Sheriff's Deputy Kills Former NFL Player Outside a Convenience Store

Jacob Sullum | 7.12.2011 2:58 PM

On Sunday a Kern County, California, sheriff's deputy shot and killed David Lee "Deacon" Turner, a 56-year-old former running back for the Cincinnati Bengals, outside a convenience store in Bakersfield. Police questioned Turner, who was coming out of the store with his 19-year-old son, while investigating reports of teenagers asking adults to buy them alcohol and cigarettes. The Kern County Sheriff's Office says Deputy Wesley Kraft fired twice at Turner after the former football player hit Deputy Aaron Nadal over the head with a bag containing two 24-ounce cans of beer. Turner's son offered a strikingly different account:

Turner's son was too shaken to speak with Eyewitness News on Sunday, but he told his sister what he witnessed.

"They asked my dad if he was the person buying alcohol for underage youth," Jerrica Cor-Dova said.

According to Turner's son, his father denied the claims, but deputies continued to question him. Turner then asked officers if he was being arrested. The deputies said no, and Turner grabbed his stuff and began to walk away.

"As he was walking away, the officers came up behind him and hit him in the back of the legs with a club, causing him to fall on his knees," Cor-Dova said.

Turner's son said the bag his father was carrying fell to the ground and the beer in the bag exploded. The next thing he heard was two shots being fired.

"My brother said he yelled my dad's name, and my father was lying there still," Cor-Dova relayed the story.

But according to the sheriff's department, the shots were fired because one of the officers was hit over the head with the items in the bag. His son said that never happened.

"I know that there is a video recording, so we are relying heavily on the video recording from Fastrip," Cor-Dova said.

As readers proved in the comment thread on an unrelated post last night, this case so far is a Rohrschach test for attitudes toward the police. Assuming the surveillance video does materialize, we should eventually find out whose prejudices will be confirmed.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

NEXT: Announcing the Grumpy Gus 3.0 Awards!

Hide Comments (529)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

The video surfaces 14 years ago

and the pigs will be found to have lied. I can't wait.
1. Frank 14 years ago
  
  Exactly. So far, in 100% of cases where witnesses tell one story, cops tell another and video turns up, we find the cops lied.
  
  This can't be called a Rohrschach test. It's more like a bootlicker test since the only reason someone would expect the video to jive with the cops' version of events is that they are a subservient bootlicker.
  1. Tulpa 14 years ago
    
    in 100% of cases where witnesses tell one story, cops tell another and video turns up, we find the cops lied.
    
    You have a link for this analysis?
    
    Just off the top of my head there's the case of the blogger with the tale of horrible abuse at a TSA checkpoint, which was completely contradicted by the video. I'm sure there's been other cases too.
    1. Sam 14 years ago
      
      I can't speak for Frank nor back up his figure but he did say "witnesses" (as in 3rd party). Your example (which I am not familiar with) seems to imply the alleged victim lied which is not the same as a witness lying. Do you know of any examples of this (witness lying, LEO being honest)? I won't go as far as Frank and his 100% claim but I will admit that I have never seen a case where video contradicted witness accounts and verified the police version of events.
      1. dunphy 14 years ago
        
        i do. the mel miller case. happened near to where i used to live. two witnesses lied at the death inquest (against the off-duty cop) . fortunately, the cops had recorded their statements at the time of the incident and were thus able to confront them with their lies.
        
        and of course they weren't charged with perjury (the reasonlogic(tm) being that only cops get away with stuff). details upon request
    2. robc 14 years ago
      
      TSA arent cops, so that one doesnt count.
    3. Sammie 14 years ago
      
      Sarcasm is lost on the internet...
2. Lynch Mob 14 years ago
  
  "I know that there is a video recording, so we are relying heavily on the video recording from Fastrip," Cor-Dova said.
  
  Hell no! Get the pig!
  1. Chris 14 years ago
    
    Hell no yes! Get the pig!
    
    Fixed.
    1. Lynch Mob 14 years ago
      
      We ain't waitin' for no video. Get 'im, boys!
Jules Winnfield on Pigs 14 years ago

Jules: "Hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I'd never know 'cause I wouldn't eat the filthy motherfucker. Pigs sleep and root in shit. That's a filthy animal. I ain't eatin' nothing that ain't got sense enough to disregard its own feces."
1. Pip 14 years ago
  
  I realize it's just a character in a film, but Jules is mistaken about pigs and feces.
  1. sage 14 years ago
    
    Not when the pig is a cop.
    1. Brian Combs 14 years ago
      
      I never eat a pig, cause a pig is a cop.
      1. Ska 14 years ago
        
        Might be the first House of Pain reference I've ever seen on HnR.
        
        T 14 years ago
        
        But it shouldn't be the last...
        
        Nipplemancer 14 years ago
        
        http://reason.com/blog/2011/05.....nt_2300941
        Not the first.
        
        Rob 14 years ago
        
        @ Nipplemancer: +100
        
        Almanian 14 years ago
        
        Jump
        Jump
        Jump
        Jump
        Jump
        Jump (everybody)
        Jump
        Jump
        Jump
        ....
  2. Old Mexican 14 years ago
    
    Re: Pip,
    
    I realize it's just a character in a film, but Jules is mistaken about pigs and feces.
    
    Totally. Pigs wallow in mud to cool down and to get rid of skin parasites, but not on their own feces. They DO piss and defecate on any waterhole, lake or river they happen to find, polluting the water. But besides that and the fact that the meat of feral pigs will many times contain trichinela, pigs are quite clean.
    1. Bob 14 years ago
      
      You can't blame them for wallowing in their own filth if they are kept in too small a pen that is not cleaned.
      
      Humans will wallow in their own filth eventually under similar conditions.
    2. Quentin Tarantino 14 years ago
      
      Listen, the fucking line is perfect the way it is. If you think the motherfucking line is flawed, then fuck you. I'm not changing the mutherfucking line. Suck my ass; go to hell.
      1. Anonymous Coward 14 years ago
        
        Hey Quinten, look! A woman's feet! Go fetch boy!
        
        Rex Ryan 14 years ago
        
        Where?
    3. pgt 14 years ago
      
      . . . the meat of feral pigs will many times contain trichinela
      
      Are state and local pigs safer?
Citizen MNG 14 years ago

We should pause, my brethren and cistern, and allow all of the facts to be gathered, processed, massaged, adjusted and weighed, before jumping to any unwarranted conclusions.
1. Clich? Bandit 14 years ago
  
  cistern...funny.
  1. db 14 years ago
    
    Isn't that a joke from Anything Goes?
    1. T 14 years ago
      
      I first saw it in a B. Kliban cartoon circa mid-80s.
2. rac 14 years ago
  
  What do I do with my jump to conclusions mat?
  1. Milton 14 years ago
    
    You took my stapler.
    1. dunphy 14 years ago
      
      you don't even work here, bitch
3. Au H20 14 years ago
  
  So there's this map...
Tman 14 years ago

SOMEONE FIRE UP THE BALKO SIGNAL!!!!
notsure 14 years ago

%@#$@$#@)(*$#(@#@*&$@*%#@%@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ANGER!

POLICE TACTICS AND PROCEDURES MUST BE CHANGED!!

Officers have proven time and time again that they can't handle the privileges of so much power. Laws that allow Police to arrest without cause (Public Disturbance, resisting arrest) need to go. Police simply can't handle the responsibility and abuse of privilege should mean they lose it.
1. cynical 14 years ago
  
  We just need to beta test all our gun control measures on cops.
2. DUNPHY 14 years ago
  
  what power? the power to shoot somebody who is assaulting somebody over the head with beer bottles (or cans, still not clear).
  
  that's a power invested in all people .
  1. robc 14 years ago
    
    No it isnt.
    
    1. (At least in my state) they have to fear for their life to respond with deadly force.
    
    2. The instigator has no right to self defense and thus, IF the cop used his club first he cant escalate.
    1. DUNPHY 14 years ago
      
      in my state, the force used has to put them in "reasonable fear" of death or serious bodily injury. which is the case in this case, assuming the cop's story is true
      
      hth
      
      i can't speak to california law specifically, but i'll bet you it has similar language
      1. GILMORE 14 years ago
        
        Because we've all seen the hundreds of stories of officers being beaten to death by beer-can wielding-parents. Beer cans are in fact one of the leading causes of death and/or permanent injury of law enforcement officers.
        
        Whereas shootings of unarmed civilians? hardly *ever* happens. virtually unheard of. Nothing to see here.
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        your reading comprehension doesn't suck THAT much
        
        it does not have to be DEATH.
        
        it is death or "serious bodily injury" and if you don't think a beer bottle swung with force by a former NFL running back can cause "serious bodily injury" feel free to consult a trauma surgeon
        
        GILMORE 14 years ago
        
        Funny how those cans keep turning into bottles when the need arises.
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        dood. cans. it makes no difference as to the justification of force.
        
        GILMORE 14 years ago
        
        Great retort. Doesn't matter. The threshold for justification being low enough that a potentially bad headache justifies shooting a dude in front of his son. Move along, nothing to see here.
        
        Dr. Hook 14 years ago
        
        He was not a NFL player and has not been for 33 years. Yes if Adrien Peterson or Joesph Adai were the ones in question, they are young and in shape. This guy has not worked out in 30 years. How old are you? He had already been hit in the leg with a billy club and was off balance. The officer that fired should not have used deadly force. Turner was wrong, he should have been arrested, not assaulted and killed. What happened to stop or I'll shoot?
        And are these guy's not trained in self defense? They did not have to shoot him. The cop got scared. You can not have fear and have a weapon. If you do you are a danger to your self and the community. He should have pepper sprayed or used his club. Shooting should be reserved for armed assailants. And no. I am not black.
      2. Gaia 14 years ago
        
        in my state, the force used has to put them in "reasonable fear" of death or serious bodily injury
        
        The problem is that the pussies that inhabit police departments have demonstrated a fear of injury or death from all manner of things that citizens don't think twice about, Including passed out drunks, chained dogs and concrete statues of alligators
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        troll o meter : .003
  2. GILMORE 14 years ago
    
    DUNPHY|7.12.11 @ 5:43PM|#
    what power? the power to shoot somebody who is assaulting somebody over the head with beer bottles (or cans, still not clear).
    
    Cans would have only warranted one bullet, maybe?
    
    Dunphy - quick question: Should facts emerge showing that the officers initiated force, blew the situation out of control, then shot the dude... would your POV change in the *slightest*? Or would there simply be other 'extenuating circumstances' that made the situation just another 'isolated incident', unworthy of any professional criticism...?
    
    Meaning, at what point do you stop giving a pass to cops who shoot unarmed people?
    
    You seem to think some people here are particularly unreasonable for assuming the worst; some here think you are unreasonable for assuming that the incident must have had some reasonable justification.
    
    I mean - despite unclear details like, 'whether or not any officer was at any time at risk'...that, "unarmed man killed over attempted enforcement of laws preventing beer getting into hands of minors" doesn't bother you at all...? You consider that the 'mature' point of view?
    1. dunphy 14 years ago
      
      1) i haven't given anybody a pass. i am agnostic as to whether this use of force was reasonable. i have condemned cops on many occasions for excessive force, to include excessive deadly force.
      
      the mature pov is this. if the guy hit the cop over the head with the beer then yes - deadly force was likely justified.
      
      the question is whether it happened
      
      the propriety of investigating furnishing liquor to minors cases is not. it's completely tangential and a question for the legislature. imo, yes it should be illegal, but *i* think the drinking age should be 18
      
      the unarmed issue is a red herring. he (allegedly) had a "as used" weapon and used it in a manner capable of causing serious bodily injury or death
      
      the real question is - is this allegation true?
      
      whether or not a cop, if some guy strikes your buddy over the head with beer bottles, you are justified in shooting
      1. GILMORE 14 years ago
        
        Bottles... cans.... bottles...... cans.....
        
        Which was it again? It's magical how they keep changing depending on the rhetorical need.
      2. Gaia 14 years ago
        
        the unarmed issue is a red herring. he (allegedly) had a "as used" weapon and used it in a manner capable of causing serious bodily injury or death
        
        the real question is - is this allegation true?
        
        For a moment let's give the pussies the benefit of the doubt.
        
        wouldn't the appropriate response be to pull out your night stick and beat the crap out of the guy?
        
        Are these cops quick draw artists or what? A guy takes a swing at you and its faster to go guns blazing in a setting with citizens around?
        
        Oh and lets see the injures from the pussy that was beeten with a beer bottle. How much you want to bet that they miraculously healed before he got medical attention.
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        regardless of all the pontificating, the issue is - what is the legal use of force.
        
        yes, a gun IS a legal use of force IF the allegations are true.
        
        certainly, there are some cases where a cop would have (and did) use a lesser use of force in such a circumstance.
        
        but those aren't going to make the pages of reason. i've tackled people swinging knives. those don't make the pages of reason
        
        the point is - given the facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time he used force - was he JUSTIFIED? in brief, if the allegations are true, the answer is probably yes. questions would be - how close was the guy to the shooter. was he standing over the downed officer. etc. etc.
        
        GILMORE 14 years ago
        
        And you assume the worst, just as many here (from repeated nut-punching stories of police excessive-use of force) may do the same on the opposite side of the story.
        
        Whether it makes the pages of reason or not... you seem to write off the 'bad stuff' as so much 'price of doing business'.
        
        Citizens are not so sanguine, my badge wielding friend.
        
        k2000k 14 years ago
        
        Gilmore have you actually read anything dunphy posted? He isn't assuming the worst or saying the cop was justified. He is simply saying given the way the law is currently using a firearm to defend yourself from an individual trying to club you in the head with a bag full of bear cans is justifiable use of force. The fact that you focus on his mistatement of cans is absurd as it doesn't fucking matter in context. A bag full of beer bottles or cans is gonna fucking do damage. Given that in the eyes of the law if the cop was assaulted then the pertinent question is whether or not the cop is lying about the assault. Until we see the video we will not know for certain.
3. melanie 14 years ago
  
  I agree. My husband and I are victims of a rogue deputy. We wouldn't plea bargain because we did nothing wrong. Even after nearly $100,000 in legal fees and two trials, the cop has got by with his lying...so far.
Clich? Bandit 14 years ago

I say:
Regardless of if he beat the living crap out of a LEO with two cans of Colt 45, they aint REAL colt 45s...they are beer, which as we all know, unless it is LoneStar it is not a deadly weapon. Shooting was absolutly unwarranted with so many other options at their disposal.
1. Sudden 14 years ago
  
  5:1 that it was Steel Reserve cans.
  
  And those should never be classified as beer in any article, ever.
  1. Expat to Be 14 years ago
    
    They are not beer. They are, however, as the label helpfully points out, high gravity, with twice the ingredients of a normal lager.
    What's not to love about twice the ingredients?!?! amirite?!?!?
    1. db 14 years ago
      
      So, what, they like, add bullion cubes and mayonnaise and egg whites until they've doubled the amount of ingredients?
    2. Invisible Finger 14 years ago
      
      What are they labeled in Texas?
  2. Beer no, 14 years ago
    
    more like drunken hallucination in a can!
  3. Zeb 14 years ago
    
    Sometimes you just have to get loaded for $3.
2. Sy 14 years ago
  
  Don't tell this to Tulpa or Dunphy.
  1. Clich? Bandit 14 years ago
    
    I can debate Tulpa. He is just misguided.
    
