Gun and Another Black Man Dies
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/cop-mistakes-pill-bottle-gun-and-another-black-man-dies

oops, sorry, just doing what my training and my police culture told me to do: if it's a n!gg@, SHOOT!

[TheSanityAnnex]

Cop Mistakes Pill Bottle for Gun and Another Black Man Dies


http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/cop-mistakes-pill-bottle-gun-and-another-black-man-dies

oops, sorry, just doing what my training and my police culture told me to do: if it's a n!gg@, SHOOT!







The butt of every handgun is pretty much the exact same size/shape as a pill bottle, the lawyer is an idiot.


“If the officer felt a pill bottle and believed it was a butt of a handgun, it calls into question his competence because I don’t know anyone who can mistake a plastic bottle for a butt of a gun. How much larger is a gun than a pill bottle?”

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You failed to answer so I'll ask again.

You said Wilson was coached for weeks and fucking lying, were the African American witnesses who testified and supported Wilson's account coached and lying as well yes or no?

You don't understand what he is getting at when he says Kangaroo Court nor what I am saying when talking about the prosecutor using Wilson as state's witness repeatedly for his cases is a conflict of interest nor how a prosecutors office and police force work together because of the nature of law enforcement creates a natural a conflict of interest when turned on itself.

Aristotle said "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." You want to talk about witness statements that match your confirmation bias because your inferiority is showing.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You don't understand what he is getting at when he says Kangaroo Court nor what I am saying when talking about the prosecutor using Wilson as state's witness repeatedly for his cases is a conflict of interest nor how a prosecutors office and police force work together because of the nature of law enforcement creates a natural a conflict of interest when turned on itself.

Aristotle said "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." You want to talk about witness statements that match your confirmation bias because your inferiority is showing.I understand what both of you are getting at and have stated that is a different topic. I want to discuss the witness statements because they match the forensic evidence and were not statements made following a forced and fabricated narrative.

Again, why do you refuse to discuss the witness statements? Can you finally admit that "hands up don't shoot" was a lie? Can you finally admit that Mike Brown did in fact charge Wilson?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I understand what both of you are getting at and have stated that is a different topic. I want to discuss the witness statements because they match the forensic evidence and were not statements made following a forced and fabricated narrative.

Again, why do you refuse to discuss the witness statements? Can you finally admit that "hands up don't shoot" was a lie? Can you finally admit that Mike Brown did in fact charge Wilson?

You don't seem to grasp how a hearing being corrupt subsumes what you want to talk about either. This isn't a different subject as it pertains to the environment of your testimonies, arguments, and evidence. They are intrinsically linked. You need to work on your critical thinking skills.

I know you want to dismiss the witnesses that the prosecutor told you to and argue on the merits of how he ran the proceedings. I give you and your line of thinking no credence.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You don't seem to grasp how a hearing being corrupt subsumes what you want to talk about either. This isn't a different subject as it pertains to the environment of your testimonies, arguments, and evidence. They are intrinsically linked. You need to work on your critical thinking skills.

I know you want to dismiss the witnesses that the prosecutor told you to and argue on the merits of how he ran the proceedings. I give you and your line of thinking no credence.
What will be your excuse when the Federal investigation comes to the same conclusion?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What will be your excuse when the Federal investigation comes to the same conclusion?

:lol same conclusion

One is a civil rights investigation. The other is a homicide investigation.

:lol critical thinking

[TheSanityAnnex]

Both are/were investigating a justifiable use of lethal force

[TheSanityAnnex]

It's amusing you continue arguing any of this having already admitted to not reading the witness statements and instead relying on a highly flawed PBS chart

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Both are/were investigating a justifiable use of lethal force

Wrong.

The question in the civil rights investigation is whether or not civil rights were impinged. What do you think the question in a homicide investigation is?

You are ignorant AND dumb. NICE!

[TheSanityAnnex]

Wrong.

The question in the civil rights investigation is whether or not civil rights were impinged. What do you think the question in a homicide investigation is?

You are ignorant AND dumb. NICE!

