cOoTeR

Sounds fishy and from the kill them all crowd. How'd they know the yote was in heat....

I'm more concerned about the increase in bald eagles.

12 years in the sticks with dogs always outside loose, old dogs, little dogs, sick dogs. No issues.

I want saying kill them all I was just pointing out they aren't always as sweet as they seem to be. As far as them knowing the coyote in heat most I believe it was speculation. But a friend did tell me he based that belief on the evening prior to his lab getting killed that the dog was acting the same as when one of his female dogs go into heat. But none of his dogs were in heat.

I've known several people out in the sticks that have had their dogs killed by coyotes. I've heard stories about packs of coyotes sending a female in heat up to a property with dogs and drawing dogs away from the house. Once Seau from people they ambush the domestic dog. Is not just a city thing.

He's going to crash his dad's bike and off himself. Or run away to Mexico and marry Nero.

I don't hate cops.  I respect them.  Probably because I was in the military and I know what it means to serve, and I respect others who do.

 

As for hate... I hate injustice, and I think it's very possible that justice was NOT served when the grand jury failed to indict.

What are you basing that opinion on? That they should have indicted him.

Regardless of your view on this particular case, there is an unsettling pattern of unarmed young black men being executed by police recently.

Is this a fact based on statistics or just the perception derived from the recent media coverage.

No, as I've already stated like 5 times in this thread.  But it's a real problem in law enforcement, and even an accepted part of the job for some departments.  

 

Some departments are far more professional than others.  The FPD department for example (you know the one that Wilson was a member) displayed that they were more than willing to take shortcuts and violate civil rights when dealing with peaceful protesters long before the riot started or before the indictment results were read.

 

To be clear, I am saying that I strongly suspect that Wilson perjured himself under oath.  Also, I strongly suspect that he and his fellow officers, who were the ones in control of collecting physical evidence after the shooting, did so in a way to support their training of how to justify a shooting.    

 

Wilson is clear of any legal consequences.  However, he now has to live in hiding for the foreseeable future.

You do know that it wasn't Ferguson PD that collected the evidence and worked the case right?

What are you basing that he committed perjury on?

Yep, cops are an honest bunch.  Especially NY finest...what's that beatings, intimidation, corruption, brutality, lying under oath...testilying...what is testilying?

 

http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports98/police/uspo100.htm

 

The Mollen Commission—set up to look into reports of police corruption in the New York Police Department—described the pervasive nature of police perjury in its 1994 report. It stated that the practice of police falsification in connection with arrests is so common in certain precincts that police themselves call it “testilying.” According to the commission, officers tell a litany of manufactured tales. When officers unlawfully stop and search a vehicle because they believe it contains drugs or guns, they sometimes falsely claim in police reports and under oath that the car ran a red light (or committed some other traffic violation) and that they subsequently saw contraband in the car in plain view. To conceal an unlawful search of an individual who officers believe is carrying drugs or a gun, officers occasionally falsely assert that they saw a bulge in the person's pocket or saw drugs and money changing hands.

 

It is extremely difficult to prove perjury cases against police because of the informal rule among police officers that forbids one police officer to testify against another. The Christopher Commission, which investigated the police beating of Rodney King in Los Angeles, found this tendency of police to back up fellow officers to be an obstacle in its investigation.

So that makes all cops dishonest?

Stop being so obtuse.  Every cop on the world knows that the only way it's justifiable to kill someone is if they believe that person might harm them or someone else.

 

So maybe the cop isn't "trained" in what to say in court, but they're sure as hell trained in when it's ok to shoot someone and when it isn't.

 

That sort of makes it so that you don't HAVE to coach them on what to say in court.  If you've killed someone, then OF COURSE you're gonna say the 1 thing in court that you've specifically been trained on that would've made it OK to kill that person.

Or maybe they actually did fear for their life. You just re-worded what I've already said and addressed to twist it to your cop hating agenda.