    I know not of the cold, dishonest, fuckstick, coward, shitstain, moron of which you speak? Perhaps I have never seen one of his inane, poorly aregued, glib, statist, shitstain coments. Weird.
    1. DUNPHY 14 years ago
      
      yawn. don't tell me what? if the guy hit the cop over the head with the beer cans/bottles then the shooting was most likely justified.
      
      let's wait to see what happened...
      1. Leroy 14 years ago
        
        The fuck it was.
        
        Deadly force should be the LAST option, used only when all other options are exhausted. Did the officer attempt to defend himself with mace? What about his nightstick? Did the ex-NFL player withstand a taser and continue attacking? If these methods were not used prior to the shooting, why not?
        
        Regardless of whether or not beer cans were swung, it seems fairly clear this was an unjustified shooting.
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        not if you understood the use of force continuum
        
        this is not a matter of opinion it's a matter of law.
        
        the force he was alleged to have used on the officer justifies a deadly force response under the UOFC.
        
        you may not LIKE that. but that is the state of law and the case law.
        
        Rex 14 years ago
        
        If you personally believe that using a gun as a COP to SHOOT someone without a gun as a first response to getting hit with cans then you are a terrible fucking human being.
        
        If you're just trying to point out the law fine, butif you actually believe that the law there should be righ and upheld then you are a terrible fucking human being who nees to do some serious soul searching.
        
        k2000k 14 years ago
        
        Rex do you not think a pack of beer when swung at someones head with sufficient force could not do serious physical harm? Think about it for a second. You, and many others on this threadm are letting your emotional response, and possible bias against cops, get in the way of rational thinking. I am not a fan of the police, my gut tells me that the cops are lying, but logic and reason must rule the day. The facts are
        1) A can of beer can do serious fucking damage when swung at the head, its just simple physics, if you do not think so then I invite you to post a youtube video of you being clubed in the head with a can of beer swung at full force, I doubt there will be any takers.
        
        2)We do not know who is telling the truth, they we may have suspicions, that alone is not enough to render judgement. Wait until the video is released, it isn't that hard.
        
        And that whole terrible human being thing? I mean come on, save that crap for moveon.org or some shit like that.
Mainer 14 years ago

"according to the sheriff's department, the shots were fired...."

passive voice...just doesn't sit well
1. SugarFree 14 years ago
  
  The gun was just trying to defend itself.
2. Bingo 14 years ago
  
  I just want to point out that this is part of a very disturbing trend where personal responsibility of authority figures is starting to vanish, and all actions are due to things beyond their control.
  
  ie: "Shots were fired", "acting in accordance with policy", "the law is the law" etc
  
  TSA and police officers being the most obvious that act in this way, but you get it with the city planners (like that one guy trying to get a vegetable garden removed). It's like no one in authority is personally or morally responsible for any of their decisions anymore.
  1. Episiarch 14 years ago
    
    When's the last time a pig got actually punished--I mean jail time--for shooting someone? The BART cop, right? And he only got a year. The SPD cop who shot the woodcutter got no jail time.
    
    Since they're never held responsible for their actions, why would they claim responsibility for anything?
    1. John 14 years ago
      
      Contrast this with the guy in Oklahoma who got life yesterday for double tapping some asshole who robbed his store. Private citizens are held to the highest standard imaginable when defending themselves. Cops are held to the lowest possible one. Makes me sick.
      1. Tulpa 14 years ago
        
        He wasn't defending himself when he killed the guy, so he got what he deserved. It's not a double tap really anyway, it's a tap, do some other stuff, and then come back and tap again while your target is prostrate on the floor. Disgusting.
        
        TrickyVic 14 years ago
        
        ""It's not a double tap really anyway, it's a tap, do some other stuff, and then come back and tap again while your target is prostrate on the floor.""
        
        Ah, that would do it.
        
        Tulpa 14 years ago
        
        Funny how they leave out that detail.
        
        If it sounds too bad to be true, it probably is.
        
        Tulpa 14 years ago
        
        Here's the news story if you'd rather read about it from someone who doesn't have an axe to grind.
        
        Gray Ghost 14 years ago
        
        And here's the surv. video of the OK shooting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJZdFcDmllQ
        
        TrickyVic 14 years ago
        
        Yeah, it should always be a no-no to shoot someone not a threat. Assuming the guy on the ground wasn't trying to shoot the pharmacist while injured, if not, then it's a no-no.
        
        That kind of goes to the dispartiy I was referring to about John's post. A cop can use paranoia/imagination as a threat. IOW, a threat can be in their mind and it's good enough. It never should be, profession shouldn't matter.
        
        BonitaDave 14 years ago
        
        I saw the video and I can understand why the clerk shot the robber. I'm sure the clerk was terrified for his life, and when he was in a position of power, did everything in his power to be sure that the POS would never be able to harm him again.
        
        melman 14 years ago
        
        he should have been killed just for having the name "Antwun"
        
        Gray Ghost 14 years ago
        
        If you want some more comedy with the OK shooting, consider that the 16 year old co-robber was also sentenced to life, and as a juvenile, stands a pretty good chance of getting out before the pharmacist. http://newsok.com/ersland-gets.....le/3584664
        
        Juries are funny. The Casey Anthony one can't figure out how to mark the manslaughter or child abuse box on the verdict form, and this one in OK gives a guy life on Murder 1 for killing someone who had tried to rob him a minute or so before.
        
        Sy 14 years ago
        
        I forgot it's not cool to kill someone that was trying to kill you.
        
        Tulpa 14 years ago
        
        I forgot it's not cool to kill someone that was trying to kill you.
        
        "Was" is the operative word.
        
        John 14 years ago
        
        Go fuck yourself Tulpa. If you rob someone's store, you deserve to die. I am not kidding. It is a "double tap" when you shoot someone wounding them and then shoot them again to make sure they were dead. And if I were the governor, I would pardon him. If you walk into someone's store with a gun intending to rob them, I have no sympathy or concern over what happens to you.
        
        Tulpa 14 years ago
        
        From da wiki:
        
        A double tap or controlled pair is a shooting technique where two well-aimed shots are fired at the same target with very little time in between shots.
        
        [emboldened the part that doesn't apply to this case]
        
        And sorry, while I support the right to kill in self-defense, I don't support the meting out of capital punishment by individual citizens based on whether the target "deserves to die".
        
        John 14 years ago
        
        You really are as big of a statist fuck as MNG. Worse in some ways.
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        when the ignorati devolve to name calling and comparisons like that, it's a sign they have no argument
        
        k2000k 14 years ago
        
        John we have courts to decide whether someone lives or dies, its called the rule of law.
        
        cynical 14 years ago
        
        Regardless, citizens (who don't have training to deal with violent situations and might be expected to panic or react emotionally) are held to very strict standards, while cops (who we should expect would be better able to keep their cool) are essentially granted a license to kill.
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        unfounded ridiculous assertion, but a nice sentiment.
        
        i've seen any # of lethal uses of forces by "civilians" that were handled justly
        
        goober1223 14 years ago
        
        You've seen a google of them? That's impressive.
        
        goober1223 14 years ago
        
        I hope that you write your police reports with a bit more clarity.
      2. TrickyVic 14 years ago
        
        Wow, in OK? I'm surprised.
        
        You're right though, there is a big disparity in the standard.
        
        Assuming for a moment that the cop hit the Turner and Turner struck back with the beer cans. Naturally the cops wouldn't be concerned that an officer struck a man not under arrest, for leaving, yet Turner defending himself is worthy of being shot.
        
        Tulpa 14 years ago
        
        So you're assuming a series of events that doesn't happen in the cops' story or the daughters' version of the son's story.
        
        TrickyVic 14 years ago
        
        For the moment, for the sake of argument, sure. Sometimes both sides have a reason to color the story.
        
        As far as what I really believe, I'll wait to see what the tape says, if it has something to say.
        
        Gray Ghost 14 years ago
        
        I too was surprised they gave the pharmacist life. If there ever was an occasion to sentence a murderer to probation, that probably was it.
        
        Re, the Bakersfield case, I'd like to see the videotape, and hear some different accounts, other than the police's and the son of the deceased. What are the odds that you or I, attacked by a guy with no other weapon than a sack of beer, would get such lenient treatment if we drew a pistol and killed him?
        
        Tulpa 14 years ago
        
        If there ever was an occasion to sentence a murderer to probation, that probably was it.
        
        Would this be your opinion if it were a cop rather than a pharmacist who killed a helpless suspect who had been laying on the floor for a few minutes?
        
        Sy 14 years ago
        
        If a kid pulled a gun on the cop and tried to rob him, definitely yes, especially on private property.
        
        Gray Ghost 14 years ago
        
        Unlike a LEO, the pharmacist didn't choose a line of work where they are likely to use force, at times deadly force, in their occupation. I therefore would be more likely to accept an explanation from the pharmacist that he was overcome by the stress of the events and shot the guy who had just earlier tried to rob him with a gun. That's not an explanation I'd accept from a LEO. Their training either tries to prepare them mentally for a situation like that, or it should try to. They carry a gun 8 hours (and more, with OT) a day. They've a lot of time to think through all of the possibilities they might run into when they do so, and plenty of institutional procedures and peer guidance to help them with those decisions. I'm holding the professional in the use of violence to a higher standard than an ordinary person when it comes to using violence. Instead of, as usually happens with LEO-shootings, a lower standard than you or I.
        
        None of which means that I would have found the pharmacist not guilty; I'd have found him guilty of at least manslaughter. Which means he'd be a felon, with all of the bad things that would bring. Not to mention the gift-wrapped civil suit it'd hand to the dead robber's family. Hell, I probably would have signed off on some jail time too. But I think that life imprisonment is excessive, and I wouldn't be displeased if he had gotten probation.
        
        Tulpa 14 years ago
        
        Unlike a LEO, the pharmacist didn't choose a line of work where they are likely to use force, at times deadly force, in their occupation.
        
        The pharmacist had at least two guns at his place of business -- clearly he was prepared for the possibility of using deadly force.
        
        That's not an explanation I'd accept from a LEO. Their training either tries to prepare them mentally for a situation like that, or it should try to.
        
        Oh come on. Gunfights are infrequent even for cops, so they're probably just as rattled by them as any citizen would be (unless they're sickos who enjoy violence). No amount of training can change that (and I notice you would essentially blame the officer for being poorly trained). And if you can't handle the stress of shooting a gun, and are likely to be driven to kill helpless people by it, you shouldn't have a gun. What you state here would be an argument for taking guns away from citizens were it valid.
        
        Gray Ghost 14 years ago
        
        Tulpa, you're implying the likelihood of a pharmacist experiencing violence in their day-to-day job is similar to that of a LEO? Jesus, you're getting as bad as Tony.
        
        Cops, unlike pharmacists, go through training on the use of their weapons. (Just ask dunphy!) It's a significant portion of what they're trained to do. (As opposed to what LEO's really do. Not for nothing was "Barney Miller" thought of as probably the most realistic police fictional tv show.)
        
        I agree with you that training does not equal the actual stress of a gunfight, and that LEOs would be rattled too after getting shot at. The difference is that, unlike your average CHL holder, they're repeatedly trained what to do afterwards. Not just during their certification, but through refresher training and constant peer interaction. A CHL holder isn't getting that kind of repeat instruction unless they sign up for courses like, e.g. Massad Ayoob's. (Not that you should need a course to tell you that you can't coup de grace someone. At least in front of a camera.)
        
        If the LEO's training is inadequate, then I'd primarily blame their department. But they get training on what to do in a physical confrontation. They experience violent confrontations in the course of their job, and thus are better suited to dealing with the stress of such a confrontation; a pharmacist doesn't.
        
        What you state here would be an argument for taking guns away from citizens were it valid
        
        I'm perfectly fine with taking away this felon's right to own a gun: He's shown he can't be trusted with one. I'm just arguing against treating his crime as having the same evil intent---and the same sentence---as the surviving armed robber. I'm also explaining why I find the stress of a gunfight to be more of a mitigating circumstance for John Q. Citizen, than it would be in your hypothetical LEO's. Not enough mitigation to avoid all criminal liability, but enough to avoid conviction for 1st Degree Murder and life imprisonment. (with parole after only 38 years)
        
        I wouldn't be surprised if he gets pardoned on the OK Governor's way out of office.
        
        Clich? Bandit 14 years ago
        
        With the Pharmacist I don't know why Murder 2 was not on the table? And how many times have cops used the "Adrenaline, fog of war, heat of moment" shit as a defence and gotten COMPLETLY OFF?!?!? Yes he was WAY wrong to blast a dude while prostrate and in need of serious medical attention. Yes he should be held accountable for the shots after his first but isnt that why we have Murder 2? Emotion? Not thinking clearly? Murder 1 a la pre-med does not seem like a good fit to me after watching the video.
        
        TrickyVic 14 years ago
        
        I can agree with that.
        
        TrickyVic 14 years ago
        
        Bandit's post.
        
        Clich? Bandit 14 years ago
        
        Tulpa,
        
        Would this be your opinion if it were a cop rather than...
        
        You either believe that cops, being agents of the govenrment, with the full force and resources there included, are serving as a priveldge and are to be held to a higher standard or not. In my country, the individual citizen is the highest authority. All deference is to be made to the individual citizen by all others acting in a priveledged (i.e.government) capacity. If this is not your view then fine but understand that would align you more closely with statist societies in general.
        
        Tulpa 14 years ago
        
        Personally I view cops as equal to other citizens when it comes to the right of self-defense. There is a small difference in that, due to their job, cops don't have the option to flee from certain situations, so they would plausibly feel their life was in danger in situations that other citizens would flee from. But those are few and far between, and this case is not one of those situations.
        
        And you're wrong about that aligning me with statist societies, douchebag. It just means I see cops as being closer to regular citizens than you do.
        
        Tulpa 14 years ago
        
        I wouldn't have thought murder 2 would be out of order given the circumstances, but there's plenty there for murder 1. There is clear premeditation on the video. Just because you're responding to past violence doesn't automatically absolve you of ill-intent.
        
        Mainer 14 years ago
        
        Zero
      3. melman 14 years ago
        
        that pharmacist should not have been prosecuted
    2. DUNPHY 14 years ago
      
      darn those pesky juries!!!!!
      
      we need EPI meting out justice!!
      
      cops get indicted (or in the case of WA informationed) for all kinds of stuff.
      
      but yes, even cops get a right to a jury trial
      
      i know, major injustice
      1. Cheeseburger 14 years ago
        
        Then the DA either soft balls the case or hands the cop a sweetheart plea bargain. Yeah, the cops have it tough.
        
        DUNPHY 14 years ago
        
        rubbish. DA's try to get convictions.
        
        several recent examples. juries found the cops not guilty
        
        that's our system
        
        at least non-cops don't routinely get de facto double jeopardied a la the rodney king case
        
        regardless, prosecutors often prosecute cops. juries are MORe likely to acquit a cop than an average joe or especially a shitbag
        
        duh
      2. Sy 14 years ago
        
        How often is a cop a defendant facing murder charges?
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        rarely, mostly because of mens rea issues. when prosecutors try to do so AND THEY DO, they usually fail miserably e.g. amadou diallo.
        
        prosecutors charge what they think they can win, not what reason.com thinks is appropriate.
        
        again, due to (primarily) mens rea issues it is very difficult to sell a bad police shoot as a murder case. manslaughter is MUCH more successful
        
        Tulpa 14 years ago
        
        How about mens rea in cases where homeowners shoot at a SWAT team busting down their door at 3AM?
        
