Police Execution Squads, the Tyrannical Government that Supports them.

mur·der
ˈmərdər/
noun

1. 1.
   the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
2. verb
   1. kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.

 

I know that there is more to the phrase but I am going to address it anyway. Police officers know the risks of their employment before they receive their first paycheck. I say this to point out the fact that if they are so concerned with their lives, than find another means of employment.

 

About democracy:

Alexander Hamilton asserted that "We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of a dictatorship." Hamilton, in the last letter he ever wrote, warned that "our real disease is DEMOCRACY."

Thomas Jefferson declared: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."


Benjamin Franklin had similar concerns of a democracy when he warned that “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” After the Constitutional Convention was concluded, in 1787, a bystander inquired of Franklin: "Well, Doctor, what have we got a Republic or a Monarchy?" Franklin replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it."


John Adams, our second president, wrote: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”


James Madison, the father of the Constitution wrote in Federalist Paper No. 10 that pure democracies “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

 

or

Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

 

LOL! You got it. (I know that is horrible English but . . . )

 

I don't know the story but if these people were potentially going to put innocent people on the road in danger for their lives I can see someone legitimizing such an action but since there are better ways to stop them without loss of life I cannot see such attempts at legitimizing as being valid.

 

Three shootings in three years
Philadelphia police were forced to rehire officer Cyrus Mann, who fatally shot an unarmed man in the back


Philadelphia police officer Cyrus Mann stood on a rain-slicked road, pointed his gun at a moving car and pulled the trigger five times, hitting the driver.

The next year, he chased an unarmed man down an alley and shot him in the back.

Two years later, he fired his gun four times at a man he had stopped for a suspected traffic violation.

Most officers will never fire their weapons while on duty. Mann, a nine-year member of the Philadelphia Police Department, shot three people in just over three years. The shooting in the alley, on Aug. 9, 2012, would prove fatal and prompt the police commissioner to try to fire Mann.

Like many police chiefs across the nation, he would fail.

A Washington Post investigation found that hundreds of police officers who were fired for misconduct, including allegations of sexual assault and drug trafficking, have been reinstated. Since 2006, at least 451 of 1,800 officers fired from 37 of the nation’s largest departments have won their jobs back through appeals provided for in union contracts.

Mann’s history on the force offers one of the starkest examples, from hundreds of cases The Post examined, of how little power police chiefs hold in deciding which officers remain in their ranks. What is known about Mann has been culled from interviews, publicly available law enforcement records and hundreds of pages of civil and criminal court documents, which include copies of some police records.

By the time he was fired, records show, Mann had also been accused of lunging at a superior officer and had been described to a jury by a defense attorney as a “nightmare to the citizens of Philadelphia.”

Of the 71 officers who fought to get their jobs back in that city, police were forced to rehire 44, more than in any other department examined by The Post.


When Mann emerged on the street alone, she knew the other man was gone. Police photos show Pratt lying facedown in a mess of weeds in a spot where leaning tree trunks made the 21 /2-foot- wide alley even narrower. His shorts and boxers are bunched below his hips, leaving him exposed.


“I had to shoot him, I had to shoot him,” Mann said, Mikaal Pratt recalled in a deposition for a civil lawsuit the family filed.


“He was trying to go for my taser. He was trying to go for my taser,” Nguyen, in his deposition, recounted his partner saying.


The brothers’ father, Michael Dawes, awoke to a phone call from police telling him his son Hassan was dead.


He was given few details. The local news articles he saw at the time cited police officials as saying his son was shot in the chest when he tried to grab a Taser during a struggle with an 18th District officer.


Dawes accepted that account until he saw his son’s body at the funeral home. He and other relatives were washing it, following Muslim custom, when they noticed that the bullet entry holes were in his back.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...otings-in-three-years/?utm_term=.0494b6deca25


Seriously people, not one innocent death but many nationwide due to rambo police terrorism and those who support them, by violating the public trust with bold faced lies.

This is cold blooded murder executed by a another gubmint agent sworn to uphold the constitution, life and liberty.

Is it any surprise more cops are getting shot?

 

Democracy is fine for the commercial gubmint but what they have done is categorized everything under commerce, discrimination, bigamy for instance, that is free choice, and only in the circumstance of dire necessity (to keep someone alive for instance) can that ever be over-ridden without infringing on our freedom to chose for ourselves.

Every time a court case is won a statute is made from it, discrimination is a euphemism that violates your right to free speech and the exercise of your religion.

Furthermore we do not live in a democracy, we live in a 'kleptocracy' as a result of corruption. You need permission from a state sanctioned facility to take a drug, and you better not grow your own, especially if you trample on cia rights.

