skypuppy

Amazon

*********Judge Dread LIVES at your local cop shop

I repeat, hyperbole much???

What is the tally killed by cops this year... do you guys keep score???

how many local cop shops are there in America? do you keep count?


One report I read said something on the order of seventeen thousand cop shops.. but amazingly.... they were so embarrassed by the numbers of killings by cops back in the 80's they decided to no longer keep track.... because it showed glaringly that protecting and serving was not what they were doing...

Here let me help with that....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/09/08/how-many-police-shootings-a-year-no-one-knows/


Criminal justice experts note that, while the federal government and national research groups keep scads of data and statistics— on topics ranging from how many people were victims of unprovoked shark attacks (53 in 2013) to the number of hogs and pigs living on farms in the U.S. (upwards of 64,000,000 according to 2010 numbers) — there is no reliable national data on how many people are shot by police officers each year.

The government does, however, keep a database of how many officers are killed in the line of duty. In 2012, the most recent year for which FBI data is available, it was 48 – 44 of them killed with firearms.

But how many people in the United States were shot, or killed, by law enforcement officers during that year? No one knows.

Officials with the Justice Department keep no comprehensive database or record of police shootings, instead allowing the nation’s more than 17,000 law enforcement agencies to self-report officer-involved shootings as part of the FBI’s annual data on “justifiable homicides” by law enforcement.

That number – which only includes self-reported information from about 750 law enforcement agencies – hovers around 400 “justifiable homicides” by police officers each year. The DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics also tracks “arrest-related deaths.” But the department stopped releasing those numbers after 2009, because, like the FBI data, they were widely regarded as unreliable.

The silence Officer is DEAFEANING

Have a donut

So by your own source, there's 17 thousand agencies. But many of those agencies will have multiple local cop shops. And you are reporting there are 400 justifiable shootings each year. So 400 justifiable shootings, divided between more 17000 cop shops, and you say "Judge Dread lives at your local cop shop."?

hyperbole much?

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Amazon

***Judge Dread LIVES at your local cop shop

I repeat, hyperbole much???

What is the tally killed by cops this year... do you guys keep score???

how many local cop shops are there in America? do you keep count?

Judge Dread LIVES at your local cop shop

I repeat, hyperbole much???

Amazon

***Sorry, I'm late here.

What are the poll choices?

Death by swooping?
vs
Death by Snu-Snu?

I think the number of death by cop in any one year far exceeds ALL DEATHS by skydivers/base jumpers in ANY discipline...

Judge Dread LIVES at your local cop shop

Hyperbole much?

Amazon

***I get it your liberal mind can't grasp anything but cops bad...guns bad...fear every cop contact as they are all mad lunatics ready to shoot every person who steps out of line. Funny that last part has been said by you many times.

Others however can be subjective and see different sides to each incident and take into account the variables and human aspects to what was going on. In your mind every shooting was a cop putting a paper bag over someone's head and point blank executing them. Something to do with your mindset is all.

Hyperbole much??????

Pot, meet kettle...

Amazon

***************Hi skypuppy,

Quote

I hope they get charged.

My son is an attorney with a corporate law firm in Portland; they have 40-45 lawyers on staff.

He is going to ask the managing partners if he can defend some of these people pro bono.

He has 6 yrs experience as a prosecutor / criminal defense attorney. There are a number of other lawyers at his firm wanting to also do a pro bono defense; but since they have no courtroom experience, they are asking him if he will brief/assist them if & when they go to court.

I did raise him to think for himself.

Jerry Baumchen

Sorry Jerry, but I hope he loses spectacularly and they either go to jail or are fined into bankruptcy.


Sorry Clint.... but I see you are just not a fan of the OTHER parts of the constitution.... funny about how many compassionate conservatives seem to have a severe hypocrisy built into what it is they have that they are calling patriotism. The constitution has a few more components than just the 2nd amendment.....

I have always take to heart that oath I once took to support it.... ALL OF IT.
I may not agree with the actions of those who protest but I certainly love their right to voice their opposition to corporatism.... I do believe that is our right as Americans.