        They never seem to have a problem getting convictions in those cases.
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        you'd have to (again) blame the jury.
        
        surprising how often cops are the bad guys but all those dumb jurors(tm) who come to reason unapproved determinations rarely get wanked on. NOBODY gets convicted w/.o a jury. and i've read several threads here where people BRAGGED about avoiding THEIR jury duty. iow, juries suck and make the wrong decision, but it's ok to avoid jury duty where YOU could make the right decision and help the cause of justice
        
        that's logickal !!
3. omg 14 years ago
  
  A metal slug was propelled by exploding gasses that were caused by the ignition of gunpowder via a primer that was struck by a metal pin driven by a spring....
  1. pmains 14 years ago
    
    It's all so clear now. I see who the real culprit is. Let's round up Chemistry and Physics.
Mainer 14 years ago

What's the point of carrying a gun all the time if you can't shoot someone once in a while ?
1. sarcasmic 14 years ago
  
  I am convinced that people seek out a job that involves carrying a club and a gun because they seek to beat and kill.
  1. joshua corning 14 years ago
    
    This is like shark attacks.
    
    If sharks really wanted people to be their food then the number of people killed by shark attacks would be in the 1000s every year.
    
    Yes i am sure there are SOME people who pursue jobs in law enforcement because they want to beat and kill. But by no means all do....if they did then the body count would astronomical.
    1. MSM 14 years ago
      
      We don't get body counts on "beats", only "kills". And even on kills we don't get coverage on every single one. IOW, you can probably multiply by 10 the number of kills reported in the media as a closer actual body count.
      1. dunphy 14 years ago
        
        or you could just ... y'know look at actual statistics, not hysterical media articles to get y'know actual FACTS.
        
        the DOJ publishes that shit every year. you don't get selective reporting. you get actual facts on totals and can make per capita etc. conclusions based on actual #'s not individual anecdotes, cases
  2. WarPig Obama 14 years ago
    
    Finally, some understanding around here!
  3. WarPig Obama 14 years ago
    
    Finally, some understanding around here!
Achtung Coma Baby 14 years ago

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITI.....index.html

Unrelated, but speaking of dirty, muthafuckin' pigs.
Warty 14 years ago

PERPINDICULAR
1. Resto Druid FTW 14 years ago
  
  PWND!
  
  Lulz, just thought I remind everyone of Warty's hilarious discourse w/ the derider moron.
  1. Warty 14 years ago
    
    I'm just glad my fans appreciate my work.
    1. Sy 14 years ago
      
      When can we expect the new edition to be released?
    2. Clich? Bandit 14 years ago
      
      It was a classic...one for the ages.
  2. db 14 years ago
    
    bummer, I missed that one.
trueblueben 14 years ago

Hold on now people we have to assume innocent until proven guilty. that is in our constitution. these officers are innocent of any unwarrented shooting which means this black thief is guilty until proven otherwise in the court. I side with the law because that is the patriotic thing to do, we have to respect the constitution an dlet's face it, the police are there to help us and thier testimony is considered absolute. People don't go around saying hey this cop lied or was breaking the law, i will give them the bebfit of the doubt.
1. heller 14 years ago
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwGFalTRHDA
2. Hugh Akston 14 years ago
  
  7/10 since I can't tell whether you're a spoof or genuinely deluded.
3. Zeb 14 years ago
  
  Actually, the courts have to assume innocent until proven guilty. Private citizens can assume whatever they want to.
  
  But I don't think that any assumptions are necessary to see that the police are completely in the wrong here. Even if the police's story is completely true, the shooting is still not justified.
  1. sarcasmic 14 years ago
    
    Bets on whether or not it will be ruled as justified?
    
    The cop will get a paid vacation followed by a promotion and a medal.
    That is their reward for murdering civilians.
    1. Mainer 14 years ago
      
      Of course it was justified. Last week in the Union Leader, there were three mundane stories about cops shooting someone, and by golly, each every one was justified.
      1. sarcasmic 14 years ago
        
        They're always justified because if they were not then the people might lose faith in the system.
        People who have never dealt with the system tend to have faith in it. As long as they never deal with the system and read that police shootings are always justified, they will keep their faith and not intervene with police affairs. If they lose faith and then people start to question the police, the entire system breaks down and you get Somalia.
        
        Mainer 14 years ago
        
        ....and don't forget TV and movies, cops are always the good guys, unless it's a rogue cop, but then the good cops get him, too.
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        this is proof of reason-delusion
        
        fuck, every other episode of law and order (exaggeration) is some corrupt cop/coverup story.
        
        but the media LOVES cops (christ, this is like reverse dailykos sometimes
      2. Otto 14 years ago
        
        I'm not saying you're wrong about the press in general, but the Union Leader is just fucking loony. Or at least used to was.
        
        Mainer 14 years ago
        
        that's a separate debate. my point was that the police or the AG investigated, and every time a cop shop someone, it was justified. 3 stories, one week, in the minor metropolis of Manchester New Hampshire.
        
        Otto 14 years ago
        
        My bad - I thought you were talking about their editorializing, not the AG's decisions.
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        most cop shootings ARE justified. what a horrible thing
  2. Tulpa 14 years ago
    
    Beer bottles aren't exactly feathery pillows, you know. You can easily kill a person with one.
    
    Brings back memories of the argument about the BP agent shooting the kid who was throwing rocks at his head from across the border while he attempted to cuff a border runner, and all the bleeding hearts here who said it was unjustified because rocks aren't deadly weapons. Fun times.
    1. califronian 14 years ago
      
      You are a police-state fascist. Only a sick individual could possibly think deadly force is warranted against someone wielding a beer can.
      1. Tulpa 14 years ago
        
        Right, because I don't think people should be able to club others with 24 oz cans full of dense liquid with impunity, that means I'm a fascist.
        
        Gray Ghost 14 years ago
        
        World of difference between impunity and responding with lethal force, Tulpa. As you well know.
        
        Let's wait until the video from the store and the police car get released. Despite your accurate statement that a sack of beer is not a feathery pillow, I don't recommend you, as a non-LEO, shooting someone attacking you with one. You're unlikely to get the deference from the District Attorney that this officer will.
        
        Sy 14 years ago
        
        "Let's wait until the video from the store and the police car get released"
        
        Ah, yes. The Erik Scott excuse. I'm sure that will clear things up..oh wait..
        
        kf 14 years ago
        
        The video has been released:
        
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPoxee46S4s
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        rubbish. i've seen bona fide citizen justified deadly force with less force than that
    2. Pablo 14 years ago
      
      Then if he did actually hit the officer over the head then that will be obvious, correct? Even if there is no video, surely the cop sought medical attention if indeed he was whopped over the head with a couple of beer cans. Surely he would document any physical injuries if in fact they existed.
    3. wayne 14 years ago
      
      I'm with Tulpa on this one. Getting clubbed over the head with two 24-ounce beer cans is potentially lethal. Doesn't mean that is what actually happened, of course, but a deadly response is legit if indeed that is what happened.
    4. Cheeseburger 14 years ago
      
      You are right, a sack of beer is not a pillow. But a sack of beer was all he had to defend himself against assault by two armed thugs
      1. dunphy 14 years ago
        
        bigoted rush to judgment noted.
4. cynical 14 years ago
  
  Exactly. We have to let cops execute people whenever they want to protect that principle that people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
5. DUNPHY 14 years ago
  
  *we* don't have to assume anything. innocent until proven guilty is a court precept, not a rule that citizens must follow in analysis
  
  there is no mandate that people MUST assume anything, but the usual reason ignorati will assume the cop did something wrong because that fits the metanarrative
  
  i will remain agnostic because there is fuck-all to analyze at this point.
Brett L 14 years ago

Its okay to shoot someone because they might have resisted with non-lethal force? WTF? This is the official story?
1. Ska 14 years ago
  
  Dude, assault with a can larger than a standard tall boy is deadly force. Or something.
2. DUNPHY 14 years ago
  
  hitting somebody in the head with a hard object is (generally speaking) going to justify deadly force - cop or non-cop
wer 14 years ago

http://www.mercurynews.com/oth.....i_18456185

"Life in Bakersfield after a brief NFL stint had not been kind to running back David Lee "Deacon" Turner.
After at least two dozen run-ins with the law, Turner, 56, was shot and killed in front of a convenience store Sunday by a Kern County deputy after he allegedly hit an officer with a bag holding two cans of beer."
1. DUNPHY 14 years ago
  
  life has not been kind to him? iow, nothing HE has done is HIS fault? yes, i am sure that none of his arrests, convictions etc. were his fault. it was just life being unkind to him
  1. Cheeseburger 14 years ago
    
    His arrests and convictions have nothing to do with his murder by two armed thugs.
    1. dunphy 14 years ago
      
      except that they may show a propensity for lawlessness and./or violence.
      
      but the point was i have no idea if life has been "unkind to him" but his record of skirmishes with the law strongly suggests he brought many of his woes upon himself by being a criminal assmunch
      1. GILMORE 14 years ago
        
        The conviction mentioned was driving with a suspended license.
        
        Scofflaw = violent criminal?
        
        You keep saying that you're not making assumptions... then toss out stuff like this.
        
        Or do you know something about his 'criminal record' that isnt already in the papers?
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        his runins with The Law(tm) are not assumptions. they are about the only things we KNOW to be true in this case
        
        GILMORE 14 years ago
        
        But now they're just "run-ins" -
        
        Your allegations of him being 'violent'? Any basis at all aside from being an apparently drunk ex-football player?
Warty 14 years ago

If ever there was a time to electro-torture someone, it's after he hits you with a can of beer. What the fuck, pigs?
1. db 14 years ago
  
  I'm sure he actually meant to hit the cop with a loaf of bread but in the confusion of the situation grabbed a bottle of beer instead.
2. Oscar Grant 14 years ago
  
  I think the cop honestly planned to use his taser, but accidently pulled his gun instead.
  1. Sy 14 years ago
    
    If a cop is so incompetent that he has no clue which side of his belt his taser is on, as well as the feel of the grip when compared to a real hand gun, he shouldn't be handling either.
    1. melman 14 years ago
      
      in the case of that cop in oakland, he is not only not handling either, he's going to prison
      1. Gray Ghost 14 years ago
        
        Actually, he's out: http://www.sfexaminer.com/loca.....er-release
        
        Whoops! All done! I know I'd get the same sentence if I shot a prone, unarmed prisoner in the back and killed him because I made a mistake, right? Because LEOs get treated exactly the same way as everyone else in a shooting investigation, don't they?
        
        One fucking year in custody.
        
        Sy 14 years ago
        
        Sad part is, he'll probably just move out of state and get hired on again.
    2. Bar Student 14 years ago
      
      Nonetheless, that was the excuse the Oakland train shooting cop used if I remember correctly.
Citizen Nothing 14 years ago

Word to the wise: You should always have your surveillance system make two copies, so when the cops "lose" the first...
Virginia 14 years ago

this case so far is a Rohrschach test for attitudes toward the police

Too narrow, Jacob. Toward any and all respektmahauthoritah figures. Police are just another in a long line.
Clich? Bandit 14 years ago

5 bucks says the video is blank/was malfunctioning/is lost.
1. sage 14 years ago
  
  Secondededed.
2. Sudden 14 years ago
  
  Eh, I don't know. Given that the guy apparently had himself a bit of a rap sheet, I think there might be some merit to the steel reserve bludgeoning stuff. Now, I hardly consider that gunshot worthy, but if the video shows the steel reserve bludgeoning to the cop, followed by the Michael Bayesque ASPLOSION!!1!! of beer cans which they review board will say mimiced gunfire sounds, they will deem the shooting a-ok, and the bootlicking public will politely nod and agree that the uppity black man was due for his just desserts.
  
  Sad, but truth always is.
bill. 14 years ago

Turner's son said the bag his father was carrying fell to the ground and the beer in the bag exploded. The next thing he heard was two shots being fired.

Because the new professionalism can't distinguish gunfire from a soggy paper bag holding a broken beer bottle.
1. Tulpa 14 years ago
  
  Actually, Turner's daughter said that Turner's son said...
  1. DUNPHY 14 years ago
    
    the reporter said that turner's daughter said that her brother said!!!
    
    this meets the reason reliability test because it's an anti-cop narrative.
    1. CE 14 years ago
      
      this meets the reason reliability test because it's an anti-cop narrative.
      
      Go back and find an incident where the cops turned out to be telling the truth and the Reason comments were off base.... We'll wait.
      1. Tulpa 14 years ago
        
        The Professor Gates arrest is one case that comes immediately to mind.
sarcasmic 14 years ago

He walked away without being dismissed.

He was found guilty of Not Showing Proper Respect To Law Enforcement and was sentenced to death.
1. PIRS 14 years ago
  
  Contempt of cop.
2. Brett L 14 years ago
  
  Contempt of Cop is the official name.
  1. sarcasmic 14 years ago
    
    My bad.
    I did that once. Cop kicked my legs out from under me and I said "What the fuck?"
    He then put me in a hold and whispered lovingly into my ear "Give me one reason. Please. You know I want to. I'm begging you. Give me one reason."
    He must have been having a good day because after I didn't give him a reason he didn't beat the shit out of me.
    1. Mainer 14 years ago
      
      He must have been one of the legendary 1% bad apples, that give the other 99% good cops a bad name.
      1. Esteban 14 years ago
        
        99% - right. You've never interacted with a cop before. I'm not talking about traffic tickets either white boy.
        
        Ska 14 years ago
        
        Pssssst - that was a sarcastic play on the theory that most cops are good cops, and that only a few bad apples blah blah blah.
        
        Jason 14 years ago
        
        Doesn't anyone know that the bad apple spoils the barrel???
        
        Sy 14 years ago
        
        lol racism fail.
        
        Cheeseburger 14 years ago
        
        They are even treating traffic tickets like felony stops now. Last time I got a ticket, one cop came to the window, the other stayed in my blind spot with his hand on his gun. He didnt' like it when I laughed long and loud at him, pointing the whole time. Especially when he fell on his ass trying to walk backwards to his car.
    2. Warty 14 years ago
      
      You didn't have a right to stand and impede traffic on that public sidewalk.
      1. Bingo 14 years ago
        
        +lol
      2. Tulpa 14 years ago
        
        This didn't happen on a sidewalk, you one-trick lamprey.
        
        Tulpa 14 years ago
        
        Oh, you're talking about sarcasmic's story. I'll save the lamprey for another time.
    3. db 14 years ago
      
      That is some fucked up scary shit. Assuming you're not embellishing, it sounds like that guy ought to be locked up. And not in prison. Criminals generally commit crime for gain. Psychotics do it for fun.
      1. sarcasmic 14 years ago
        
        Those were his words. There was something in there about making an example out of me as well.
        Last I checked he's been promoted to detective and makes over 80K a year.
        
        Warty 14 years ago
        
        So what were you doing that made him want to cripple you?
        
        sarcasmic 14 years ago
        
        I had long hair, torn jeans, and a concert tee-shirt.
        
        Obviously a criminal until proven innocent.
  2. Anonymous Coward 14 years ago
    
    There's Contempt of Cop, Becoming Combative, Resisting, Disrespecting Authoritah, Being in the Wrong House, and Holding an Object That May or Not Be a Weapon.
    
    All of these crimes are punishable by summary execution.
    1. Officer 14 years ago
      
      Stop Resisting!
3. DUNPHY 14 years ago
  
  if the guy asked am i under arrest what the cop should have said (assuming the daughter is telling the truth about what he did say)
  
  "no, you are not under arrest. you are being detained pursuant to an investigation. you are not free to leave"
  
  perfectly legit under terry v. ohio
sage 14 years ago

Deputy Wesley Kraft fired twice at Turner after the former football player hit Deputy Aaron Nadal over the head with a bag containing two 24-ounce cans of beer.