They have no authority to violate the trust by creating 'color of law' legislation that tramples the rights RESERVED by the people. These battles should be fought in court every time if necessary to prevent the overreach, hence their in-trepidation about democracy, its not democracy for you and I, we elect people we cant trust to be the democracy in the legislative court, the problem of course is they now undermine our rights rather than protect them.

 

HEAR HEAR!!! I like the kleptocracy and overreach commentary. Suffice it to say that it reminds me of the 1990s when I was more of a rambunctious type of young man.

 

I'm wondering why I should accept the subjective opinion of an untrained, angry sofa-sitter for what police brutality is or is not?

That's incoherent. You previously backed off your claim of proof of murder by stating proof is "for the courts," http://politicalforum.com/index.php...t-supports-them.514799/page-4#post-1068080225 when I asked you if you understood the burden of proof to show a murder occurred. Clearly, you cannot illustrate that someone is guilty of murder, but then you turn around and bitch that a person is definitely guilty of murder. Which is it?

If you can't illustrate on a legitimate level that someone's a murderer, then why the alligator tears that a court did not agree with your opinion?

So you continue to cling to untenable opinions for which when they don't come your way in a court of law, you wail that injustice was done.

Again, you have not read any of the case files for the whole body of evidence on a single of these cases which you claim are "murder," yet somehow you think by sitting on your butt and watching TV blips, you are an informed citizen.

Since you've already admitted you're ignorant as all hell regarding burden of proof in a court, why here wail that people are denied 'DUE PROCESS"? You can't prove the cop is a murderer, but somehow you just KNOW that "DUE PROCESS" has been violated?

Laughable.

Clearly you cannot, since you think a "Police State" (in scary capital letters, no less) allows you to sit here spewing this vitriol without being locked away.

 

Naturally, the hypocritical anti-government right wingers fail to condemn this form of government abuse and, in many instances, applaud and support the criminal cops.

Where is all their talk of Second Amendment rights to keep government off people's backs?

 

Wonder no longer sweetheart. You don't have to accept anyone's opinion, never mind your delusional invented person, for the same reason no one has to accept your opinion. I don't post what I post to convince anyone of anything, never mind one who obviously has issues. I merely state my opinion just like you, take it or leave it, it's of no consequence to me.

Only for one whose primary language is not English. Try a dictionary if you're having a problem with the words.

I see you are having difficulty with reading comprehension. None of the above has anything to do with what I posted.

The courts and I agree on very little these days so that's a non sequitur. As already well explained, I don't need a court to tell me what a murder or a murderer is, it's apparent you rely heavily on a severely broken system to tell you what and how to think.

[silliness not worth responding to and therefore skipped]

If you can't figure out that police brutality, including the murder of unarmed citizens is a denial of due process rights without the courts telling you what to think, we don't have very much of anything to discuss.

I understand you need the courts to do the thinking for you but intelligent people who can think for themselves and fully understand the doctrine of DUE PROCESS can tell when an unarmed man is murdered by police that his due process rights have been violated ... fatally.

That's what some people do when they're confronted by something outside of their worldview.

 

Here we go again, kid tries to runs away Rambo blasts away murdering the kid with 3 in the BACK, prosecutor says thats ok not a problem, good shot Rambo.







they are murdering these people then lying to the grand jury and nothing what so ever is being done about it.

Your rights, you have to right to eat lead by Rambo, judge, jury, executioner.