Cops are not trained to say they feared for their life after using force. They are trained to NOT use deadly force unless they have a reason to fear for their life or someone else's life because that is when deadly force is necessary. So of course they are going to say that's why the used deadly force, because that actually is the reason they used deadly force. If you're stopped at an intersection and the light turns green and you get hit by someone running the red light after you go you are going to have the same answer as anyone else who's ever gone through a green light if asked. If asked why you entered the intersection you're response would be something along the lines of because the light was green. The scenario is not the same but you can see my point. Any relevant response will be similar to any other person because everyone is taught to wait until the light is green before entering the intersection. They aren't taught to give the same answer is just that the answer to the question is the same.

In your capacity as an agent were you working inside of local departments?  Are federal agents typically trusted by local cops enough to be in their inner circle?

 

btw, pretty cool of you to post something from a PM.

Yes and as a part of my job I find people breaking laws and arrest them. Sometimes having to use force while doing that. So yes I do police work but unlike a cop I don't write tickets or citations. Either the person gets arrested and I charge them with a crime then it goes to court or they don't get anything. But I do get called to assist local and state officers in carrying out their duties. Before I got my federal job I worked in law enforcement at the state level. So you could say in not just in the "inner circle" I'm part of it.

I wasn't going to put any of our private message discussion out here until after you decided to bring it out here. After in the private message I told you I completed two law enforcement academies you posted out here asking if I was a cop.

In other words:  "no"

Incorrect^^^^^^ in the context you are using it. Did you not read the PM I sent you. But since you really want to know I'm a federal agent. So not a cop but plenty of experience as a Law Enforcement Officer at the state and federal level. So again since you want to try to call me out what is your law enforcement experience? I'm using first hand experience and facts to base my decisions and beliefs. What are you using?   

 

EDIT: Never mind got your PM. You know some cops and "banged" some lady cops. Your are officially an expert sir. 

Please read the court documents that document that details what the grand jury and prosecution had to go on. Don't be lazy and just jump on the story that the media wants you to believe. Form your own opinions instead of remaining blindly ignorant to the facts.

Are you a cop?

 

It's the kind of thing that when a cop get's caught doing it they are referred to as bad cops.  The good cops are the ones that do it and don't get caught.  But, behind the line they all know, when another officer lies, you swear under oath that it's the truth or you just may not be welcome at that dept any longer. 

Something like that.

 

Get caught lying under any official capacity and a cop can lose their ability to testify in court. Google Giglio effect. It only takes one person to have integrity and be honest to get all the liars outted. The honest person cannot be treated unfairly due to whistleblower policies in most departments. Even so its easier to not be welcome in 1 department than to be barred from any law enforcement position as I already explained in the PM reply in sent you.

 

Once again nothing changes the fact that your statement that cops are trained to say "they feared for their life" is not a correct or true statement. Just because that's what you think reality is does not make it a fact.

Don't be naive.  Not all training is written down in a textbook.  It's an accepted part of the job.  Not all cops, as I've previously stated, but for many you do what you need to do...ends justify the means...just only discuss it in certain company.

 

I am completely OK with you not believing me.

I don't believe you because actual experience tells me otherwise.

If this was a trial I would agree with you. Not for an indictment.

If the prosecutor was truly seeking an indictment all he had to say was

"Wilson shot and killed Brown. Some witnesses said it appeared that Brown was attempting to flee or surrender. Should this go to trial?" That would get an indictment 99% of the time.

A prosecutor NEVER shows his full case to the grand jury.

Bullshit. As part of their job they are professional witnesses. They are not professional truth tellers. They are coached on what to say and what not to say in court and what details to omit so their testimonies are difficult to discredit.

Eye witnesses on the other hand are not professional witnesses. It is far easier to discredit an eye witness who doesn't regularly testify in court as part of their job.