An assault on the king's soldiers is the same as an assault on the king himself.
1. Tim 14 years ago
  
  "Ser Ilyn, bring me his head."
  1. Ska 14 years ago
    
    My copy of ADwD is in hand. Chapter one belongs to the half-man.
    1. Brett L 14 years ago
      
      No Spoilers! I plan to read the whole thing when I get home.
      1. Ska 14 years ago
        
        I didn't even start the prologue. I just had to make sure that he would be the first character they start with.
        
        Reek 14 years ago
        
        It rhymes with "meek"
2. Tulpa 14 years ago
  
  An assault on a person is the same as an assault on another person.
  
  If a private citizen was getting his head bashed in by beer cans, I'd support his right to use deadly force in that case too.
  1. Sy 14 years ago
    
    a private citizen wouldn't have been harassing him about buying minors alcohol in the first place.
    1. DUNPHY 14 years ago
      
      ah, responding to a citizen complaint that X (a crime) is happening and detaining an individual exiting a liquor store in the company of a minor and holding beer is "harassment"
      
      lol. it's easily reasonable suspicion under terry v. ohio
      1. Cheeseburger 14 years ago
        
        Mouth breathing thug: "Did you buy beer for a minor?"
        
        Citizen: "NO, you tax wasting POS."
        
        Sounds like the investigation is over.
      2. Coeus 14 years ago
        
        So, maybe you'll explain to me what the fuck they thought they were gonna do about it. He's holding the beer, the kids aren't. What purpose would detaining him serve other than harassment?
        
        Coeus 14 years ago
        
        Dammit, forgot to refresh.
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        this is how investigations are done. you ask the guy some questions. you see if there are any witnesses. you confirm that the kid with the guy is actually his kid etc.
        
        it's not fricken rocket science, and it's irrelevant.
        
        the point is that pursuant to terry v. ohio the person is not free to realize and the cops were acting reasonably.
        
        and note that it is considered reasonable under terry to have the guy give his name, stats etc. so warrant checks can be run which often takes a few minutes
        
        heck, i was terried at gunpoint for armed robbery once. that's life. and no, i did not do the robbery and yes the cops let me go
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        free to leave, not "free to realize"
      3. Sy 14 years ago
        
        You're one dense motherfucker, dunphy. Try and keep up. I was pointing out a probable flaw in Tulpa's hypothetical.
        
        cynical 14 years ago
        
        "DUNPHY", you mean. I think it's a trolling spoof.
        
        Coeus 14 years ago
        
        Maybe, but he's captured the lack of capitalization and the random line spacing perfectly.
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        aint no spoof. it's a fair cop
      4. Fire Tiger 14 years ago
        
        So in your mind a person leaving a LIQUOR store with liquor is acting suspiciously?
        
        Gaia 14 years ago
        
        The average badge wearing pussy sees a guy walk out of a liquor store with one or more bottles or cans he will instantly fear for his life and be justified in blazing away.
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        right . because cops shoot people walking out of liquor stores with bottles or cans all the time.
        
        i mean there are thousands of liquor store shootings every year
        
        it's FUCKING CARNAGE
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        no, but nice strawman. try to read what i wrote again
  2. sage 14 years ago
    
    "Bashed in"? Sounds like the cop is lucky to be alive.
Andrew S. 14 years ago

Hm. It's obvious, isn't it? The guy attacked the cops. You want to see the video evidence? Oh, you see, we looked for it, but it turns out it was malfunctioning for 5 minutes. Yeah, just happened to be the same 5 minutes as the incident. What a terrible coincidence that was!
1. SugarFree 14 years ago
  
  It is a scientific fact that two beer cans in a sack can create an EMP pulse when swung at a police officer.
  1. wylie 14 years ago
    
    It's the same mechanism that causes lifesavers to sparkle when you crush them.
    1. Pro Libertate 14 years ago
      
      Cold fusion?
      1. wylie 14 years ago
        
        Shhhhhh!
        
        db 14 years ago
        
        Quiet fusion?
        
        Pro Libertate 14 years ago
        
        Sweet fusion.
2. Lynch Mob 14 years ago
  
  We're not paranoid conspiracy theorists!
robc 14 years ago

Im not sure how this is a Rohrschach test.

Even if he hit the cops with the beers, I dont think deadly force is the proper response on the part of the cops.

So, in either version, the cops should have never fired.
1. robc 14 years ago
  
  Also, there is another possibility too, what if both witnesses have elements of the truth.
  
  What if the cops hit the guy with the club in the leg, bringing him down, then in response he swung the bag of beers and hit the cop in the head?
  1. Sudden 14 years ago
    
    Which is almost undoubtedly how it happened. The truth is always somewhere in between.
    
    Now, I'm not gonna defend the use of deadly force as justified for defending against 48 ounces of wretchedly awful malt liquor, nor the clubbing of the guys legs, but you gotta be all kinds of retarded to actually think its a good idea to hit a cop with anything, especially in this day and age.
    
    Icky Woods never would've fucked up like that. He'd just hand over the coke.
    1. DUNPHY 14 years ago
      
      you hit a cop or anybody else over the head with that shit, it IS a justification for deadly force.
      
      that's not even a question under the law. the question is - did it happen.
      1. robc 14 years ago
        
        Actually, if the cop struck first, then he has no right to self defense and cant use ANY force in response to getting clunked in the head.
        
        Tulpa 14 years ago
        
        So if you grab someone's arm walking down the street, you have no right to resist when they pull out a knife and try to stab you.
        
        robc 14 years ago
        
        If they escalate, maybe.
        
        If they respond with same level of force, absolutely not.
        
        If you club someone, they get to club you back.
        
        In fact, KY has encoded this in the law to prevent you from taunting someone into a level of force that allows you to then use deadly force.
        
        Basically, if I start a fight and then egg them on to higher levels and they then cause fear for my life, I still cant use deadly force on them.
        
        Your example isnt valid because the response isnt reasonable.
        
        A knife is not proper response to an arm grab. Clubbing with beer is a proper response to clubbing with club.
        
        Tulpa 14 years ago
        
        Clubbing the legs is not plausibly lethal force though. Clubbing the head is another story.
        
        robc 14 years ago
        
        Clubbing the legs is not plausibly lethal force though. Clubbing the head is another story.
        
        Possibly. However, wouldnt you agree that clubbing the head is a reasonably self defense against clubbing the legs? I would think so, especially as it was probably a reflex and he swung what was in his hand.
        
        I worded stuff above wrong (in a way you were start enough to understand instead of picking at, but oh well), but there is no right to use force against someone who is using legitimate self defense.
        
        IF the cop clubbed the legs, clubbing the head in return was legit self defense. For that alone, the cop had no right to respond at all (unless the leg clubbing was legit, but the assumption is that is wasnt) much less use deadly force, EVEN if you consider the head clubbing to be plausibly lethal enough to justify deadly force in other situations.
        
        See, my one sentence response enough implied all of that but you suck at infering.
        
        cynical 14 years ago
        
        I'm pretty sure if I grab someone and they swat me away with a beer bottle, I don't get to shoot them. Unless I'm a cop, obv.
        
        Tulpa 14 years ago
        
        If they club your head with a blunt metal object, that's deadly force imo. To some extent you guys are right that prosecutors would assfuck a regular citizen for doing that, but that's because they're pricks.
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        rubbish
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        ah, the typical reason disingenuousness. the allegation wasn't about "swatting away" with a beer bottle. words chosen specifically to minimize.
        
        the allegation was that he swung and hit the cop in the head with them. and granted the guy was a former running back and the cop went to the hospital, there's a good chance he suffered some substantial injuries
        
        we'll have to wait to see
        
        me 14 years ago
        
        that's not what he said. if you injure or kill someone for trying to stab you, after you assault them, it is not self defense. it is an extension of the assault
        
        me 14 years ago
        
        that's not what he said. if you injure or kill someone for trying to stab you, after you assault them, it is not self defense. it is an extension of the assault
      2. Mr. Pharmacist? 14 years ago
        
        It is? Why don't juries know this?
2. Old Mexican 14 years ago
  
  Re: robc,
  
  Im not sure how this is a Rohrschach test.
  
  Im not even sure what a Rohschach test is!
  
  Yuk, yuk, yuk.
  1. TrickyVic 14 years ago
    
    I think he meant a Horshack test.
    1. dunphy 14 years ago
      
      the cattle are dying
3. Tulpa 14 years ago
  
  "This isn't a Rorshach test -- that's obviously a picture of a dildo!"
  1. Otto 14 years ago
    
    "Doctor, I don't see how you can say I'm a pervert. You're the one with all the dirty drawings."
4. DUNPHY 14 years ago
  
  you can not "think" deadly force is the proper response, but it most certainly is a lawful response to somebody who swung and struck somebody in the head with the beer
  1. robc 14 years ago
    
    The law is not the arbiter of everything.
    
    There is a LAW above the law.
    
    I dont know the law for cops in my state, but for self defense, in my state, I have to fear for my life* to use deadly force. I see no reason cops should be any different.
    
    And assault with a 24 oz bottle shouldnt have him fearing for his life.
    
    *plus some other weird exceptions, home invasion and arson being the main two.
    1. Gray Ghost 14 years ago
      
      Consider dunphy's statement that deadly force is a lawful response to someone who strikes you in the head with a bag of beer, as "useful" as his previous advice here to blow when pulled over for suspicion of DUI.
      
      I have no doubt the subsequent investigation of this officer will find that the bag constituted a sufficient threat for the officer to use lethal force. Doesn't mean that you'd be viewed in the same light if you did the same thing as the officer.
      
      Congratulations on finding your shift key, incidentally.
      1. Coeus 14 years ago
        
        his previous advice here to blow when pulled over for suspicion of DUI.
        
        Did he really say that? Christ, that is weapons grade stupid.
        
        Pro-tip:
        If the cops don't do it when they get pulled over, you probably shouldn't either.
        
        robc 14 years ago
        
        If the cops lawyers don't do it when they get pulled over, you probably shouldn't either.
        
        Fixed
        
        Gray Ghost 14 years ago
        
        No reason it isn't both, robc.
        
        Again, this is easy to google for on this cite. You might have to look under his previous nom de plume, "whit", for the discussion---I forget which one he used---but it's there.
        
        robc 14 years ago
        
        True, but cops might not be smart enough to do the right thing, so I will go with what the lawyers do --- which is not to blow.
        
        Coeus 14 years ago
        
        You can usually rely on the cops knowledge of the law in one specific area:
        
        When it comes to covering their own ass.
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        you're ignorant. in my state, defense attorneys almost always advise TO BLOW
        
        they only advise against it when the guy is already revoked (often for life) because if you refuse it's a much longer suspension (1 yr ) and your refusal can be used against you
        
        also, according to case law, if you refuse cops can still get a warrant for blood
        
        yet again, the reason ignorati are wrong
        
        Gray Ghost 14 years ago
        
        Then, unless Washington DUI/DWI law is dramatically different than either TX or CA, your hypothetical defense attorneys are committing malpractice.
        
        Hmmm...after googling, WA DWI law is incredibly different than either CA or TX. Quote from http://www.seattlesduiattorney.....-test.html
        
        A friend of mine in Tacoma recently asked me if he should have refused the breathalyzer test when he was arrested for a DUI. If we were living anywhere outside of Washington State, my answer would most likely be a resounding "no." Unfortunately, as a Washington drunk driving defense attorney, I know our state's punishments for refusal can frequently be worse than failing a breath test. As a Seattle breath test lawyer, I urge all residents of Seattle, Washington to take the breathalyzer test in the police station when requested to do so.
        
        Please be advised though, you should refuse the portable breathalyzer used by officers while they are arresting you. Implied consent laws do not cover portable breath analyzers. These devices are used in addition to the regular, in-station breath test you will be offered and they will do nothing more than offer additional evidence against you.
        
        You guys must have one fuck of an administrative refusal to blow penalty for the quoted material to be true.
        
        Gray Ghost 14 years ago
        
        See Texas, this is how you do it. (Instead of teaching LEOs to do blood draws at the road side and other "no refusal" weekend hijinks).
        
        The skirting the 5th by considering the refusal as direct evidence rather than testimonial, is particularly rank, however.
        
        Still, when has criminal procedure ever made sense?
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        that's not my rank distinction. it was established by the SCOTUS under Miranda v. Arizona
        
        robc 14 years ago
        
        Notice it says not to blow on the road though.
        
        Kwix 14 years ago
        
        In my state the penalty for refusal is the same as DUI. Two of either in the previous 12 mos and either one is a felony.
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        no, i didn't say that at all. i said if you are INNOCENT - blow
        
        and if you aren't , it's USUALLY best to blow. since it's only a 3 month suspension and guaranteed probation (and the record is erased after a year)
        
        both cops i know who were arrested for Dui - blew
        
        duh
      2. dunphy 14 years ago
        
        i didn't say to blow
        
        i said if you were INNOCENT that you should blow
        
        i should also note that in my state, DEFENSE Attorneys tell people to blow (unless thjey are already revoked) since it's only a 3 month license suspension but it's a year if you refuse and your refusal can be considered against you as evidence (since under miranda it's direct not testimonial)
    2. Gaia 14 years ago
      
      I dont know the law for cops in my state, but for self defense, in my state, I have to fear for my life* to use deadly force.
      
      But that's the whole point.
      
      Badge carrying pussies are always in fear for their life.
      
      Even when assaulted by concrete lawn art.
      1. dunphy 14 years ago
        
        right. the average cop shoots his weapon less than once every 12 yrs. but they are ALWAYS IN FEAR FOR THEIR LIFE.
        
        yes, this matches the stats
Old Mexican 14 years ago

"I know that there is a video recording, so we are relying heavily on the video recording from Fastrip," Cor-Dova said.

The surveillance video was reviewed by this office, and the finding is that the police officers acted with due observance of the law and proper procedure. A copy of the surveillance video will be released in due time to the media, just after it has been doctored to conform to our findings. That's all, I will not take any questions.
free2booze 14 years ago

...after the former football player hit Deputy Aaron Nadal over the head with a bag containing two 24-ounce cans of beer.

So, there should be some visual evidence that the officer was assaulted? If a former NFL player hits you in the head with two cans of beer, it's going to do some damage. I'm sure the officer would be willing to produce the medical report for the injuries he must have sustained.
1. Brett L 14 years ago
  
  Pics or GTFO? I like it!
2. T 14 years ago
  
  Good point. A dude that big hits you in the head with a can of beer, there should be a knot and bruising.
3. Fist of Etiquette 14 years ago
  
  From the original story, the police claim the deputy was "treated and released at a hospital."
  1. DUNPHY 14 years ago
    
    which means there will be medical records and which if the officer is telling the truth, will help corroborate his story.
    
    but people here assume he is lying ad nauseum.
    
    yawn
    1. T 14 years ago
      
      You know why people assume cops lie, dunphy? Because in damn near every interaction they've ever had with a cop, the cop lied.
      
      Take your average traffic stop as an example. How many times has the average citizen heard "I clocked you at X with the radar, but I'm going to write you up for X-5." Then he signs you a ticket for a lower speed, but what has Johnny Law just done? He's either lied to me or lied to the court. If I was going speed X, then he lied to the court on my ticket about my speed. If I wasn't really going X, he lied to me to make his actions appear more reasonable. Yeah, it's great that his lies work in my favor, but he's still a liar, isn't he?
      
