Fullerton Police Scandal

Remove all ads!

That was my thinking too. I never thought that the police set out with the intent to kill the guy. I thought that beat him to subdue him, but went too far. The thought never crossed my mind that they got together ahead of time and decided as a group to beat the guy to death, so like BTA, this doesn't do much to shed any light on the situation. The officers are not guilty of 1st degree murder - but I never thought that was the case anyway.

 

yep.

A man was killed in my home town only last year as he struggled with security staff at what americans would call a 'mall' he stole a bottle of perfume (value £21) from debenhams and was persued by 4 security staff from the Quadrant shopping centre, as he resisted he was taken to the floor, they restrained him by his torso, his arms and his legs and waited 7 mins for police to arrive by which point the man had fallen limp as his airflow had been restricted, the officer restraining his torso faced charges for manslaughter but was aquitted.

The man I mentioned earlier, who's nose needed.... reconstructive surgery simply fell with me, I didnt strike him, I grabbed him, he resisted and we fell, he however hit the ground face first, with his face being black and blue it wouldnt have been hard for him to convince people that I had beaten the crap out of him... thank god for CCTV

 

Which is why you do not restrict airflow. Plenty of people have died throughout the years due to knees and whatnot in their backs when restricting. I thought it would be basic procedure nowadays not to do it, especially if you are six people.

 

really, cos in the UK thats how we're trained to do it, and I know thats how they train in Belgum too.

 

Oh, well they stopped here due to you know, all the dead people.

 

In my view, when the authorities use silence or deflective defences, that's an offence in its own right and it should merit a serious investigation of why silence is there.

 

I question the legitimacy of the investigation as it was carried out under pressure from the public, scape goating and witch burning are common when such investigations are forced.

cant think of a single person who has been restrained by my security staff who hasnt screamed or shouted "I'm sorry", claimed that were holding them too tightly and they cant breath or claim they have a wrist problem so they cant be held by the wrist, or screamed for their mother or father or begged god to help them.

when we grip someone its often forceful, after all, we're trying to move an immovable object, they swing for us, it can easily be called "self defence" but they are still the cause and effect of our actions, both the provoker and agitator.

 

I think that tends to be done as a failsafe measure. If something happens to the murder charge, they can still proceed with manslaughter.

Why?

 

But the DA didn't find any evidence of wrongdoing on their part. They should still be charged with something?

 

How do you know any of that?

 

No, not rhetorical at all. I'm asking how you know, specifically, the things you allege which seem to inform your stance that the other four officers should be prosecuted. You said:

- "The DA ... picked the two that were probably in every cell phone picture and ID'ed by the witnesses as the main culprits."

How do you know that? (You seem to acknowledge that you don't actually know the DA's methodology above, so that's good.)

- "He could have gone after all six but did not."

How do you know that? If there was no prosecutable evidence to implicate the other four, which we have to assume since no charges were brought, then he most certainly couldn't go after all six.

- "If these weren't cops, you know all six would have been charged."

How do you know that? If there was no evidence to indict four of six civilians in a beating, those four civilians would not be charged.

And what does all that mean, exactly? Do public sentiment, the victim's kin's opinion, circumstancial health absences, and politics all amount to 'evidence' of a crime? As to witnesses, the DA talked to them all and charged two of the six. That should speak for itself.

If you're suspicious, fine (though it's interesting that Thomas' dad himself is satisfied with the charges). But suspicion does not equal compelling evidence.

No. If there are no witnesses or other evidence to implicate you in a crime, you won't be charged just for being in the area. You may be temporarily detained or even arrested, but no evidence = no charges (thank god). Also, not removing yourself from the scene of a crime in progress and not stopping the commision of a crime are themselves not crimes.

No offense dmc, but what I'm mainly seeing from you here is supposition masquerading as statement of fact.

 

the man was sczophrenic, suffering from a disease which manisfests iteslf with hallucination, delusion and paranoia.... drugs arent really needed - these people struggle aggressively and can be unable to restrain themselves and as such are incredibly strong, some cases are so bad that they have to be strapped to their beds at night.

there's a little understood rule among people in the security profession, that is, it is easier to harm someone you are trying to protect than it is to hurt someone you are trying to hurt, explained, I am more likely to cause you serious harm by trying to restrain you, then I am if I simply knocked you out... but that of course it unreasonable use of force.

 

What's supposition is your certainty. A single case of a friend having a bad turn with politics doesn't make it so across the board, dmc. It may indicate the possibility, but not the certainty. Unless you're witholding some hidden association with Fullerton politics and are an insider there, there's no way you can be certain that politics played any role in the DA's actions.

This is another sweeping statement that you can't possibly know. Have you done a study of every police misconduct case in the US and found that in each of them there was the certainty of corruption? If not, all you've got is the possibility once again, which is not enough to draw conclusions from. What you seem to be saying is something to the effect of "Chances are ..." but that's getting magically changed to "It's a fact," and that's the supposition I'm calling you on. You still haven't answered how you know that any of the things you allege in this case are factual as opposed to simple possibilities.

'Cops always get the benefit of the doubt so that means that's what happened here for a certainty' - I don't buy.

'Cops tend to get the benefit of the doubt so maybe that's what happened here' - I would buy. But of course that's not enough to draw any conclusions, which is where you seem to be stepping in the poop.

What conditions are you referring to here? If you mean regular citizens who can't be shown to have participated in a crime like I referenced above, no that's not true. Why go to the trouble of charging innocent persons? It's costly and wasteful.

Not if what they did wasn't criminal. Again, how is it that you know it was? Being near where some other crime was occurring is not enough evidence that they were complicit. Participating in routine police duties - e.g. restraining persons - is not itself a crime without criminal intent or negligence. Can you show that the other four had this intent or were negligent? Apparently the DA doesn't think he can. He said this, from your link:

Are you prepared to say that he is lying outright?

[broken record] Again, dmc, how do you know this - particularly the "knowing participation in an unlawful act" part? I wish that you would answer all these "how" questions of mine directly.