So the prosecution should just go to the grand jury with their opinion and day indict this guy without presenting evidence? Or picking and choosing evidence to get an indictment? Or even worse what would happen if he only presented some evidence and the grand jury still didn't indict? Imagine the conspiracy theories that would come out of that. The prosecution had the evidence and testimonies of everyone and most likely knew the want enough evidence to indict Wilson. So why waste the time trying to prosecute?

I'm calling bullshit on your bullshit call. Please tell me about the law enforcement academies or law enforcement training you've attended? Specifically training where the officer is told to say they feared for their life? Witnesses and involved participants from both sides of a case often meet with legal council before they testify to prepare for court. That is common practice but there is no lying in court course that you seem to believe there is. Courts often will not let law enforcement officers testify in uniform because the opposing lawyer will claim that the uniform makes them appear more honest to a jury. So whose getting discredited right of the bat?

Interesting read about Wilson's current situation.  

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/03/us/ferguson-darren-wilson-protection/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

The guy that got arrested for the threats, I wouldn't be surprised if a terrorism investigation isn't launched looking into him. His name appears to be Muslim and Isis has stated they plan to divide our country. (Current Race issues over Ferguson have our opinions divided). Another Isis threat is to attack police and military and this case has cop hate at an all time high. At a first glance it looks like that guy who got arrested was recruiting to encourage or carryout what is a current terrorist threat.

Did you guys read the testimonies that were presented to the grand jury for yourself or are you blindly following the cop hater beliefs?

Why not submit to a polygraph? Because the results are determined by interpretation you can be 100% honest and fail or be 100% dishonest and pass. The test itself picks up natural reactions to being nervous muscle tightness, heartbeat, breathing etc.. Most people get nervous when they lie but they also have the same reactions to stress. So reliving a stressful situation will cause the same involuntary reactions. Or just being stressed about the test can make it look like a person is being dishonest. So he could pass the test and everyone would go with the fact that they are based on interpretation and not 100%accurate so the test was wrong and they still don't believe him. Still wouldn't clear his name. Second he could take it and the results could show he was being dishonest even if it was just the stress reaction to thinking about a stressful time when he shot somebody. Think about telling a story about a stressful time such as a close call or crash on a motorcycle. As you rethink about the details your heart rate will most likely increase. Doesn't mean you're lying just that your body is reacting to stress.

If you haven't read the court documents you should. The prosecutor wasn't the person involved in the grand jury proceedings. He was there the first day to instruct the grand jury and inform them that they were being held longer due to the case and they were only going to work the Wilson case. Other than that it was the assistant prosecutors that handled the case.

Why would you expect the prosecution to not present all they evidence? They need all the facts to make an informed decision. Leaving out information would look like they were hiding something to me.

The reason it is uncommon for the accused to testify to the grand jury is they do so alone without their lawyer to help them and 5th amendment rights. It's the accused that decides to testify or not, not the prosecutor.

Read the testimony of Dorian who was with Brown when the shooting happened. He is very detailed about a lot of stuff that Wilson did but claims not to be sure what a lot of Brown's actions were. Seems like convenient amnesia or bending the truth to me. If they weren't looking for trouble why didn't Brown and Johnson get out of the street when the cop told them to? Or when they were hit by the cop trying to open the door why didn't they back up if they or Brown weren't trying to attack Wilson in the car? Wilson and Johnson both testified that Wilson said get back or I'll shoot from inside the car when he drew and pointed his gun at Brown. Why didn't Brown get back then? Johnson claimed Wilson was holding Brown with only his left hand. preventing him from getting back as ordered. Brown was then shot straight on. If he was trying to get away and not go for the gun why was he shot straight on and not through the side? I'm significantly smaller than brown but I can garauntee that there isn't a person on this planet that can hold me with one hand while they are seated in a vehicle. I'm at least going to get turned away. Also in his testimony Wilson stated he pulled the trigger multiple times and the gun didn't fire it also malfunctioned after the first shot and Wilson had to rack the slide to get it ready to fire again. The easiest way to get a gun to do this is to push the slide back to prevent it from firing or disrupting the slides motion as it is ejecting and chamber the rounds. Which is quite likely if someone is trying to take it from the person using it. Johnsons testimony also stated that Brown didn't have both hands up when Wilson shot him away from the cop car.

