Just guessing, but it sounds like their part of the snowflake generation, when pulled over by police you should not immediately adopt anti-authority attitude, but comply with officers directives if you are not up to no good. Like any modern institution there are a small amount bad apples amongst police, but the large majority do the right thing under
a very difficult PC climate.
Serpico is still alive wrote:
Let's use our brains. Take a deep breathe and think.
To use force, the cops have to have reason. Where does it say that anyone involved lunged at one of the Officers? Where does it say that the Officers felt they were going to be attacked?
THERE WAS NO REASON TO USE FORCE.
I know the law (wink, wink) and realize what constitutes an Officer to use force. Neither defendant had a weapon or charged towards the Officers. So what happened?
The Officers used their power to say "sit boy" and "don't talk boy" and when one of the defendants didn't do what they said, the green light goes on that now I can say in my report that I gave the person a direct order and they didn't "obey my command", hence I felt the right to use force. Wake up!
Understand now? There was NO reason for the Officers to use force. It was bullying and abuse of power.
Wow, so you know the (wink, wink) law. Gee, that's great. I know what cops and doctors do because I watched it on TV.
How do you know there was no reason to use force.
If the Shay's were arrestable (CPC 836) for either CVC 23152(a) DUI or CPC 148(a) Obstruction or for some other reason not yet known to us, and resisted in anyway, force is justified.
Mr. Serpico (cute 70's NYPD reference, By the way), force is used and lawfully justifiable for multiple reasons, such as to prevent escape, effect arrest, and overcome resistance.
Since you seem to have rushed to judgement that the officers were bullying and abused their power by only hearing the side of the parties initiating litigation for monetary compensation and recompess, it is clear that you have no interest in the truth at all, but only in that which you want to see be the truth. You realize that the only thing we have heard about this case is what the Shay's attorney has cared to share with us (a la Robert Shapiro in OJ - See, I watch TV), and the newspaper. You do realize how (in)accurate, sanitized, and generally vague published news stories are, right?
Are you able to articulate to me, Serpico, the general framework of force policies as constitutionally defined, since you know the law so well? I'm pretty sure you can't and you are all bluster, hot air, and bullshit.
Idiot alert, idiot alert. You need help dude, and meds might not be enough. Like others have said, there was no need for force. You really aren't that bright are you?
Still Don't Know wrote:
Serpico is still alive wrote:Let's use our brains. Take a deep breathe and think.
To use force, the cops have to have reason. Where does it say that anyone involved lunged at one of the Officers? Where does it say that the Officers felt they were going to be attacked?
THERE WAS NO REASON TO USE FORCE.
I know the law (wink, wink) and realize what constitutes an Officer to use force. Neither defendant had a weapon or charged towards the Officers. So what happened?
The Officers used their power to say "sit boy" and "don't talk boy" and when one of the defendants didn't do what they said, the green light goes on that now I can say in my report that I gave the person a direct order and they didn't "obey my command", hence I felt the right to use force. Wake up!
Understand now? There was NO reason for the Officers to use force. It was bullying and abuse of power.
Wow, so you know the (wink, wink) law. Gee, that's great. I know what cops and doctors do because I watched it on TV.
How do you know there was no reason to use force.
If the Shay's were arrestable (CPC 836) for either CVC 23152(a) DUI or CPC 148(a) Obstruction or for some other reason not yet known to us, and resisted in anyway, force is justified.
Mr. Serpico (cute 70's NYPD reference, By the way), force is used and lawfully justifiable for multiple reasons, such as to prevent escape, effect arrest, and overcome resistance.
Since you seem to have rushed to judgement that the officers were bullying and abused their power by only hearing the side of the parties initiating litigation for monetary compensation and recompess, it is clear that you have no interest in the truth at all, but only in that which you want to see be the truth. You realize that the only thing we have heard about this case is what the Shay's attorney has cared to share with us (a la Robert Shapiro in OJ - See, I watch TV), and the newspaper. You do realize how (in)accurate, sanitized, and generally vague published news stories are, right?