I get the right to free speech, and the right to association, etc. but they don't have the right to block legal commerce, as far as my reading goes. And I would have them charged individually and as a group for it.

The have the right to protest. And they have the responsibility to pay for whatever it cost for them to protest. If it's $10k per hour, then so be it.


Yup ....... and have every right to a defense in a court of law with competent representation.

But the corporations ( by way of their owners desires ) do have a tendency to pile on to get their way since they paid people to write the laws the way they want them.

again, no question that they have the right to a defense. That doesn't mean they should get their defense for free. Mind you, that doesn't stop their lawyers, if they go to court and win, from asking for some lawyer's fees from the other side - but they should have to make their case based on the law. And even if they win, if they can't prove entitlement by law, they shouldn't get costs.

In my mind, that would mean they would have to prove malicious prosecution or something... Since this isn't a lawsuit, but a prosecution for law-breaking in that they were restricting commerce illegally.

If they don't win, they definitely shouldn't be entitled to costs...

GeorgiaDon

Quote

Again, Bill is the one who specifically brought up convicted murderers.

Not a very convincing dodge to the question.

Don

In the case of your example, I would have no problem, all things being equal, with giving the guy a gun permit after he got out, if he was not the one who committed the murder. If however, he was a violent felon who drove a getaway car in an armed robbery, that's a different story.

If it was a violent felon driving a getaway car in an armed robbery where someone was killed, then no, he shouldn't get out. If it was similar to your more passive example, he shouldn't have been convicted.

In that case, I would suggest the problem is not gun control, it is your justice system.

GeorgiaDon

Quote

to me the question here would be = what is a convicted murderer doing out in society anyway - as far as I'm concerned a convicted murderer should be in jail. Or have been executed.

Is this how Canada deals with people convicted of murder? I don't think so.

In the US you can easily be convicted of murder without actually killing anyone. All you have to do is be a party to a crime in which someone ends up getting killed. Example from where I live: college kid asks his friend for a drive so he can pick up some weed, a small amount for personal use (not dealing). At the buy, the person selling the weed instead pulls a gun and robs the college kid, then shoots him. Friend brings college kid to the hospital but college kid is already dead. Friend is charged with felony murder because he drove the college kid to the drug buy, and is sentenced to life (with the possibility of parole after 25 years). Do you think the friend should be executed for what he did? Locked up for life and never let out?

Back to the background check issue, there are a lot of crimes less than murder that still suggest a person should not be allowed to own guns for at least a significant amount of time after their release. Would you say that every person convicted of brandishing a weapon during a robbery should be executed, or locked up for life? If not, then they will be released one day and we still have the issue of whether or not they should be allowed to walk into a gun shop and buy whatever they want. rushmc is OK with that, what do you think?

Don

Again, Bill is the one who specifically brought up convicted murderers.

Amazon

******>There is no reason there should be a background check to begin with

Do you think it's a good idea to sell guns to convicted murderers?

to me the question here would be = what is a convicted murderer doing out in society anyway - as far as I'm concerned a convicted murderer should be in jail. Or have been executed.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=3




*In 2006 an estimated 69% of all persons convicted of a felony in state
courts were sentenced to a period of confinement–41% to state prison
and 28% to local jails.

*State prison sentences averaged 4 years and 11 months in 2006.

*Men (83%) accounted for a larger percentage of persons convicted of a felony,
compared to their percentage (49%) of the adult population (not shown in table).

*Most (94%) felony offenders sentenced in 2006 pleaded guilty.

Section 1. Felony Sentences in State Court

*State courts sentenced an estimated 1,132,290
persons for a felony in 2006, including 206,140
(or 18% of all felony convictions) for a violent
felony (table 1.1). A drug crime was the most
serious conviction offense for about a third of
felons sentenced in state courts that year.