      Yet you still expect everybody to forget that shit when it comes testimony time, don't you? Piss off. Cops lie.
      1. DUNPHY 14 years ago
        
        i've already refuted this ad nauseum. most people (as cited in polls) respect the police and do not view them as liars, to contrast with lawyers and journalists. read the polls. we have higher rankings among the populace.
        
        do some cops lie? sure
        
        as for the infraction speeding thing goes, i don't DO speeding tickets, but i have had more than one attorney (defense and prosecutor) explain that this is not perjurious since 40 is basically a lesser included offense for 50. if a cop was asked under oath what he clocked the person AT, then if he said 40- that would be perjury
        
        Sy 14 years ago
        
        Dunphy has "already refuted this ad nauseum." then proceeds to forget what the fuck the conversation was about how a cop can break the law too.. and forgets to explain how they consistently get away with it.
        
        Sy 14 years ago
        
        , and
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        no, refuted your claim about what "people assume" since most people don;'t think cops are liars as evidenced by polling data.
        
        they think it's outlier behavior not par for the course as you believe
        
        Gray Ghost 14 years ago
        
        "Some"? Try damn near all.
        
        Before you respond that's hyperbole, go through the findings of the Mollen Commission, among other resources, for the incidence of "testilying" and other police perjury, and its origins in the training of new police officers. It's a simple googling to find academic cites for police perjury (and your doing so won't trip this site's ridiculous spam filter) Admittedly, most of the cites I was able to find were guesswork and anecdotes masquerading as data. That you cite to public opinion polls of the trustworthiness of LEOs, speaks to the general public's opinion, but not to the actual veracity of LEO's. The fact is that most people not in the criminal justice industry---either as subjects or employees---aren't acquainted with actual police testimony. They are acquainted with positive images of police in media (Balko's and CATO's work excepted) and in popular entertainment. In most of those images, police lie, but not substantively. And when they do lie substantively, it's shown as an aberration, e.g. The Shield.
        
        But for those who do have experience with the criminal justice system, it's a different story. You guys lie a lot, and while Reason does stories like this one in order to throw red meat at their hit counts, for you to claim that both most LEOs don't lie, and LEO's are treated like everyone else by TPTB when it comes to using lethal force is just insultingly untrue.
        
        Coeus 14 years ago
        
        This:
        Because in damn near every interaction they've ever had with a cop, the cop lied.
        
        Gets this response:
        most people (as cited in polls) respect the police and do not view them as liars
        
        Thank you for once again purposefully missing the point. Most people don't have interactions with the police. If you only poll those that do, you might just get a different result. There are many conservatives who become libertarians specifically because of interactions they've had with the police. That being the case, it's hardly suprising that this sentiment keeps popping up here.
        
        Coeus 14 years ago
        
        Christ, twice in one thread. I've got to start refreshing.
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        most people do.
        
        i am including traffic stops, etc.
        
        that's reality
        
        do you know anybody who has never been pulled over by a cop or never interacted with one?
        
        they are a minority
        
        hth
Tread 14 years ago

Can Reason post the video when it becomes available?
sage 14 years ago

Where can we watch this onlineeeee?!?!?!?!
sage 14 years ago

Where can we watch this onlineeeee?!?!?!?!
sage 14 years ago

Where can we watch this onlineeeee?!?!?!?!
sage 14 years ago

Where can we watch this onlineeeee?!?!?!?!
sage 14 years ago

Where can we watch this onlineeeee?!?!?!?!
sage 14 years ago

Where can we watch this onlineeeee?!?!?!?!
sage 14 years ago

Where can we watch this onlineeeee?!?!?!?!
sage 14 years ago

Where can we watch this onlineeeee?!?!?!?!
sage 14 years ago

Where can we watch this onlineeeee?!?!?!?!
sage 14 years ago

Where can we watch this onlineeeee?!?!?!?!
sage 14 years ago

Where can we watch this onlineeeee?!?!?!?!
sage 14 years ago

Where can we watch this onlineeeee?!?!?!?!
1. Joe M 14 years ago
  
  C-c-c-combo breaker!
sage 14 years ago

Where can we watch this onlineeeee?!?!?!?!
sage 14 years ago

Where can we watch this onlineeeee?!?!?!?!
sage 14 years ago

Where can we watch this onlineeeee?!?!?!?!
sage 14 years ago

Where can we watch this onlineeeee?!?!?!?!
1. Fist of Etiquette 14 years ago
  
  Way to break the internet.
  1. Citizen Nothing 14 years ago
    
    Quick. Somebody unplug it and plug it back in.
2. Hazel Meade 14 years ago
  
  Most obscure humorous reference win.
Gilmore, via iPhone 14 years ago

Something in the details seems off to me:

Cans, or bottles?

24oz cans are very common (aka "taller tall-boys")

24oz bottles, much less so. 22, yeah, 40, fo sho. But when they say "24", unless he was buying obscure European imports... He had a couple cans.

Would getting hit with a beer can hurt? Sure. But nowhere near as threatening as getting clocked with glass.

I'm nitpicking because the story seems to flip between referencing bottles and cans... And given the lack of clarity about what really happened, the details make a difference. Cans don't quite "explode" the way bottles do... And the way it is characterized sort of suggests that "exploding beer" might have been mistaken for gunfire... Whereas a popping can would . It almost seems like these details were mentioned simply to add layers of potential (mis)interpretation....

Maybe I'm just nitpicking.

I used to ask "adults" (guidos, really, who don't really deserve to be called that) to buy beer when I was a youngun in high http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki.....-beer.jpg. Strangely, no one was ever killed in connection with the activity. Maybe that's cause we were white.
1. DUNPHY 14 years ago
  
  or because nobody ever struck a cop in the head with bottles /cans when you did it
  
  i've done plenty o' liquor stings with the liquor board for this kind of stuff
  
  never have we shot anybody
  1. You are part of the problem 14 years ago
    
    The fact that police departments encourage asinine policies such as "drinking ages" makes them responsible for the bullshit that escalates because of the policy. You don't see this shit in Europe.
    1. DUNPHY 14 years ago
      
      it isn't the PD's. it's the legislature. personally, i think AT A MAXIMUM, the drinking age should be 18
      
      we don't make the law
      
      i'm more than willing, and have on numerous occasions cut teens a break for possessing alcohol
      
      store clerks who SELL to them?
      
      nope
      1. Cheeseburger 14 years ago
        
        You are responsible for your actions. Unless you can prove that the "legislature" has implanted some king of chip in your brain that makes you into a shit sucking thug.
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        i am responsible for my actions and i believe in the rule of law. i can't agree with every law i enforce nor can any sentient law abiding citizen agree with every law they obey
        
        it's called rule of law
        
        deal with it
        
        GILMORE 14 years ago
        
        you forgot the part about, "except when we decide not to enforce things at our own discretion"
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        i've addressed that many times.
        
        GILMORE 14 years ago
        
        dunphy|7.13.11 @ 12:26AM|#
        i've done that many times.
        
        FIFY
  2. GILMORE 14 years ago
    
    DUNPHY|7.12.11 @ 5:38PM|#
    
    i've done plenty o' liquor stings with the liquor board for this kind of stuff
    
    Really?
    
    Have you ever wondered what it was like to have a real job?
    1. dunphy 14 years ago
      
      troll-o-meter: .02
  3. GILMORE 14 years ago
    
    i've done plenty o' liquor stings with the liquor board for this kind of stuff
    
    never have we shot anybody
    
    As long as the payoffs keep coming, right? Why ruin such a good scam?
    1. dunphy 14 years ago
      
      if you have a problem with the cops citing clerks for selling to minors fine.
      
      i don't
      1. GILMORE 14 years ago
        
        I dont recall this incident involving 'citations' as much as 'shooting unarmed man in front of his son'
        
        "Equivocation: it's what's for breakfast."
2. Beck 14 years ago
  
  Bottles and cans and just clap your hands, and just clap your hay-ands.
joshua corning 14 years ago

Rohrschach's test

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeFZXNDz7uA

I liked the movie's ended better then the comic's.

Framing Dr Manhattan rather then some alien threat seemed more plausible.
1. db 14 years ago
  
  Disagree. But the movie would have to have been an hour longer to cover the secret construction of the alien body. The idea of the top minds in the world being recruited for the project and then being wiped out was perfect, since Veidt would have to have assumed some would be smart enough to figure out his plan. Thus he was able to kill two birds. This is a major loose end the book tied up but the movie left hanging.
P Brooks 14 years ago

Number one:

The only reason this "confrontation" ever took place was because some "kids" (who were probably legally adults in *most* respects) were trying to get somebody to buy them some beer.

Seriously, what the fuck?

Why didn't those scumbag cops just drive into the parking lot and say "knock it off, you bozos, and stop pestering the customers" and drive away?

Morons enforcing a moronic law, but this IN NO WAY justifies anything which happened here. Anything which happened after Turner says, "No, this beer is not for those guys over there, it's for me" is on the shoulders of those two pigs, and nobody else.

I'd like to see Judge Napolitano get the head of MADD on his show and ask him how proud he is of himself.

Number two:

If you have a plastic grocery bag in your hand, and somebody makes a grab for you, if you reflexively put your hands up to defend yourself, where is that bag (and everything in it) going to end up?
1. DUNPHY 14 years ago
  
  if you think drinking age laws should be changed, notify the legislature. soliciting adults ot buy liquor for you (as a minor) and/or being the adult who does so are both crimes in every state i am aware of and certainly something cops are going to investigate if a citizen complaint comes in, as one did
  
  i've done plenty of liquor stings with the liquor board btw. but we never shot anybody
  1. YOU are part of the problem 14 years ago
    
    Conveniently ignoring the fact that the brotherhood of police actively campaigns the same legislature for higher drinking ages and stricter enforcement. Then you give us the bullshit Eichmann defense when something goes bad.
    1. DUNPHY 14 years ago
      
      i'm not aware MY police union has ever done so
      
      i am well aware that the IACP has. those are cop-o-crat police chiefs, not cops
      
      btw, the eichmann reference is lame
      
      we are not nazi germany because we set a drinking age of 21 (which doesn't apply in my state if your parent provides the liquor)
      1. Sy 14 years ago
        
        No, we're Nazi Germany when police can execute you without a trial.
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        and if the cops executed this guy (not in evidence) lemme know.
        
        Sy 14 years ago
        
        That'll be easy. Let's take a trip down to the coroner's office.
        
        Sy 14 years ago
        
        Oh, wait. right. It was "self-defense"
2. DUNPHY 14 years ago
  
  btw, DUI related (and overall) road fatalities and injuries are WAY down since MADD got legislators and cops (who tended to not give fuck-all about dui to large extent) to start taking DUI seriously
  
  good for MADD
  
  DUI is not a victimless crime
  
  i could not care less what drug a person does if he aint putting others in danger
  
  drive impaired though? fuck you. you deserve the arrest
  
  and i say that despite the fact that a couple of my fellow officers were arrested for DUI
  
  do the DUI - deal with the penalty
  1. Coeus 14 years ago
    
    DUI is not a victimless crime
    
    I thought you bought a dictionary after the electrocution thing.
    1. dunphy 14 years ago
      
      you still haven't bought a clue if you think tasers electrocute people
      
      they SHOCK them, not electrocute. and we have gone over the distinction
      
      from wikipedia:
      Electrocution is also frequently used to refer to any electric shock received but is technically incorrect. This choice in definition varies from dictionary to dictionary (electrocution implies death by the shock - shock is the word you mean)
      1. Coeus 14 years ago
        
        electrocution implies death by the shock
        
        Which is what happens when you get shocked and die. Why is this so difficult for you?
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        only if the shock caused the death.
        
        Coeus 14 years ago
        
        only if the shock caused the death.
        
        Bingo. It can and does. I gave you an example last time, and there's more. Most of the time, Taser's lawyers come in after the report is written and sue to insert the phrase "excited delirium" in place of electrocution to protect themselves from a lawsuit. It changes nothing. Excited delirium is a fantasy diagnosis that only occurs to people in police custody. No legitimate medical authority acknowledges it's existence.
        
        Sy 14 years ago
        
        electrocution implies being electrocuted, not dying. stop fucking playing semantics.
        
        Coeus 14 years ago
        
        electrocution implies being electrocuted, not dying. stop fucking playing semantics.
        
        No, he's right. He just refuses to admit that the shock causes death, despite the fact that death can and does happen immediatly after the shock is administered.
CE 14 years ago

Sounds like assault, battery, assault with a deadly weapon, and murder charges should be filed.
P Brooks 14 years ago

If a private citizen was getting his head bashed in by beer cans, I'd support his right to use deadly force in that case too.

Don't get him started about what he'd do if somebody threw a snowball at him.
wayne 14 years ago

in jail?
P Brooks 14 years ago

Is this our regular Fearless Fosdick, or his understudy?
P Brooks 14 years ago

Or a spoof?
P Brooks 14 years ago

i've done plenty o' liquor stings with the liquor board for this kind of stuff

You must be awfully proud.
1. DUNPHY 14 years ago
  
  i have no problem with it whatsoever. i've cited about 2 dozen store clerks for selling to minors and they deserved it.
  
  it's not fucking complicated. don't sell alcohol to minors
  
  it is perfectly legal to provide alcohol to minors. if it's YOUR kid in your residence. legal under my state's law
  
  clerks who knowingly sell to minors deserve the cite
  1. robc 14 years ago
    
    Including 18-20 yeard old minors?
    
    They DONT deserve the cite because the law is WRONG.
    1. DUNPHY 14 years ago
      
      i wasn't citing minors. i was citing STORE clerks.
      
      i agree the law is wrong. i don't get carte blanche to pick and choose which laws to enforce in all situations
      
      i don't think a felony conviction for a nonviolent felony should warrant rescinding of gun rights either. but i arrest convicted felons with guns
      
      again, blame the legislator
      
      i don't think the age to drink should be any more than 18, and an argument could be made for 16
      1. robc 14 years ago
        
        The store clerks are selling to 18-20 year olds, in my example, so they arent selling to minors anyway. And if it isnt wrong for an 18-20 to buy, it isnt wrong for the clerk to sell.
        
        i don't get carte blanche to pick and choose which laws to enforce in all situations
        
        Bullshit. You always have that choice.
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        not when you are a street crimes detective and your sgt. assigns your squad to do a liquor sting with the liquor board you don't
        
        but again, just like you hold cops to a higher standard, i hold the clerks to a higher standard
        
        19 yr old w/ a beer?
        
        who fucking cares
        
        store clerk sells to a 19 yr old?
        
        i care
        
        robc 14 years ago
        
        i care
        
        Why? You have already stated that you think it should be legal, so why would you care?
        
        not when you are a street crimes detective and your sgt. assigns your squad to do a liquor sting with the liquor board you don't
        
        Bullshit. You still have a choice. You might get fired for your choice, but it is still your choice. You have free will.
        
        just like you hold cops to a higher standard, i hold the clerks to a higher standard
        
        Clerks arent government employees. I only hold those imbued with power by the state to a higher standard.
        
        robc 14 years ago
        
        Shorter version of middle bit:
        
        If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        rush quotes aside, i HAVE chosen
        
        i have chosen a noble career that is rewarding and where i can do a lot of good.
        
        i ACCEPT that i am not judge dredd and do not get to summarily punish the obviously guilty as fuck nor do i get to carte blanche ignore every law that is moronic (some i can. others, not so much) and that doing the right thing under the law sometimes means that the obviously guilty go free (oh well), etc.
        
        the canard is that it is only moral to be a cop if
        1) you happen to agree with every law you enforce
        or
        2) you do not enforce any law you think is unjust or bad policy
        
        these are stupid conclusions, but the argument du jour pretty much every thread i am in
        '
        and again, by this logic, nobody should prescribe drugs since when you do, you have to do all kinds of shit that facilitates the DEA and cops prosecuting drug users etc (mandatory reporters when prescription fraud is perpetrated for example)
        
        robc 14 years ago
        
        noble career
        
        Really, noble? Would you care to state which careers are ignoble? Or merely common?
        
