- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Baton Rouge likely to fork over $450k settlement to family of man killed by BRPD
Posted on 7/24/14 at 12:58 pm to Topwater Trout
Posted on 7/24/14 at 12:58 pm to Topwater Trout
quote:
so we are to believe officer tells man to move the car (orders him actually) and then takes it upon himself to shoot the guy...and that makes sense to you?
A more rational train of thought would be the guy tried moving the car w/o officers consent and then was shot for not complying.
So despite the fact that there is no evidence or witness testimony that indicates this line of reasoning, you're going to go with it because...wait, why are you going to go with it? Because otherwise the officer would be a complete dumbass?
Kind of hard to argue with that line of reasoning...
1
Posted on 7/24/14 at 12:59 pm to jacks40
quote:
which one are you referring to?
The Secret Service case.
Posted on 7/24/14 at 12:59 pm to jacks40
quote:
so property damage is a punishable by death now?
depends...if someone felt their life was threatened it is justified.
Posted on 7/24/14 at 12:59 pm to Topwater Trout
quote:
so we are to believe officer tells man to move the car (orders him actually) and then takes it upon himself to shoot the guy...and that makes sense to you?
I simply pointed out your mistaken belief on what the article said or did not say.
quote:
I wasn't there. I don't know the witness, victim or cop. Was the witness drunk? Does the witness hate cops? Does the witness ever lie? All things i don't know but apparently all of you know those answers
True we don't know the answers to the questions you ask, but we aren't making up additional facts to support our beliefs on what happened.
Based on the facts as they are presented without assumptions of things not known I don't see how a reasonable person comes to your conclusion.
Posted on 7/24/14 at 12:59 pm to GeauxTigerTM
these cop defense areguments go the same way every time.
1.) assume witnesses/media/other cops are full of shite.
2.) get beaten down by rational thought
3.) ????
4.) switch to the, we both weren't there so we can't say what happened method.
5.) profit
Posted on 7/24/14 at 1:01 pm to DanTiger
quote:
The Secret Service case.
without knowing the facts of the case why do you think it is shakier to grant qualified immunity to the secret service protecting the President than it is to police officers?
Posted on 7/24/14 at 1:06 pm to lsu480
quote:
Until officers can be held personally liable these incidents will only increase.
You can't hold police personally accountable and expect them to perform their jobs correctly. No officer can be expected to protect citizens if they think they'll go broke from a lawsuit every time they roughly handle a suspect or grope a passed out chick in tigerland. Cops have to be aggressive and some times sexually assault perpetrators, it's just the nature of the job.
Posted on 7/24/14 at 1:06 pm to jacks40
quote:
but we aren't making up additional facts to support our beliefs on what happened.
neither am i
quote:
Based on the facts as they are presented
is a witness statement considered a fact?
Posted on 7/24/14 at 1:10 pm to NIH
quote:
these cop defense areguments go the same way every time.
i am not a cop defender.
quote:
.) assume witnesses/media/other cops are full of shite
They are always so truthful...nobody ever lies and media always reports stories as they happen
Posted on 7/24/14 at 1:12 pm to Topwater Trout
quote:
without knowing the facts of the case why do you think it is shakier to grant qualified immunity to the secret service protecting the President than it is to police officers?
The first case was clear cut according to the summary, in my opinion, because the officers were not charged with murder. Excessive force is not a charge I am overly familiar with and I would imagine there is not a great deal of case law on it which is why SCOTUS invoked qualified immunity. In Louisiana if a criminal charge were to filed in this case it would likely be manslaughter. From the brief summation it appeared that the officers acted within the law in an effort to preserve the safety of the public and themselves.
I believe the second case is shakier because it does violate the 1st amendment rights of the protestors. If you read the initial case on qualified immunity it was originally intended to address issues with our Constitutional rights that have not been well established. I know SCOTUS does lean to the side of presidential safety but of the two cases this one seems to be the most questionable in my opinion.
Posted on 7/24/14 at 1:12 pm to Topwater Trout
quote:
is a witness statement considered a fact?
Fair enough but without some other issue it seems less likely that multiple witnesses lied about that night and more likely they are telling the truth.
quote:
quote: but we aren't making up additional facts to support our beliefs on what happened.
You are assuming the witness are liars. That someone lied is a fact.
Posted on 7/24/14 at 1:32 pm to jacks40
quote:
You are assuming the witness are liars.
that is fair...but they are biased and it wouldn't be the first time a witness has lied about what happened. I would call it being pessimistic about there statements being honest.
A few weeks ago a cop was kelled and the witnesses (relatives who are biased) actually implied the cop was in the wrong.
The other cop said don't shoot because of innocent bystanders...does that mean he would have said shoot him if there weren't any innocent bystanders around?
Posted on 7/24/14 at 3:18 pm to Topwater Trout
quote:
ut we aren't making up additional facts to support our beliefs on what happened.
quote:
neither am i
Yes you are. You just made up a whole different story from what was reported.
Posted on 7/24/14 at 3:23 pm to HideChaKidz
quote:
You just made up a whole different story from what was reported
since when is the reported story considered fact? do you have a link saying those are indeed the facts? i will be waiting
Posted on 7/24/14 at 3:43 pm to Topwater Trout
quote:
since when is the reported story considered fact? do you have a link saying those are indeed the facts? i will be waiting
If we go by your line of reasoning then lets just doubt every story ever reported.
Also, that family is about to get paid the 450k. That's factual enough for me that the courts knew they were wronged.
I still think it's hilarious that you'd deny making up facts when you just assumed that the reported story is false and continued to create your own.
Posted on 7/24/14 at 3:45 pm to LSU0358
quote:brpd gonna brpd. its a department of corruption
Freaking unbelievable. What does it take to get fired as a policeman these days?
Posted on 7/24/14 at 3:58 pm to HideChaKidz
quote:
I still think it's hilarious that you'd deny making up facts when you just assumed that the reported story is false and continued to create your own
based on the story provided this is a fact...correct?
Please tell me you don't think opinions are facts
Now what facts did I make up?
quote:
Also, that family is about to get paid the 450k. That's factual enough for me that the courts knew they were wronged.
This thing went to trial?
This post was edited on 7/24/14 at 3:59 pm
Posted on 7/24/14 at 4:06 pm to Topwater Trout
A grand jury cleared him, not the DA.
Posted on 7/24/14 at 4:09 pm to Topwater Trout
quote:
This thing went to trial?
Doesn't matter, brah. Truth only comes out in civil suits where there's money to be made.
Posted on 7/24/14 at 4:10 pm to michael corleone
yep
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News