The feds will conclude Wilson was not actively impinging civil rights when he was in fear for his life and used necessary force to stop Brown. If you can't see how both investigations are tied to lethal force I'm not sure what to say. It will be amusing to watch you try and spin the Feds decision to bring no civil charges against Wilson.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The feds will conclude Wilson was not actively impinging civil rights when he was in fear for his life and used necessary force to stop Brown. If you can't see how both investigations are tied to lethal force I'm not sure what to say. It will be amusing to watch you try and spin the Feds decision to bring no civil charges against Wilson.

:lol I'm sure that is exactly how the decision and disposition will read. . . .

:lol simpleton

[TheSanityAnnex]

:lol I'm sure that is exactly how the decision and disposition will read. . . .

:lol simpleton
It's amusing you call me simpleton while thinking use of lethal force and whether or not it was justified won't be a factor in the civil rights investigation.

Again, what will be your excuse when no civil rights charges are brought?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's amusing you call me simpleton while thinking use of lethal force and whether or not it was justified won't be a factor in the civil rights investigation.

Again, what will be your excuse when no civil rights charges are brought?

Excuse? What a naive paradigm you have. I don't think like you do. Sorry.

I called you a simpleton because you are using that as the basis for it being the 'same conclusion' between a civil rights and homicide investigation. You don't understand what that means but it is there still the same, simpleton.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Excuse? What a naive paradigm you have. I don't think like you do. Sorry.

I called you a simpleton because you are using that as the basis for it being the 'same conclusion' between a civil rights and homicide investigation. You don't understand what that means but it is there still the same, simpleton.
Explain how you think then you haven't done much of it in fact all you've done is dodge questions.

What civil rights violation did Wilson commit?
After reading the witness testimonies should this have even gone to a grand jury?
Was hands up don't shoot a false narrative that was forced by threat of violence?
Can Michael Brown in fact run?
If Wilson was indicted do you think he would have been charged with murder?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Explain how you think then you haven't done much of it in fact all you've done is dodge questions.

What civil rights violation did Wilson commit?
After reading the witness testimonies should this have even gone to a grand jury?
Was hands up don't shoot a false narrative that was forced by threat of violence?
Can Michael Brown in fact run?
If Wilson was indicted do you think he would have been charged with murder?

Still aren't grasping the scope of the conflict of interest. Not surprising frankly.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Still aren't grasping the scope of the conflict of interest. Not surprising frankly.
Still refuses to answer simple questions. Why such a coward?

There will always be a somewhat of a conflict of interest when a DA prosecutes a cop, that is just a product of how our justice system is currently set up.

In this particular case, what wrong doings are you accusing McColluch of? Did he withhold evidence? Testimonies? Too much evidence? Where did his conflict of interest lead to Wilson being no billed? After reading all the testimonies, which I hope you have finally done, would the result have been any different with a different DA?

In this particular case your conflict of interest angle is moot as it never should have gone to a grand jury to begin with. It's been proven the hands up don't shoot narrative was all a lie.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Explain how you think then you haven't done much of it in fact all you've done is dodge questions.

What civil rights violation did Wilson commit?
After reading the witness testimonies should this have even gone to a grand jury?
Was hands up don't shoot a false narrative that was forced by threat of violence?
Can Michael Brown in fact run?
If Wilson was indicted do you think he would have been charged with murder?


And answer these please.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And answer these please.

Again my statements subsume your premise. You don't understand and stamp your feet but it is what it is. The GJ proceedings were corrupted by a clear conflict of interest within the prosecutor running it.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Again my statements subsume your premise. You don't understand and stamp your feet but it is what it is. The GJ proceedings were corrupted by a clear conflict of interest within the prosecutor running it.
I already addressed the conflict of interest in my above post. You are really acting cowardly on an anonymous message board by refusing to answer questions because you dont like the answers. At least boutons has the stones to stick with his original narrative even when he knows he's wrong. You on the other hand pull the bitch move.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I already addressed the conflict of interest in my above post. You are really acting cowardly on an anonymous message board by refusing to answer questions because you dont like the answers. At least boutons has the stones to stick with his original narrative even when he knows he's wrong. You on the other hand pull the bitch move.

You didn't question whether or not there was a conflict of interest. You questioned the impact as if that matters when it comes to legal rights and the issue of fairness.

And what is this stupidity of constancy as if being obstinate and pigheaded is the preferred behavior? I'm done with this thread. I'll be in the other one on the actual subject.