        Fuck the nobles. Off with their heads.
        
        Sy 14 years ago
        
        "i have chosen a noble career that is rewarding and where i can do a lot of good."
        
        Ecce Homo
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        jocko homo
        D E V O
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        jesus christ, rob. do you really believe this shit or are you arguing for the sake of arguing?
        
        it just amazes me how some people never get beyond the teenage stoner style of philosophy and argumentation
        
        there's a real world out there. enjoy it.
        
        Sy 14 years ago
        
        sorry to hear that went way over your head.
  2. YOU are part of the problem 14 years ago
    
    He's so proud to be enforcing victimless crime laws. What a power-mad sick fuck.
    1. DUNPHY 14 years ago
      
      i have no problem criminally citing store clerks who sell alcohol to minors.
      
      yes.
      
      no problem.
      
      i , and most cops i know will cut a 18-20 yr old a break for possessing alcohol, though
      1. GILMORE 14 years ago
        
        DUNPHY|7.12.11 @ 6:30PM|#
        
        i , and most cops i know will cut a 18-20 yr old a break for possessing alcohol, though
        
        So what you're saying is you selectively choose to enforce laws at your own discretion.
        
        You are a fucking toad.
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        i have explained ad nauseum we have some discretion. i use it to (generally) cut a 18-20 yr old a break. most cops i know do the same.
        
        GILMORE 14 years ago
        
        The ad nauseum part I see.
        
        The cogent rationale behind discretionary application of 'Teh Law' that you on occasion seem to find so sacrosanct? Not seeing it.
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        then don't see it. it's part o' the job
        
        GILMORE 14 years ago
        
        I am aware that relying on unstated arguments is part of your job.
        
        Its the shooting people who were minding their own @(#)! business part we're trying to parse here.
      2. robc 14 years ago
        
        Buying as a 19 year old and selling to a 19 year old is the exact same "crime".
        
        Why will you cut one a break and not the other? I dont see a moral difference.
        
        Tulpa 14 years ago
        
        It's not the same crime.
        
        robc 14 years ago
        
        Yes it is. Oh, not in the law books, but morally.
        
        robc 14 years ago
        
        In fact, how two adults negotiating a purchase over a legal product can be considered two different crimes (or even a crime at all) is beyond me.
        
        Tulpa 14 years ago
        
        Buying is not the same thing as selling. They're completely different acts, as different as teaching and learning.
        
        tarran 14 years ago
        
        Ah, so when Alex trades with Bob to exchanges good C with good D, the one trading money is carrying out a different act.
        
        Got it.
        
        robc 14 years ago
        
        Same issue as with prostitution. Technically, the whore and the john might be charged with different crimes, but they committed the same "crime" which is none.
        
        Tulpa 14 years ago
        
        That's quite the logical pretzel you've tied yourself up in. But my sodium levels are too high so I won't indulge.
        
        robc 14 years ago
        
        Not a logical pretzel at all.
        
        dunphy somehow lets 19 year olds slide but busts the clerk for selling to 19 year olds.
        
        It makes no sense. Neither should be a crime (and he agrees), but somehow he is okay with busting 1 but not the other.
        
        Its like cops who only arrested whores but let the johns go. Which happens, and is just as wrong.
        
        They are committing the same crime. Even if they are defined differently, you can charge both with both as they are accessories to the other crime.
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        under the penal code, they are often quite different crimes. minor with alcohol is often only a civil infraction and/or a petty misdemeanor. selling to minors is usually a gross misdemeanor
        
        and again, i hold the business to a higher standard as does the law.
        
        19 yr old with a beer?
        
        whatever
        
        store clerk selling to them?
        
        ever
        
        robc 14 years ago
        
        The minor is an accessory to the gross misdemeanor.
        
        You have already stated that you think it is bad law. So why is the selling side somehow worse in your mind (not the state's mind- not that the state has one)?
        
        Look, if Im on a jury for both cases, I nullify both. I dont let the purchaser off and convict the seller. Because they are both equal partners in the act. Both are adults and are fully responsible for their actions and both no exactly what they are doing.
        
        robc 14 years ago
        
        Sorry, bad language on my part, 19 year olds are not minors.
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        depends on how the term is used. and many penal codes make that distinction.
        
        they define minor (and adult) DIFFERENTLY in some cases depending on the statute
        
        robc 14 years ago
        
        "The law is an ass" - Dickens
        
        When the law defines a 19 year old as a minor it is wrong.
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        you are absolutely w/in your rights to nullify. more power to you. that's the job of the jury, if their conscience so inspires them
        
        again, i hold the clerk (the distributor) a licensee and one who is extensively trained how to check id's etc. and duly warned about the consequences to a higher standard. he is acting as a representative of his store and is the holder of special license (by proxy) - to sell alcohol.
        
        he must exercise a standard of caution
        
        a 19 yr old who wants to drink a beer is just thirsty.
        
        sorry, but we can agree to disagree. the clerk is facilitating others to break the law and using his liquor license and his employer's establishment to do so.
        
        i grok your point ... i just don't agree with it
        
        robc 14 years ago
        
        the clerk is facilitating others to break the law
        
        So you would have arrested Rosa Parks?
        
        i grok your point ... i just don't agree with it
        
        Then you dont grok it. That word has meaning and I dont think it is possible to grok something without also agreeing with it.
        
        robc 14 years ago
        
        Martians arent self-loathing.
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        jesus christ, you are a pompous ass.
        
        the difference between us is i can disagree with somebody and not accuse them of ignorance
        
        in your world, if i don't AGREE with your argument, i am just ignorant and don't understand it.
        
        that's a pretty strong indictment of your childishness.
        
        yup, everybody who disagrees with you is just ignorant. school them!
        
        robc 14 years ago
        
        the difference between us is i can disagree with somebody and not accuse them of ignorance
        
        Says the person who is throwing "ignorance" all around.
        
        Other than insulting your reading comprehension skills after you called me ignorant, I havent insulted your intelligence at all.
        
        Yet you keep using that word.
        
        in your world, if i don't AGREE with your argument, i am just ignorant and don't understand it.
        
        That isnt what I said. I said you dont grok my argument. That is because that word has specific meaning. It comes from the Martian word meaning "to drink". It means to understand something so deeply that it has become part of you. To claim to grok something while disagreeing with it just isnt possible.
        
        robc 14 years ago
        
        Or, I could go mathematical on you, which you should understand, and say that all empty sets are equivalent.
Ken Hagler 14 years ago

Wouldn't the autopsy results reveal which story was true? If he was swinging a bag at cop A and cop B shot him, the bullets would have hit him moving roughly parallel to the ground, whereas if he'd been knocked to the ground and then shot, the bullets would have hit him while moving downwards, yes?
1. DUNPHY 14 years ago
  
  not to mention the cop went to the hospital for getting hit in the head and if the story is true the medical report will corroborate it
  1. Invisible Finger 14 years ago
    
    Since I have no reason to believe dunphy since he freely admits he is a cop, is this true? These would be personal medical records, after all. Seems like there has to be a very high threshold, like criminal trial evidence requests, in order to see those medical reports. IANAL so I would like the opinion of someone who is.
    1. DUNPHY 14 years ago
      
      there are all sorts of ways - such as the cop consenting to release the medical records, or them being gotten via warrant.
      
      HPPA is not sacrosanct.
      
      there are various exceptions.
      
      you don't have to be a lawyer. i've gotten medical records on numerous occasions for cases. usually, it's by patient consent.
      
      getting it by warrant depends on certain facts, but if the cop's injuries were germane to a deadly force case, they can get them
      
      furthermore, the cop's injuries will help exonerate the OTHER officer who shot the guy. i guarantee he will release them
  2. Ken Hagler 14 years ago
    
    I should add, though, that I'm more than a little dubious about whether hitting someone in the head with a couple of cans of beer justifies lethal force in California. Would I, as a mere peasant who lives in California, be arrested or convicted if I killed someone who hit me in the head with a hard object?
    
    This is not an idle question, because if the answer is "yes," it means I would have been legally justified in killing several dozen people while I was stuck in the California public schools. Call me crazy, but I just can't shake the suspicion that if I had actually done that, I'd still be in prison.
    1. DUNPHY 14 years ago
      
      lethal force is justified (among other reasons) when the level of force you encounter is "likely to cause death or serious bodily injury"
      
      stoving somebody over the melon with a beer bottle would certainly apply, and especially when the stover is a former NFL running back and likely able to use significant force.
      
      as an analogy, i once did NOT shoot somebody who was choking my partner because she was screaming. that indicates air exchange.
      
      iow, hitting somebody over the head with a limp noodle not much
      
      a beer bottle, especially swung with significant force?
      
      absolutely
      1. Sy 14 years ago
        
        Good luck getting jurors and judges to reach a consensus on that.
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        jurors only have to reach a consensus on GUILTY or NOT GUILTY. otherwise- mistrial
P Brooks 14 years ago

DUI is not a victimless crime

Wrong.

Crashing your car into somebody else's person or property, regardless of blood alcohol level, is not a victimless crime.

Getting into your car and driving it home without hitting anything or anyone shouldn't be a crime at all, even in your fevered authoritarian baboon imagination.
1. DUNPHY 14 years ago
  
  oh spare me this rubbish. i guess shooting a gun into a crowd shouldn't be a crime either, unless the bullets hit somebody...
  
  yawn
  1. Sy 14 years ago
    
    The purpose of a firearm is to kill or cause injury. A person firing a firearm AT other people, in all likelihood, has only the intention of causing harm. The purpose of a vehicle is to transport. A drunk who is driving does so with the intention to arrive at their destination, not to cause injury to another.
    1. dunphy 14 years ago
      
      you are ASSUMING a mens rea of intent to cause harm
      
      a person can fire at or towards a crowd out of reckless or wanton and willful etc. not necessarily with intent to harm anybody
      
      example: a guy sees a deer he wants to shoot next to a group of people. his intent may be to shoot the deer. but he recklessly places the people in danger (more or less so depending on his marksmanship_
      
      a drunk doesn't (usually) intend on putting others in danger. his intent is usually to get home. but the same crowd is put in undue risk by his behavior, even though that is not his intent
      
      and both acts are unlawful
      
      for the same reason
      1. Sy 14 years ago
        
        "you are ASSUMING a mens rea of intent to cause harm"
        
        No, I'm telling you what the purpose of a firearm is, dumbass. Holy fuck! And you are entrusted to holster one of these things? Hey, did you know that the purpose of can-openers is to open fucking cans? What a fucking idiot.
        
        Sy 14 years ago
        
        Jesus Christ. Do you listen to yourself? If a person is in public and they are in possession of a fire arm.. and they load their weapon.. and point it in the vicinity of other human beings.. they understand that by pulling the trigger, they are attempting to discharge their weapon. And what comes out of that weapon? A bullet. And what was the ONLY. FUCKING. REASON. guns were invented in the first place?
        
        You can play semantics and 'the law sez' with this all you want, but you've got to be beyond handicap to not understand that discharging your firearm AT other human beings is an attempt to kill.
      2. Sy 14 years ago
        
        "you are ASSUMING a mens rea of intent to cause harm"
        
        And you're not doing the same god damned thing with someone driving with a BAC above .08%?
  2. Night Elf Mohawk 14 years ago
    
    Shooting a gun into a crowd is inherently dangerous. Driving home while safely operating a motor vehicle, regardless of the intoxication or lack thereof of the driver, isn't.
    
    When the driver starts driving erratically, you're on to something. Until then, there is no victim and there is nothing inherently dangerous about the action.
P Brooks 14 years ago

a couple of my fellow officers were arrested for DUI

Gosh, Fearless, that's swell. It's just like equality under the law.

I wonder how, exactly they were found out; could it be they CRASHED INTO SOMETHING?
1. DUNPHY 14 years ago
  
  no. not the two i know
P Brooks 14 years ago

oh spare me this rubbish.

If nobody has been harmed, where is the victim?
1. DUNPHY 14 years ago
  
  in my example. you shoot into a crowd and nobody is struck by a bullet. is this a "victimless crime" in your understanding?
  
  answer that and i'll respond
  1. Skeeter 14 years ago
    
    You do realize, Dunphy, that you are responding to mow-rons?
    1. DUNPHY 14 years ago
      
      yes. every time i think i'm out THEY DRAG ME BACK IN
      
      the morans (tm) i mean
      1. Skeeter 14 years ago
        
        It's somewhat ironic (given the adolescent epithets) that it's you who is casting pearls before swine.
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        i'll buy that.
2. Tulpa 14 years ago
  
  Who is the victim of perjury when they lie under oath in a way that favors the defendant?
  
  Who is the victim of counterfeiting currency?
  
  Who is the victim of treason?
  1. Coeus 14 years ago
    
    Who is the victim of perjury when they lie under oath in a way that favors the defendant?
    
    The victim of the crime the defendant is on trial for.
    
    Who is the victim of counterfeiting currency?
    
    Everyone who has any amount of that currency which has been devaulued.
    
    Who is the victim of treason?
    
    Anyone who is harmed as a result of that treason.
    
    Did you think these were gotchas?
? 14 years ago

Sheriff's Deputy Kills Former NFL Player Outside a Convenience Store

So what if he played for the NFL? How is that relevant? Did he have a grandmother too? Did he like puppies and long walks on the beach?
1. dunphy 14 years ago
  
  if he was a former olympic medalist, or child tv star it would be considered relevant by the media, too
  
  it's not whether it's relevant to whether the shooting was justified. that's not why the media writes stories.
  
  it increases public interest. the media has a product for sale, and this makes it more valuable.
  
  it's smart business
  1. ? 14 years ago
    
    it's smart business
    
    And bad journalism. Which was my point.
Koan 14 years ago

Reading this thread has been a bit distressing. It seems as if there is a great deal of reflexive response going on here: civilian vs. cops = cops are pigs and simply MUST be lying.
The sad part of this is the fact that the reflex is probably warranted given the awful track record of LEO.
The state has abused so frequently, so egregiously and so openly that their agents have squandered a good portion of the public's good will, which means that they will not receive the benefit of the doubt and will be subject to the intense passions they helped to create.
1. Skeeter 14 years ago
  
  It seems as if there is a great deal of reflexive response going on here
  
  Gee, ya' think so? Why won't anyone take libertarians seriously?
  1. db 14 years ago
    
    Maybe the question you should be asking is "why is there so much distrust and fear of police officers in this country?" That might be a little more productive.
    
    There are those of us who are not simply reflexive cop-haters, but abhor the violent, rights-abusive culture that has grown up around this nation's peace officers. I don't hate cops; I have been known to hang out with a few. But even the ones I have the opportunity to spend time with come up with some of the most disgusting anecdotes, tales of willful violation of rights, goading citizens into minor infractions to have an excuse to arrest them and "teach them a lesson," and completely unnecessary violence in apprehending non-violent suspects, really horrible stuff of a nature that is guaranteed to erode the public trust.
    
    Don't forget; non-cops tell anecdotes too, and those stories spread. And when the stories are about cops willfully abusing their positions for petty power trips, the overall societal opinion of cops decays.
    
    Look into the rotten police culture, made more untrustworthy every year by the increasing militarization of police departments. Look at people wondering why the police are busy chasing speeders and hassling minorities rather than doing some damn detective work on cases of breaking-and-entering and burglary. Look at institutional pressures to define crimes downward to make statistics look better, and ask why--why?!--do people mistrust the police.
    
