Fullerton Police Scandal

Remove all ads!

I didn't read only one article. In addition to the one linked in the OP, see:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...-fullerton-police-incident-da-says.html?lanow

which discusses the video and DA's investigation, and

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...lerton-officers-in-death-of-homeless-man.html

which discusses the officers' legal representation and their response.

I didn't say that they had released the video publicly; I said that it wasn't being secretly witheld by the Fullerton police, as the DA's office and presumably the FBI also have it and are reviewing it.

I can't speak as to the timeline and don't presume to.

 

OK, but we're still left with that it happened a month ago, and we still don't know anything. My main point in my initial post is that if you release no information, people will assume the worst. It is human nature that when you expect to get some type of resolution in an investigation, a month goes by, and you still don't know anything more, that you're going to assume not everything is on the up-and-up.

If everything was all hunky-dory and A-OK, they'd look at the tape, and some days later come out and say, "Here's what went down, and we're really sorry for what happened, but the officers followed protocol in accordance with their training, and there's no criminal liability." That hasn't happened. And I have to assume that means the news isn't going to be good.

 

My understanding is that the investigation has only recently begun, due mainly to persistence on the part of the father with the city council and whatnot. That's probably why the DA's office has put two dozen investigators on the case - to wrap it up as quickly as possible. I don't think anyone here has said that they thought the Fullerton's PD's lack of response to this whole thing and not getting in front of it was a good idea or exemplary policy - quite the opposite.

But, imo, their poor response does not automatically mean they are guilty of some criminal wrongdoing and are trying to cover it up, and frankly, no one who is not in possession of all the facts is in any position to be assuming anything. (The very word, according to dictionary.com, means "to take for granted or without proof.")

The DA's office is obviously on the muscle about this now (along with the FBI). Give them some time to wrap up their investigation and give a report/press charges/whatever, and then render an opinion about it all. Anything else is just pointless speculation.

 

The dictionary definition of almost any word is rudimentary and only the basic measure. Context is everything and shapes the words we choose and the way in which we use language to interact. Frankly, just quoting the dictionary for the meaning of words in a more complex debate, or setting is not very helpful.

 

Fair enough. Aldeth, did you mean something else by your use of the word "assume?" I'm listening (seriously).

 

Chandos,
just so we are clear - what are you talking about? Merriam Webster defines definition as:

 

Wow that train derailed in a hurry....

 

Ragusa - So you give me a dictionary definition for what is a definition? Thank you, that was so helpful. What I'm saying is that language is used in context. In that sense, it is very flexable in meaning. For example, assumptions in this case may not be valid based on the evidence regarding the primary definition that is used. However, in this instance that does not mean the same thing, since people are making assumptions based upon proof [the facts of the case they have read]. That does not mean that it is a legal definition, or even a formal one. Only that within context, it is not just a simple assumption and that it has some sort of "proof," or support.

 

It was an admittedly sarcastic joke to confirm your point - to point out how silly the posting of definitions in debates tends to be (made at the expense of a former practitioner whose name begins with a B).

 

Who's Merriam Webster? And what's this dictionary thing everyone is talking about?

I agree that I can only assume because we don't have all the information. Yes, some of it speculative, and I don't have proof of wrongdoing. That said, I'm not immune to the affects of human nature, and this doesn't look good. We know that an unarmed manned died shortly after a violent encounter with a group of police officers. You need a damn good reason to have your actions be justified. I do not have much confidence that such an explanation is forthcoming.

 

I guess that last part is where we differ then, but what the hell, it's a free country.

 

This story would have had more legs if there was a "racial" component. On a national scene I think it has already passed.

 

No one likes bullies. If the cops can be proved to have laid the smackdown on this guy for no other reason than he was homeless and vulnerable, well, that'd be problematic to say the least. But we don't know that yet. The guy may well have been hopped up on speed. He may have been thrashing around and no one person could deal with him safely. He may have been on his way to death anyways and the actions of the cops had nothing to do with his death.

Now the cops could do a lot to be more transparent, that's true. But the cops have the same rights as the criminals many are so quick to protect. Perhaps telling the media everything they want to hear would violate the rights of the cops involved, poisoning the chance of a fair and Constitutionally valid trial. When dealing with cops in particular, I am in no rush to judgement.

 

LKD, the article above tells us that the police responded to a report of a man attempting to break into cars, when they approached Thomas, he ran, and when they caught him he struggled with the officers. Not innocent man who was simply "homeless and vunerable".

 

well, this is the issue, since we dont know anything was the use of force disproportionate, is there a cover up and is there any issue with accountability.

Ive read that the department has stated that they are investigating the issue, if that is the case a department will not release any information to the public until that investigation has been completed.
and, as I stated above, it is really easy to injure someone who is resisting attempts to detain them.

 

Is it also easy to kill him? It's not like he got a bunch of scapes and bruises, or even a broken limb or two. He was beaten into a coma and died a couple of days later.

 

Recent updates:

D.A. sees no signs of 'intentional killing' by Fullerton police

The Huffington Post also had this to add (not sure why it was left out of the LA Times report):

I also thought this was informative from the 'Voice of OC':

Autopsy Results in Fullerton Police Beating Face Potential Delays

Which says, among other things:

I also thought this was interesting from CBS Los Angeles:

Orange County DA Talks Exclusively About Kelly Thomas Death

The Orange County Chief Deputy Coroner is quoted here as saying, regarding cause of death:

At any rate, if you watch the video in this last link, you should get a warm fuzzy feeling from Rackauckas that everything is being and will be handled prudently.

 

Funny though it may seem, intent is very much material to any criminal charges. The DA would not simply assume that there was none, so establishing its presence or absence would be crucial to the nature of the potential charges - basically the difference between first degree murder and anything less. "Kind of a big deal," as Ron Burgundy would say.