Cops are not trained to say they feared for their life after using force. They are trained to NOT use deadly force unless they have a reason to fear for their life or someone else's life because that is when deadly force is necessary. So of course they are going to say that's why the used deadly force, because that actually is the reason they used deadly force. If you're stopped at an intersection and the light turns green and you get hit by someone running the red light after you go you are going to have the same answer as anyone else who's ever gone through a green light if asked. If asked why you entered the intersection you're response would be something along the lines of because the light was green. The scenario is not the same but you can see my point. Any relevant response will be similar to any other person because everyone is taught to wait until the light is green before entering the intersection. They aren't taught to give the same answer is just that the answer to the question is the same.

Yeah just property damage, no one was hurt. And I do think a lawyer chat is in the future. Others have said we can sue for distress? Just the whole thing sucks. I have my car and toys all boarded up, and wont be able to access them if I wanted to. Atleast untill I get my garage rebuilt, which mostly will be awhile. Builder and insurance adjuster will be out on the 4th.

If it were me I'd talk to a lawyer. But id have to really wonder if the stress and delay of a court case is worth it. In the end it may be easier to just let the insurance company cover it. That way you get it all fixed up and don't have to deal with it and worry about him having a good enough lawyer to end up not paying all of it. The insurance companies have lawyers that only deal with cases like this.

Maybe the ones from CO were the only ones stoned enough to think hanging out in the road was a good idea.

I wonder if the driver can claim they are protesting also to get out of any trouble. That seems to be working for all the anarchists that are rioting and sitting down roadways.

Jay walking is not cause for assault with a deadly weapon.

But standing in the street to be an asshole does.

The Cleveland "protest" was just a bunch of whining.

If you have a message and a goal, that is a protest. Blocking traffic is just "look at me! I'm not happy!" bullshit.

I understand that people are upset. They have every right to feel that way. I understand that people want law enforcement to reevaluate their rules for use of deadly force to prevent future deaths of suspects ...but how does blocking traffic and inconveniencing everyone BUT the police achieve any progress toward that goal?

I think these protests alienated more people than they won over.

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/11/208237-driver-slams-car-protesters-blocking-way-crowd-doesnt-respond-well/

If you're dumb enough to stand in the street you deserve to be hit by a car.

I wonder if the line from Anchor Man, "I immediately regret this decision." ever went through the lady's head as her legs were about to be run over.

Bunch of fools are running around downtown Cinti waving signs.  At one point, a fair number wandered out onto both the north- and southbound lanes of I-75 near the District 1 police HQs and tried to shut down the interstate.  Now mind you, this was during the end of the rush hour surge about 6:30-7ish in the mostly pitch black darkness.  Haven't heard if there were any casualties, but you gotta be pretty stupid to put on dark clothes and a weird mask and rush out into 4 lanes of traffic, most of which is commercial truck traffic.  I'm guessing a phalanx of 18-wheelers 4 wide at about 45-50 MPH would do a way better job of clearing the freeway obstruction than a whole squad of police….

And people say natural selection is non-existent in our modern society.

I could use some liquor. I think I'm going to head down to the liquor store and "demonstrate"/"protest" by kicking in the door and picking up some free booze. After that I think I may run by the auto parts store.

On a side note it appears Ferguson has decided to start the Black Friday deals early this year. There are several stores having fire sales tonight.

My night is made. I just saw CNN reporters get tear gassed.

Pics or it didn't happen.

Here's a video.

http://therightscoop.com/watch-cnn-get-teargassed-after-almost-being-run-over-by-protesters-video/

CNN keeps bitching about the announcement being so late. Saying it was the worst time to do it. Apparently it would have been better to have innocent employees in all these businesses that are being robbed and burnt down.

All I can think of is Jason Aldean singing Burnin It Down while watching this.