    Your house is not clean.
    There is a beam in your eye.
    1. dunphy 14 years ago
      
      ah, this discredited meme AGAIN
      
      multiple times. by polls
2. DUNPHY 14 years ago
  
  the reflex is probably NOT warranted, but if people only read selective (and often biased) accounts of police misconduct, then they get a bias inconstent with reality
  
  most cops go iirc about 12-14 yrs w/o even firing a shot and the vast majority of shootings are obviously justified.
  
  those don't generally make reason.com
  
  i have no opinion on this case since i don't know who is telling the truth but if and when the cops are exonerated, the reason ignorati will ignore that since it upsets the cops are pigs metanarrative
  
  reason bloggers discussing cops are like daily kossacks discussing corporations
  1. ? 14 years ago
    
    Confirmation bias.
    1. dunphy 14 years ago
      
      yes. same point being made constantly.
      1. ? 14 years ago
        
        You can get the same results with chimps. Just sayin'.
  2. Sy 14 years ago
    
    those don't generally make reason.com
    
    In the military, I've seen highly decorated Marines given non-judicial punishment and courts martial for making negligent mistakes or not following orders.
    My old chief warrant officer used to tell us "Just because you did what you were supposed to do that first 99 times, doesn't mean you get off for fucking up that 100th time".
    
    To the boot lickers, we should praise them highly for doing the job they're fucking paid to do, and never criticize them or hold them accountable for their fuckups.
    1. dunphy 14 years ago
      
      nice strawmen.
      1. Sy 14 years ago
        
        You have no idea what a "strawmen" argument is or consists of, do you?
      2. Sy 14 years ago
        
        The point is that this is yet another example of differences in standards of acceptable behavior.
        
        Military: You do your job, get in some firefights, and pull someone out of the line of fire? You get some medals. You forget to shave and get a haircut? You lose rank. You kill innocents of your own will? You go to the fucking brig.
        And you know how often people say "but, but, I'm a hero"? Fucking never.
        
        Police: You go to work, you write some tickets, and call in back up and surround the house for a domestic violence call? You get some medals and some commendations.
        Your gun "accidentally discharges" and the bullet then enters the "suspects" body? You got a union, the entire police department spokesperson, and your lawyers screaming "but, but, look at my record!"
        
        Huge difference in acceptable behavior.
P Brooks 14 years ago

Your example is bullshit. Is the shooter a knowledgeable, experienced marksman? Is he attempting unsuccessfully to hit someone? Is he attempting successfully to NOT HIT ANYONE? It makes a difference, you know.

If nobody is struck, there is no victim.

Unless you want to make the claim society is somehow the victim.
1. DUNPHY 14 years ago
  
  my example is not bullshit. a claim was made that if noone is harmed , it is a victimless crime e.g "Getting into your car and driving it home without hitting anything or anyone shouldn't be a crime at all, even in your fevered authoritarian baboon imagination."
  
  that's complete rubbish and thank god most people and most every nation on earth recognizes the speciousness of this logic
  if one shoots into a crowd without striking anybody *(assume a silencer was used and they aren't even aware of it), nobody is harmed
  
  again, this is the common funhouse mirror argument that is used here about DUI by only a select few and its ridiculous
  
  "dui shouldn't be illegal unless you hit somebody" is beyond stupid.
  
  get a real argument
2. Tulpa 14 years ago
  
  So I guess you don't think attempted murder is a crime.
  
  If person A walks up to person B in a dark alley, pulls out a knife, and attempts to stab person B, but person B successfully resists and takes the knife away without getting injured, can person A be prosecuted for anything? No one was harmed by his actions.
  1. Coeus 14 years ago
    
    Why do you two keep using these crap examples? If you pull a gun (much less pull a trigger), you'd better be prepared to kill someone. This is basic gun control. There is no other reason to shoot a gun at people than to kill them. If you try to stab someone, same deal.
    If you get in a car with a BAC above an arbitriarily assigned percentage, that in no way implies that you are trying to harm someone. Unlike both of the other examples, you have a damn good reason for what you did, mainly trying to get from point A to point B. This is why most people drive vehicles. These examples have no bearing on bullshit revenue raising DUI laws, and to pretend that they do is intellectually dishonest.
    1. Sy 14 years ago
      
      Give up. They're going to keep equivocating murders and murder weapons to drunk drivers and cars. This is dunphy and Tulpa at their finest.
      1. dunphy 14 years ago
        
        nice lies. seems to be a pattern with you.
        
        i argue the law. you argue lies. stunning insight.
        
        Sy 14 years ago
        
        You're the one equivocating weapons with vehicles, not me, you idiot.
    2. dunphy 14 years ago
      
      it's not a crap example. both are examples of reckless behavior (same mens rea) that do not require intent to hurt anybody but very likely can
      
      don't want to get arrested for drunk driving? don't do it.
      
      there is no right in the constitution or in your fantasy world that establishes a right to drive impaired/.08
      
      dui apologists. ONLY on reason
      1. Sy 14 years ago
        
        "there is no right in the constitution or in your fantasy world that establishes a right to drive impaired/.08"
        
        You've officially proven you have the constitutional knowledge of a 4th grader.
      2. Coeus 14 years ago
        
        I very clearly explained the reason they were different. If you shoot randomly into a crowd and don't intend to hurt anyone, then you need to be commited to a mental hospital, because there is no other reason to do so. That's why it's a crap example. Driving over an arbitrary BAC limit isn't the same. I just explained that. Very clearly. If you want argue that, then please do so. But stop pretending that all I said was that it was a crap example.
        
        don't want to get arrested for drunk driving? don't do it.
        
        We weren't talking about drunk driving, we were talking about DUI, which is driving above an arbitrary BAC limit.
      3. Night Elf Mohawk 14 years ago
        
        What's your justification for calling DUI reckless if there is no evidence of impaired driving other that the .08 itself? You like to point out strawmen a lot, but that argument is circular. "You're reckless because you blew a .08 and the .08 shows you were reckless."
        
        If I have a .08 but I am operating the vehicle in a safe manner, there's no recklessness. It's only reckless once there is evidence of, you know, recklessness.
P Brooks 14 years ago

So what if he played for the NFL? How is that relevant?

This is, for you, a remarkably astute question. It is important solely because if he had never played in the NFL this story would never have appeared on the media radar at all.
1. ? 14 years ago
  
  The little old ladies in Balko's Another Isolated Incident propaganda series never played for the NFL. But then, they had the advantage of being little old ladies (and grandmothers!)
P Brooks 14 years ago

"dui shouldn't be illegal unless you hit somebody" is beyond stupid.

Nice argument.

Thanks for playing.
1. dunphy 14 years ago
  
  nice stupidity. thanks for retaining it
  1. Night Elf Mohawk 14 years ago
    
    So if I'm observing the speed limit, making safe lane changes using my signal, maintaining proper following distance, etc., but would blow a .08 if tested, where's the recklessness?
Linus 14 years ago

Cops represent the state. Libertarians hate the state; therefore they hate cops and all other authority figures.

And that's what libertarianism is all about, Charlie Brown.
1. robc 14 years ago
  
  all other authority figures
  
  Not true. Not all authority figures represent the state. In fact, the legitimate ones dont.
  1. Linus 14 years ago
    
    For the sake of brevity I wrote, "they hate cops and all other authority figures" when I could have written, "they hate cops and all other authority figures who represent the state." I might have gone on to write, "Libertarians, being anarchists at heart, have no qualms with authority figures so long as the authoritarians are not the state."
    
    "Libertarian principle and the dynamics of social change dictate that we be perpetual state-haters."
    Sheldon Richman, former vice chairman, Libertarian Party*
    
    *Individual Liberty, Nov. 1981, "Smash the Onion," p. 8
    1. robc 14 years ago
      
      being anarchists at heart
      
      False.
      
      Im a minarchist. As are most libertarians.
      1. SIV 14 years ago
        
        fucking statists
        
        Sy 14 years ago
        
        winner.
      2. Linus 14 years ago
        
        robc|7.12.11 @ 7:58PM|#
        Im a minarchist.
        
        Nice dodge. But it's a distinction without a difference. Is a "mini" anarchist morally superior to an anarchist? And if by "minarchist" you really mean a small-government capitalist, why not say it? Why associate yourself with anti-intellectual anarchist goons by labeling yourself a "minarchist"? Are you ashamed of "capitalism" (which, by definition, favors only enough government to guarantee the rights of its citizens)?
  2. Tulpa 14 years ago
    
    Funny thing is, I don't really see cops as authority figures at all. They're just ordinary people. (Admittedly that's probably easier for me being white and economically comfortable, but I've got the impression that's true of most of us here)
    
    Some of the other commenters here who fly off the handle at any cop story seem to have daddy issues or something.
    1. robc 14 years ago
      
      You should be right. The problem is the cops dont see themselves as ordinary people, hence the "civilians" term for the rest of us, even though they are civilians too.
      
      Were the police academies to adopt my admission requirement*, I think that the vast majority of the force would end up like you see them.
      
      *psych profile, anyone scoring above average (for the population as a whole) on "craving for power" is immediately rejected.
      
      Cops who dont expect respect may actually earn it.
      1. dunphy 14 years ago
        
        christ , more astounding ignorance.
        
        nearly every decent sized police dept. (and probably most small ones) administers psych tests and they DO test for those who are power hungry and same are routinely rejected.
        
        among the tests used are the MMPI, and yes (ironically enough) sometimes rorshach.
        
        and thank god we do. it helps weed out the power hungry assholes
        
        robc 14 years ago
        
        Them how come there are still so many power hungry assholes?
        
        robc 14 years ago
        
        I think you have a fundamental reading issue. Did you not see what I said? 50%. I bet they arent throwing out 5%, much less 50% like Im requesting.
        
        And Im ignorant? You cant even fucking read.
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        they are throwing out the ones who meet that standard. it obviously depends on their pool of applicants as to what %age of applicants meet that standard.
        
        i;m libertarian. i abhor quotas. disqualify based on criteria, not %ages of population
        
        robc 14 years ago
        
        The criteria would be the median for the population as a whole.
        
        That might mean slightly more or slightly less than 50% of applicants, so it isnt a quota.
        
        In my previous post, I was being nice to cop applicants and assuming they were a perfect cross-section of humanity. I actually assume they are more power hungry than that. So more than 50% would be cut.
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        assuming arguendo there ARE so many power hungry assholes, one would conclude either
        
        1) the MMPI is a mediocre screening tool (god knows any psych test is
        2) some people can beat the MMPI by lying (the "experts" claim you can't, but they are idiots.
        3) the nature of the job etc. increases the power hungriness of cops after hiring and probation have completed (iow when they could weed them out easily)
        etc.
        
        choose one or more or add your own
        
        but the fact is rather extensive psych testing is administered.
        
        my psychologist told me (lol) "you are so normal, it's almost abnormal".
        
        i also purposefully answered a few IQ questions wrong due to the robert jordan effect.
        
        i still got told i had the highest score he'd ever seen.
        
        and if *I* am the highest score well... do the math :p
        
        robc 14 years ago
        
        I think 1 and 2 are true, but probably a minor effect.
        
        3 is probably true to some extent.
        
        But then there is 4 - they arent cutting enough. They are weeding out the psychopaths, but not the assholes.
        
        They want these people for good reasons, someone with no need for power generally isnt aggressive and may not be a good leader. And probably isnt interested in being a cop to begin with.
        
        you are so normal
        
        So you would be right on the border of being rejected or not. If you were the most power hungry cop on your force, wouldnt it be better?
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        cops HAVE to be assertive. so, the agencies have to weed the MMPI such that power hungry fucksticks get weeded out by underassertive pussies do too. the latter are at least as dangerous to themselves, their partners, and the citizenry - when they fail to act or underuse force and let others get hurt, etc. that's not going to be a popular belief here, but it's true
        
        being a cop is like being a trial lawyer. lack of assertiveness, command presence, etc. and you get walked all over and... to put it briefly - the bad guys win.
        
        there are and always will be tradeoffs. trust me i have seen some people in the interview process who could NEVER be a cop and it's apparent pretty quickly.
        
        the best cops are excellent at verbal judo so to speak, good communicators, good readers of people, AND able to make quick decisions and often aggressive actions without 20 minutes of "well, what does case law in fosdick vs. boobie say and do i need to trike a primary or secondary target here and how will this look on CNN and..."
        
        if you want an example of how lack of assertiveness gets people killed - look at mardi gras in seattle and kris kime. the cop-o-crats failed ot act because cops hitting people iwth sticks would look bad - and kris kime died.
        
        or the daniel kosi case where the admin refused to send in swat when they should have and kosi (who had already killed) killed another by nearly sawing their head off while the cops sat looking at their dicks waiting for some ball-less administrator to give the green light
        
        a bit of assertiveness can also often PREVENT the necessity of a higher level of force. i have NO force complaints and i've used every level of force available, but i also know how to de-escalate and how to take charge when necessary.
        
        just on my SQUAD, we have two cops out on leave with serious suspect caused injury and i am somewhat confident a bit more assertiveness may have helped at least one
        
        robc 14 years ago
        
        There are plenty of people who are assertive with below avg power hungriness ratings.
        
        They are probably harder to find, but that isnt my problem.
        
        Heck, Im assertive and have no interest in power at all (well, beyond that which is mine that governments have stolen from me).
        
        I also have no interest in being a cop.
        
        Tulpa 14 years ago
        
        robc, things to learn more about:
        
        Milgram Experiment
        
        Stanford Prison Experiment
        
        Ordinary people can develop disordered behavior due to their environment. Like they say power corrupts.
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        word
        
        robc 14 years ago
        
        Tulpa, Im familiar with both.
        
        As I said above, 3 is true.
        
        Acton would have been a better example anyway (and yes, you refered to him at the end there).
        
        Of course, since corruption is proportional to power, the key is a very tight control on how much power is given to any government official, including cops.
        
        Which is also why I support tribled penalties for any government official committing a crime as part of their job.
        
        Also, why I support higher standards. EVERY police shooting should go to a grand jury, even the clearly justified ones. The DA should be an absolute bitch towards the cops on things like this, even when the DA knows they were perfectly justified. I dont have a problem with the conviction rate on cops being low if near 100% of incidents went to jury trial.
        
        But to slough off a shooting because "it was justified" without at least a grand jury hearing the evidence is bullshit.
        
        Chicago Nick 14 years ago
        
        See my comment below at the bottom officer, just like Nick Nolte says to Eddie Murphy in the redneck bar they roust at the beginning of Beverly Hills cop with that sweet, Dallas Cowboy looking big titted momma table dancing as the 'out on parole redneck' bolts for the door and gets stiff armed to his assss ....."some of us citizens are behind you all the way officer"
        
        I'm for one sick and tired of these freaking animals having seen my fill up close for 29 years as a Chicago burb resident who's had to pull rods on homies with knives trying to jack my car at a freakin stoplight thinking I was some dumb cracker who stole this car they wanna steal and they were lucky to live that day but I was ready to take them both out like yesterday's garbage.
        
        I can only imagine how you people have to deal with these zoo animals across the nation practically handcuffed behind your back because every time you have to legitimately make a choice between life or death these spoooooks act like you're supposed to give the lifer Hoodies the benefit of the doubt which every time given ends up burning the 'thinking too much' officer.
        
        I say shoot to maim, kill if necessary first and sort it out later. Kill all witnesses when possible and hope for a white jury. I'm not going down like a sack of potato's...not in this life for some lifetime criminal nor should you cops.
        