Police in Utah fatally shot a man from behind while he was running away from officers, according to newly released footage. Prosecutors in Salt Lake City have said officers were justified in killing Patrick Harmon, 50, who was pulled over for riding a bicycle without a light and who attempted to flee when police tried to arrest him. Police are not facing charges despite the fact that the body-camera footage captured officer Clinton Fox shouting “I’ll ****ing shoot you!” from a distance before he fired three bullets into Harmon, who was running in the opposite direction. “They just murdered him flat out,” Alisha Shaw, Harmon’s niece, told on Thursday after watching the footage. “They are lying. There is no way they were threatened by anything. He was only trying to get away.” Salt Lake officials have claimed that the killing of Harmon was legal because the officers feared for their lives. Another officer said he fired his Taser at the same time that Fox shot Harmon. The footage showed the officers handcuffing Harmon as he lay on the ground face-down, groaning in pain. The district attorney’s office claimed that Harmon said “I’ll cut you” and turned and faced officers with a knife as he was running. The video, however, raises questions about the narrative. Harmon cannot be heard making that threat and was running away from the officer, not facing him, when he was killed. “He was scared. All he did was run,” said Adriane Harmon, another niece, who was sobbing after watching the footage for the first time Thursday. “It hurts … They said ‘I’m going to kill you’ and they shot him three times. He’s just moaning on the ground.” At the start of the video, Harmon appeared tearful and exasperated about police attempting to arrest him. According to prosecutors, officer Kris Smith pulled him over because he saw him “ride his bicycle across all six road lanes and a median” and he didn’t have a “required red rear tail light”. The officer said he wanted to “discuss the situation” with Harmon. The policeman eventually called for backup and determined that Harmon had an outstanding warrant for aggravated assault, according to prosecutors. Harmon appeared “emotional and distraught” and told police that he was trying to take care of his warrant, Fox testified. Salt Lake City has previously received national praise for its “de-escalation” training, aimed at encouraging officers to communicate with people and limit confrontation and use of lethal force. The department even gives out “de-escalation awards” to recognize officers who rely on these tactics. The chief, Mike Brown, said in a statement: “We trust the process and support the decision from district attorney Sim Gill. I believe our officers have the training and judgement and ability to make split-second decisions in dynamic situations.” Gill added in a statement: “Officer Fox reasonably believed deadly force was necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself and/or others and therefore his use of deadly force was ‘justified’.” Antoinette Harmon, a 54-year-old sister, said the family grew up in St Louis, Missouri, but later moved to Utah, where they often experienced racism and prejudice. The family hadn’t seen Patrick Harmon for several years since a funeral for one of his brothers – a death that hit him hard, said Antoinette.

 

Yes, it's an endless cycle of MURDER under color of law. Unless and until WE do something about it because sure as **** the courts never will (and in fact encourage it through unconstitutional bench decisions), it will continue forever in Amerika, land of the free. At least we can keep exposing these outrageous massacres to a mostly ignorant public.

 

It is indefensible given other people in the car. I suppose if it was a school bus full of kids stolen the officer would have also shot every kid on the bus, claiming he feared for his life.

 

Someone is racing along at 100 mph, and you claim you would have punched the driver in the face, somehow instantly jumped over the center console or into the front seat, kicking the driver out the door with 5,000 pounds of force breaking the driver's seatbelt, and then stuck your hands out the window while the police were now shooting at you since you are in the drivers seat.

^Summary: you post many good messages but that one is extra stupid and total fantasy with no relation to even possible reality.

That the officer did not stop his cruiser behind the car to block it like police commonly do makes it clear he had already decided to shoot everyone in the car.

Summary of my position: Police can not shoot everyone in a car because the driver tried to flee the police.

 

delete

 

delete

 

You didn't even watch the video, did you? Just posted canned police-are-always-right messages. First, there was no attempt to run over the officer because IF YOU WATCHED THE VIDEO the officer was well of to the side of the car along with his cruiser. Second, we know you also did not listen to the video because the "passenger HANNAH" isn't one of those "men" as you put it.

What a bunch of crap you posted overall. "They" weren't driving. The driver was driving. The passengers were not.

No, the one thing I can guarantee is that the two survivors will hate the police the rest of their life, and very likely would - if possible - shoot at any police trying to stop them knowing it is doing that or being killed, and definitely know never, ever stop if the police try to pull one of them over. A lawsuit is likely, but because this is Georgia it can only possibly prevail if in a federal court.

Your proof the other two knew the car was stolen is? None, of course. That you posted your messages without even watching or listening to the video makes it clear facts are irrelevant to you on this thread's topic.

 

This thread was good for a laugh. All the pretty colors and expert use of the thesaurus really kept me riveted.

 

There are multiple ways to stop the car as a passenger. Obviously the easiest way is in the front passenger seat.

Throwing the car into neutral, stepping over and hitting the brakes or clutch pedal, pulling the emergency brake.

One of the things you can also do is wait for the driver to make a turn, then force the wheel farther into the turn and you induce a spin out. While unpleasant, even in training, it will stop the vehicle fairly quickly from the lateral motion of the sliding vehicle.

And yes, if I was in that position, I would attempt to both disable the driver and stop the car, since it would be my best chance of survival.

Also, SCOTUS has already ruled on shooting the driver of a fleeing car and passengers, in pretty much a clear parallel to this case.

Plumhoff v Rickard was a 3 part ruling with an 8-1, 7-2 and unanimous decision on the 3 parts posed to the court.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1117_1bn5.pdf

 

It doesn't matter, I already posted a case like this that was decided by SCOTUS.

Regardless of the position of the car, it was still a deadly threat to the officers. If they had allowed the vehicle to continue after already demonstrating a deadly threat to other people on the road, deadly force was authorized to stop the car.