Are you able to articulate to me, Serpico, the general framework of force policies as constitutionally defined, since you know the law so well? I'm pretty sure you can't and you are all bluster, hot air, and bullshit.
Still Don't Know wrote:
We are doing A LOT of armchair quarterbacking here with very few facts and only allegations from one side.
In order for Shay's brother to be detained for (presumably) DUI, there have to be enough articulable facts (1 or 2 is enough) for a reasonable and knowledgable person to suspect a crime has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur and the person(s) detained MAY be involved
This is called Reasonable Suspicion and is a very low threshold.
In order for Shay to be arrested for arrested, there have to be enough articulable facts such that a reasonable person would believe a crime occurred and that the person arrested PROBABLY did it.
This is called Probable Cause and is a substantially higher threshold than Reasonable Suspicion, but is still MUCH lower than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" necessary for an actual conviction.
We have ZERO idea as to the facts of this case, who did or said what, and what the articulable facts are that the police reported to justify their actions.
Without the police report to give us that side of the incident's story, all we have is a guy pontificating to lawyers and the media and all our opinions without that report are equivalent to a useless bag of old dog shit.
Being arrested for ANY reason doesn't entail getting beaten by cops. Filming people is also allowed and lawful. Pigs don't like being recorded because they are more likely to be held accountable for their crimes.
Hope this pig gets the boot, but that's not likely. The puss pig will cry and squirm like the coward he is for leniency.
No , 9 cats and Ian, I am not declaring that the police are not in the wrong. I am saying there are a lot of possibilities where they may be in the right and we have still only heard the Shay's (and the attorney's) story, not the other entire half of the episode's perspective.
And yes, there are instances where the application and level of force, while later discovered to be inappropriate, was still legally justified. There is a whole practice of case law on the topic. There are people who do not sit here pretending to be runners who make their livings because of it. It is not cut and dried simply because you know better somehow through your magical omniscient powers, and your opinions from watching "Cops" and "Law and Order."
The crux of the matter, the ONLY points that matter are what the courts, via Graham vs. Connor, have determined are the only points that matter. I will synopsize it for the sick, lame, and too lazy to read it on their own. They are thus:
Given the articulable facts and circumstances (Yes, they have to be articulable and not just pulled out of your ass), would a person with similar training, experience, and knowledge believe that the force used was appropriate and reasonably necessary.
THAT is it. THAT is all that matters. If you do not know the entire other half of the story, then you are rushing to judgement, and from what you have posted doing so based on your biases and hatred of those that stand to safeguard civilization from anarchy. Get rid of the cops and see how long it takes for people to come in and invade your home, victimize you and your family, and take all your stuff. All without repercussion or justice.
Sounds like another Shay money making scam. Both those guys are crooked. He never had a shot in hell to make the Olympic team. The guy lives out of a van and needs a little extra money any way he can get it, pretty obvious.
see my handle.get rid of the cops and see how long it takes for people to come in and invade your home, etc...what the hell are you talking about and what does it have to do with this situation? honestly, there are some people who will do anything to get someone to agree with them.
Still Don't Know wrote:
No , 9 cats and Ian, I am not declaring that the police are not in the wrong. I am saying there are a lot of possibilities where they may be in the right and we have still only heard the Shay's (and the attorney's) story, not the other entire half of the episode's perspective.
And yes, there are instances where the application and level of force, while later discovered to be inappropriate, was still legally justified. There is a whole practice of case law on the topic. There are people who do not sit here pretending to be runners who make their livings because of it. It is not cut and dried simply because you know better somehow through your magical omniscient powers, and your opinions from watching "Cops" and "Law and Order."