        GILMORE 14 years ago
        
        ...Also, there's hardly ever any penalty for just shooting someone as long as you can scrape up some semblance of a reason.
2. dunphy 14 years ago
  
  it's really much like racism in its lack of logic.
P Brooks 14 years ago

every time i think i'm out THEY DRAG ME BACK IN

Golly, Fosdick, I was completely unaware you were being coerced to offer up your baboon troop apologias. I feel so sad for you, now.
1. LEAVE DUNPHY ALONE 14 years ago
  
  Fosdick...baboon troop...
  
  WHY WON'T ANYONE TAKE LIBERTARIANS SERIOUSLY?
  1. GILMORE 14 years ago
    
    Maybe you should direct your question to all the people who keep inviting Reason staff to be on TV
    
    Maybe the better question is, why should anyone care about the opinion of the bureaucrats-with-guns that make up law enforcement in this country, keep the drug war alive, drain public coffers, and routinely abuse their authority?
    1. dunphy 14 years ago
      
      the reason staff are far more measured, mature etc. than hit and run
      
      for example, balko. he is sometimes wrong, but he is not stupid, bigoted, prejudiced and does not constantly throw logic and caution to the wind
      1. GILMORE 14 years ago
        
        Whereas shooting unarmed people over a few cans of beer is extremely measured and mature.
        
        I get it now.
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        he wasn't unarmed and he wasn't shot over a few cans (or bottles or whatever it was ) of beer.
        
        he was shot for allegedly striking the cop in the head WITH those beer bottles.
        
        that's the pertinent issue. if true, deadly force was almost certainly justified.
        
        that's the question. is it true?
        
        the initial reason for the stop is irrelevant, and regardless it appears entirely justified - call center receives complaint of people going into store to sell liquor to minors and cops investigate
        
        robc 14 years ago
        
        Just to be clear, 24 oz cans, not bottles.
        
        You keep saying bottles. For someone who has been on liquor raids, you sure are ignorant of the container sizes.
        
        If the 24 ounces is correct, it was cans.
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        i've said more than once that i didn't know whether it was cans or bottles and considering they were (apparently in a bag) , it's quite possible the shooter didn't know either.
        
        assuming the allegations are true, what he likely knew was this guy swung something heavy that went clunk to his partner's head and his partner went down and he went "fuck that, i'm not going to see my partner's skull caved in any further or mine" and BOOM!
        
        and in a very quick period of time with not a lot of room for decision making
        
        the skull is hard as hell and i can tell you that head wounds bleed profusely, but it's pretty difficult to literally crush a skull with a beer can swung in a bag (remember former firefighter/EMT) however, you HAVE to (under use of force doctrine) understand that that's nice pontificating but not really relevant to the force decision
        
        cop sees the guy swing it at his partners head and his partner go down (and likely bleeding like fuck) and /.or unconscious and it's a green light for a shoot unless that guy drops it pronto and prones out
        
        robc 14 years ago
        
        You are leaving out a scenario, it was justifiable self defense.
        
        In which case the partner committed murder.
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        no, i'm not. i said ASSUMING THE ALLEGATIONS ARE TRUE
        
        obviously if they aren't, and in the scenarios mentioned - they aren't, then a different conclusion applies
        
        i have no idea IF the allegations of the cops are true. i said IF they were true deadly force is justified.
        
        hth
        
        robc 14 years ago
        
        i've said more than once that i didn't know whether it was cans or bottles
        
        The point is, if it was 24 ozs, there is only 1 possibility - can.
        
        GILMORE 14 years ago
        
        Yeah, but if you just make sure to keep *saying* bottles..., along with repeatedly mentioning the guy's reprehensible scofflaw record (with insinuations that lawlessness of this type is nothing but a slippery slope to Cop Killing.... and his being a Scary Black Old Football Player who could probably kill a healthy grown man with a bag of peanuts....much less aluminum cans that fratboys smash against their heads for fun on a regular basis... well then it starts to at least *sound* like something anyone would Shoot To Kill over.
        
        ""He made a move! I had to get it on!"
        
        dunphy 14 years ago
        
        that's wonderful rhetoric but silly. swing a bag with a 24 oz can(s) and/or bottles and it will make a loud clunk. do it hard enough and you are talking concussion/unconsciousness and.or bleeding
        
        and size (former runningback) means fuck-all with gunz. it means a lot with impact weapons, which is what is alleged here.
        
        GILMORE 14 years ago
        
        You will have to excuse me, but its hard for rhetoric to not be silly when potential "death-by-beer-can" is taken so seriously by the current ostensible representative of 'Responsible Law Enforcement'
        
        GILMORE 14 years ago
        
        You will have to excuse me, but its hard for rhetoric to not be silly when potential "death-by-beer-can" is taken so seriously by the current ostensible representative of 'Responsible Law Enforcement'
        
        GILMORE 14 years ago
        
        Someone please delete the double-post, and this post as well. Danke.
? 14 years ago

Assuming the surveillance video does materialize, we should eventually find out whose prejudices will be confirmed.

It won't "confirm" anything, unless you subscribe to the collectivist notion that a whole set of individuals may be judged by the actions of a few (or one).
brotherben 14 years ago

I didn't see this in all the comments. If the LEO did hit the man with a club in the legs as reported by the son then the man should have signs of that on his legs in the autopsy. You club a former NFL running back in the legs hard enough to drop him it will leave a mark. Other than that I am gonna wait for the rest of the story.
1. dunphy 14 years ago
  
  ^this
GILMORE 14 years ago

So... how many overtime hours have you clocked so far tonight, Dunpher?
1. dunphy 14 years ago
  
  i'm off work but thanx for asking
  1. GILMORE 14 years ago
    
    You missed a killer opportunity.
    
    What's your beat? Seattle? What was the take last year in OT?
    
    I can't imagine it was any less than the year before. Or the year before. Or the year before. Despite declining crime rates.
    
    Or am I completely misinformed? You're "one of the good ones" , right?
wayne 14 years ago

If the guy really did club a cop with two 24 ounce beer cans (48 ounces is about 1/3 of a gallon, hence about three pounds of beer) then the cop's partner was justified in using lethal force. Getting hit in the head with three pounds of liquid could certainly kill you. Just a few days ago a guy was killed in Las Vegas with one punch to the face.

The only question in my mind is whether it actually went down the way the cops are telling it. If so, then I have no problem with the outcome.
1. dunphy 14 years ago
  
  bingo. like i said, i've volunteered to be tased (twice), but i wouldn't ever consider having a bag with a can or two of 24 oz beer swung at my head with full force.
  
  and generally speaking ( i say this as a competitive strength athlete) the one physiological gift that we see in elite athletes such as NFL, etc. is - power. the ability to accelerate mass quickly. so, yes size and speed/talent matters.
  1. GILMORE 14 years ago
    
    As far as "evidence" goes, you have mentioned yourself - there is no proof yet that any mass-accelerating death-blow by cans-in-bag ever even took place. Just a claim. No different than other claims made that the guy was billy clubbed and shot out of panic.
    
    But don't jump to conclusions or anything... then you'd be... what, just like the "hysterics" you accuse others of being?
2. Hazel Meade 14 years ago
  
  Surely the other cop could TELL if the beer cans killed his partner.
  
  Also I have trouble believing that one swing from a couple of beer cans in a paper bag is really going to do that much damage. That's like saying you were beaten to death with a gallon jug of milk.
  
  Sure, a single punch *might* in some bizarro scenario kill someone, but it's certainly hard to believe it would be intentional. And you don't shoot people because they accidentally punched someone in the face in just the wrong way.
  You shoot them if you have clear reason to believet hey are an immediate and deadly threat. Not as they are running away after accidentally knocking your partner out with a beer can.
  1. dunphy 14 years ago
    
    fascinating omniscience about facts not in evidence.
    1. GILMORE 14 years ago
      
      Talk more about bottles and his criminal history, jerkoff. You keep committing the same sins you accuse others of. Oh, I forgot - rules only apply to the civvies.
      1. Sy 14 years ago
        
        dunphy is a civvy, as much as he hates to remember.
P Brooks 14 years ago

I see they had to call in the "A team" Fearless Fosdick to respond to us.
P Brooks 14 years ago

Or maybe it was just a shift change.
Hazel Meade 14 years ago

Even if the guy did hit the cops in the head with two beer cans, how the hell does that justify deadly force in response?

You shoot people if they are a threat to your life, not because they get pissed off and take a swing at you.
1. dunphy 14 years ago
  
  ignorance of use of force continuum noted
  1. GILMORE 14 years ago
    
    Right, because killing people is always the best response to violent situations created in the first place by overzealous cops responding to victimless crimes.
    
    "They shoot horses, don't they?" No son, just scofflaws who don't submit on command.
    1. GILMORE 14 years ago
      
      "Force continuum" being pussy-speak, bureaucratic-ese for the relativistic justification for shooting unarmed people in almost any situation.
      1. dunphy 14 years ago
        
        lol!
        
        GILMORE 14 years ago
        
        Hey, at least you tackled guys with knives.
        
        Shouldn't you have just shot them offhand, per your reasoning here?
        
        The only time anyone wanted and tried to stab me, I actually talked them down. Weird how it works for civilians, i know. We have limited options.
Hazel Meade 14 years ago

And on top of everything else....

Over UNDERAGE DRINKING.

Of all the stupidest fucking reasons for a guy getting shot. Because the cops were cracking down on people buying booze for minors, has to be near the top of the list.

Anti-underage-drinking groups like MADD are ultimately responsible for this, since their the shitheads who make it the police's business to question people exiting convenience store with beer in the first place.
1. dunphy 14 years ago
  
  the cops weren't "cracking down" on shit. they were responding to "citizen" reports of minors using straw purchasers there to purchase liquor so they responded to the citizen requests and investigated.
  
  this wasn't an "on view". it was a response to citizen requests
  1. Fire Tiger 14 years ago
    
    they were responding to "citizen" reports of minors using straw purchasers there to purchase liquor
    Where did you come up with this from? From what I have read the complaint was that minors were attempting to get someone to purchase cigarettes and alcohol for them. Not that someone was buying it for them.
PP-l 14 years ago

Not entirely OT: police honesty.
1. PP-l 14 years ago
  
  Let's try again: http://terroronthetube.co.uk/2.....e-analyst/
Chicago Nick 14 years ago

Lemme see, I'm gonna go on a limb here and say the kid is lying his azzz off to protect his now passed daddy. I'm gonna use a case of a similar incident just 2weeks ago in NYC when an in and out convict of a 'father' is sprung for the third time from prison and goes out with his son, a NYC high school football"star" NFL wannabe

they park their Cadillac of course in a valet parking lot as they dine or what have you, and then they return as hoodie daddy and sonny accuse the attendants of stealing (now get this) a $200 bottle of cologne supposedly given by Jailhouse daddy to sonny just that night 'fo he birfday".

Gee, what a coincidence. |

Anyhow, ghetto daddy throws the first punch which he denied all that night and next day to the MSM, (as they and fellow neighbor-hoodies back up of course) which then compels his son to enter the fray like a typical hoodie, something his daddy also denied.

SO end game is the kid gets shivved to death by the attendant who's being pummeled over the head by jailhouse daddy with a shovel he carries around for a weapon in his freaking ghetto machine for what who knows. Winter shoveling, I don't know, but he's using it as a deadly weapon.

SO again the hood's cry to the media, they blame the Attendant, me and others are railing on the NY Post website calling it like we see it just like this one to calls of 'yo a racist, cracker dis cracker dat"... and turns out the next morning a tape is produced and sure enough as we called it, jailhouse tatdaddy started it, got his son killed in the process and tries to cash in with race baiting lies before the kid's even buried trying to sue literally before the blood dries 'for my son nfl career he was fo sho gonna be havin'.....What a guy. Kid woulda been better off had he remained caged.

Ghetto hoods will be ghetto hoods no matter how much money you pay them and treat them with adulation and so on as life has shown us time and time again since the 60's as this happens over and over and over again.

Most of these 'pro afffletes' get paid tens of millions and die before 40 either stoned, drunk, broke and broken despite their supposed top flight free ride college educations to boot which got em in the league to begin with.

Talk about EPIC FAIL, ghetto itis strikes once again and again. This is part of their 'fuckkk you pig" mentality we see all over this board like a rash as we always see, just like last Saturday night on the NYP only to be proven correct over and over again, just like we will this time. Sad but true.
1. GILMORE 14 years ago
  
  Well at least we have an example of, "unapologetic bigotry" as a complement to the "pseudo-legalistitc reasoning" of the cop's rationale.
  
  The not-so-funny part is that at least the bigot is slightly more intellectually honest, if more horribly and obviously wrong.
2. GILMORE 14 years ago
  
  As a second thought...
  
  Chicago Nick|7.13.11 @ 3:59AM|#
  Lemme see, I'm gonna go on a limb here and say the kid is lying his azzz off to protect his now passed daddy.
  
  The 'protecting' part is a little late, don't you think?
3. Kwix 14 years ago
  
  Chicago Nick,
  What. The. Fuck. Was. That?
  
  If you are going to try and rail on "ghetto itis", perhaps you ought not to write like you are "straight out da hood".
RayanUngoy 14 years ago

~~~~~> I paid $32.67 for a XBOX 360 and my mom got a 17 inch Toshibalaptop for $94.83 being delivered to our house tomorrow by fedex. I will never again pay expensive retail prices at stores.I even sold a 46 inch HDTV to my boss for $650 and it only cost me $52.78 to get. Here is the website we using to get all this stuff,
BuzzSave.com
Suthenboy 14 years ago

This story is bound to stir emotions in anyone regardless of which side they are predisposed to take. You guys are turning yourselves into tiger-butter here. Lets wait and see what the video shows.
1. Fatty Bolger 14 years ago
  
  You guys are turning yourselves into tiger-butter here
  
  Racist!
Apprendre la guitare 14 years ago

Exactly. So far, in 100% of cases where witnesses tell one story, cops tell another and video turns up, we find the cops lied.
Not Surprised 14 years ago

If one were to tell me this story 4 years ago or earlier, I would have believed the cops version. But, after I had a medical emergency / crisis a few years ago and Bakersfield PD responded, I soon had their Assault Rifles, Shotguns, & Handguns from 20 cops aimed at me. One dumbass even wanted to tase me in the face after they had me on my knees being handcuffed. I obeyed every damn order. I am still unsure why my medical condition required me to be cuffed & nearly shot. The public majority in Kern Countyhas no trust of
Not Surprised 14 years ago

If one were to tell me this story 4 years ago or earlier, I would have believed the cops version. But, after I had a medical emergency / crisis a few years ago and Bakersfield PD responded, I soon had their Assault Rifles, Shotguns, & Handguns from 20 cops aimed at me. One dumbass even wanted to tase me in the face after they had me on my knees being handcuffed. I obeyed every damn order. I am still unsure why my medical condition required me to be cuffed & nearly shot. The public majority in Kern Countyhas no trust of
Not Surprised 14 years ago

woops...continued....public has no trust of Kern County cops at all. It is absurd there.
Captain America 14 years ago

Police say it was justified so it must be true. In other news the Easter Bunny has announced he will seek election in 2012.

Please log in to post comments

Sheriff's Deputy Kills Former NFL Player Outside a Convenience Store

Latest

Rise of the Samurai Lawyers

Marco Rubio Says He's Revoked 300 Student Visas Over Campus Activism

Pam Bondi Aims To Revive a Moribund Legal Process for Restoring Gun Rights

Trump Is Sabotaging His 'Drill, Baby, Drill' Agenda

How Backpage Became MILFS.com

Recommended

Login Form