Admittedly I don't know anything about the passengers. Maybe they were just as guilty of stealing the car, maybe not.

 

So your position is that for anyone who runs from the police, the police should shoot everyone in the vehicle because the car inherently poises a threat? That's nuts.

In that reasoning, the last thing a person should do if they see their child kidnapped in a vehicle is call the police because the police will open fire indiscriminately at everyone and anyone in the vehicle.

It is clear the officer was not in danger because he was to the side and forward of the car, with the car unable to go forward and unsuccessfully trying to go in reverse. It also seems clear the officer had no intention of trying to stop the vehicle because he stopped beside the car, rather than behind it - where police typically box in a car was is stopped after fleeing.

But, setting that aside, he know other people were in the vehicle, having no clue if they themselves also were victims that found themselves trapped in a car with a person recklessly fleeing from the police. It is NOT legitimate for police to shoot people not knowing what their involvement is and those people poising no danger to the police, because someone else MIGHT poise a danger to others. We know who absolutely poised danger to other people than the driver - the people the police officer shot.

In your theory, what the Las Vegas police should have done to avoid danger to themselves and to eliminate the shooter, is set the entire hotel on fire from the ground floor. While this would possibly have killed everyone in the hotel, it would have gotten the shooter without risk to the police - and besides it is not impossible that everyone in the hotel also is a criminal anyway or possibly involved, like those two other teens in the car. "If there is any doubt, the police should kill everyone."

I did notice the attorney said he is taking the case to FEDERAL court, not Alabama state court. Still, it will be an Alabama jury, but not a small town Alabama jury.

 

The facts of the case are not the same. In that instance, first it was a survivor of the driver who sued, not passengers. Second, the officer had literally gone to the car and pounded on the window with his revolver. In this instance, the officer did not order anyone out of the car or for him to stop, the officer instead - in no danger and having deliberately parked his cruiser to allow the car to back up, emptied two magazines into the car, hitting everyone inside. Third, in the case you site the car had stopped and the police had seen evidence the car was broken into - then the person ignored commands and speed off.
Fourth, in the case you sited during the chase the driver had rammed to police car pursuing, not in this case. Fifth, in the case you cite the driver was ramming that officers car who blocked him in from behind at the time the officer shot, demonstrating the driver was willing to assault the police and others with his vehicle.

None of those details existed in this case. Nothing that driver did indicated any desire to harm the police, unlike the case you cited. At that range, the officer could have shot out the motor and tires or at least not just slinging bullets as fast as he could into a car he knew had passengers.

The officer wanted this confrontation. He told the two cruisers to let him take the lead. He deliberately did not block in the car to allow the car to back up. He made no attempt to order the driver or passengers out. He was not in any danger nor was any other officer. He demonstrated total indifference and reckless conduct with a deadly weapon towards innocent passengers - who he shot.

If I were on the jury, I might cut him some slack in regards to the driver, but none in regards to the passengers. He singular motivate was to kill the driver, with no other considerations.

 

No one has addressed whether the police should have even done the high speed chase in the first place. Yes, there was someone driving in the city at 107 miles per hour, which endangered people. But there also were 3 larger police cruisers also racing thru the city also at 107 miles per hour, each of those also endangering people.

There was NO indication any violent crime had been involved NOR any indication that the passengers were themselves not victims, if just by being trapped in the car. The member claiming he is superman or would have thrown the wheel to the side "causing the car to spin out" - when at 100 miles per hour doing so would have been an act of suicide causing the car to flip over a dozen times killing everyone in it, is worthless fantasy.

Many departments recognize the EXTREME DANGERS of high speed chases in urban areas, with the police cruisers poising nearly as much danger as the runner - who is only driving like a maniac trying to get away. For this, unless there is MORE than just someone running from the police - a fleeing murderer or wanted rapist someone armed fleeing a robbery, they do NOT do a high speed pursuit. Rather, they drop back, keeping a visual look if possible.

The problem with high speed chased merely because the person won't stop often ends in injury or death to innocent people due to the chase - and sometimes it is the officers, not fleeing person, who cause the injury and/or death - as happened in this instance.

I have yet to read a reason why the two passengers had to be shot, but the officer decided they had to be shot in his decision to fast sling 21 rounds at the car, the coroner declaring the driver was already dead before the second magazine - particularly with a passenger begging the officer not to shoot and saying he had already shot her. He didn't care. Instead, he fired at the car, her and the other passenger 10 more times.

The officer was no-billed by the grand jury because the DA wanted this. While we could argue a murder change, reckless endangerment to the passengers as a charge is a no-brainer. Even the police can not shoot everyone because the officer might have reason to fear one of them.