The crux of the matter, the ONLY points that matter are what the courts, via Graham vs. Connor, have determined are the only points that matter. I will synopsize it for the sick, lame, and too lazy to read it on their own. They are thus:
Given the articulable facts and circumstances (Yes, they have to be articulable and not just pulled out of your ass), would a person with similar training, experience, and knowledge believe that the force used was appropriate and reasonably necessary.
THAT is it. THAT is all that matters. If you do not know the entire other half of the story, then you are rushing to judgement, and from what you have posted doing so based on your biases and hatred of those that stand to safeguard civilization from anarchy. Get rid of the cops and see how long it takes for people to come in and invade your home, victimize you and your family, and take all your stuff. All without repercussion or justice.
John Utah wrote:
Comply with police directives and there is very very little chance there will be a problem. Almost never is if you've don't nothing wrong and then cooperate with law enforcement.
If the dude blew a 0.0 then the cops would have sent him on his way eventually.
Brother has to get involved in police business and was likely belligerent. He got what was coming.
Cops are out there trying to get drunks off the road. Drunks who kill people about 10k to 20k per year. Let LE do their job and respect their authority.
The cops are the ones who are driving around drunk at a much higher rate than the normal population. Especially in HB where they actually have a bar designated to themselves because they've gotten themselves in trouble so many times in the past. The cops in HB have a bad reputation, which is not surprising considering how many idiots there are to deal with in HB. Doesn't make it right, though.
Apples to Dirt wrote:
get rid of the cops and see how long it takes for people to come in and invade your home, etc.
Even if they weren't cops, they'd probably still be home invaders.
Or.... maybe not.... since then we'd just shoot them.
Still Don't Know is Mental on his best day.
Good point . wrote:
Apples to Dirt wrote:get rid of the cops and see how long it takes for people to come in and invade your home, etc.
Even if they weren't cops, they'd probably still be home invaders.
Or.... maybe not.... since then we'd just shoot them.
Still Don't Know wrote:
No , 9 cats and Ian, I am not declaring that the police are not in the wrong. I am saying there are a lot of possibilities where they may be in the right and we have still only heard the Shay's (and the attorney's) story, not the other entire half of the episode's perspective.
THAT is it. THAT is all that matters. If you do not know the entire other half of the story, then you are rushing to judgement, and from what you have posted doing so based on your biases and hatred of those that stand to safeguard civilization from anarchy. Get rid of the cops and see how long it takes for people to come in and invade your home, victimize you and your family, and take all your stuff. All without repercussion or justice.
This is what the trial is for.
I predict it will settle.
The same police department is also defending another excessive force suit as well:
Sober Shays act like Americans, roid rage or otherwise authoritrain mad pig can't handle his profession, acts out-- eff him. Good thing the Shatys didn't "fall down the stairs."
Because they are bullies with a badge, period. Without the badge, they wouldn't even think of acting the way they do. The police academy is suppose to teach them to respect citizens, not over abuse their power. Sad, but it's going to get worse. In my city, there are over a dozen sergeants making well over $100,000, to bully people.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
The same police department is also defending another excessive force suit as well:
http://www.ocregister.com/2017/03/13/mother-of-man-killed-by-huntington-beach-police-says-officers-used-excessive-force/
Mr. Obvious wrote:
The same police department is also defending another excessive force suit as well:
http://www.ocregister.com/2017/03/13/mother-of-man-killed-by-huntington-beach-police-says-officers-used-excessive-force/
Justice would be served if the murdering pig were executed by a friend or family member of this poor man. The next pig might think twice about acting out.
The guy's mother had put out a restraining order on this guy. By accounts I have read this looks like it was a justified shooting.
I do not know all the facts but from what I Have read I do not see the police losing this particular case. There were a lot of witnesses there to back up the police in this case.
They should have used their "my brother died during the 2008 Olympic Marathon Trials" card.
Aren't these the homeless guys who live in a van down by the river? If I recall they are living the dream living in a van and training full time. Must not have worked out so they are looking for a quick settlement.
Cops are society's excrement. Lowlife bottom feeders.