*In 2006 an estimated 69% of all persons convicted
of a felony in state courts were sentenced
to a period of confinement—41% to state
prison and 28% to local jails (table 1.2). Jail
sentences are usually a year or less in a county
or city facility, while prison sentences are usually
more than a year and are served in a state
facility.

*Among persons sentenced for a felony in state
courts nationwide in 2006, an estimated 27%
received a probation sentence with no jail or
prison time. Four percent of felons were not
sentenced to any incarceration or probation,
but received a sentence that included fines, restitution,
treatment, community service, or some other penalty
(for example, house arrest or periodic drug testing).

*State prison sentences averaged 4 years and
11 months in 2006 (table 1.3). Persons convicted
of a violent felony received the longest
prison sentences in 2006, compared to property,
drug, weapon, and other felonies.

*Felony sentences to jail averaged 6 months
(table 1.3). Among felons who were sentenced
in state courts to probation and no incarceration,
the average probation sentence was
3 years and 2 months.

*Life sentences accounted for less than 1%
(0.3%) of the 1.1 million felony sentences in
state courts during 2006 (table 1.4). However,
among the estimated 8,670 persons sentenced
for murder or nonnegligent manslaughter that
year, 23% received life in prison.

*Among the estimated 460,000 persons sentenced
to prison via state courts, 0.8% received
life sentences (table 1.4).

Bill specifically said convicted murderers. If convicted murderers being out on the street is the reason for your gun laws, the convicted murderers should maybe be in jail...

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

vitriol

*********You leave out the enormous fees charged to hunters which go directly back to making sure the hunting grounds remain with animals for further hunts.

It is in the best interests of the people to make SURE that they dont over hunt the areas or their gold mine will dry up. The millions spent in the hunt areas are funneled back into conservation and promoting breeding and healthy stock.

Funniest thing I've read in a long time. Is that your expert opinion on how things work in africa? If I had to guess I'd say you've never been to africa, and probably never stepped out of the united states.

OK I'll bite. What's your "expert" opinion and basis for saying he is wrong?

What he said was true of Southern Africa - based on growing up there with relatives and friends who ran game ranches (for hunting). Non hunters made up the bulk of tourists, but like tandems it was the hunts that brought in the big money.

...


My opinion is based by the fact Cecil, the Lion we're talking about was killed by a hunter that payed a lot of money to a professional hunter that organizes those hunts. Do you really believe any of that money went to conservation? Do you believe it's the only time this has happened? Do you believe the local authorities have no knowledge of people having done this before?

Also, there's a big difference between zimbabwe and south africa.

If those big amounts of money were all going to conservation, there would not be private hunting ranches. Those ranches exist because the owners make loads of money. Animals lare ured or taken from national parks to fenced ranches.

Same for the money paid in permits for safaris, treks, etc, it is notoriously known money is stolen and diverted for personnal gain. Only a tiny fraction is being used for what it should.

I've been to africa, my g/f lived in Kenya and is a biologist and currently a professional guide in eastern africa. Corruption is rampant, crimes go unpunished and while there are some exceptions, many animal populations are not doing very good.

as the article he quoted clearly stated, it was BECAUSE of private hunting ranches that the white rhino was pulled back from the brink of extinction. The fact it doesn't work in some areas says more about those areas than it does about the system of private hunting ranches...

JerryBaumchen

Hi skypuppy,

Quote

I hope they get charged.

My son is an attorney with a corporate law firm in Portland; they have 40-45 lawyers on staff.

He is going to ask the managing partners if he can defend some of these people pro bono.

He has 6 yrs experience as a prosecutor / criminal defense attorney. There are a number of other lawyers at his firm wanting to also do a pro bono defense; but since they have no courtroom experience, they are asking him if he will brief/assist them if & when they go to court.

I did raise him to think for himself.

Jerry Baumchen

If I had a corporate law firm, I'd probably consider that corporations depend on the rule of law to do business. So if someone in my law firm wanted to represent law breakers pro bono, I'd probably say no. But that's just me... Not that they shouldn't have a defense. But they should have consequences for their actions, and paying for that defence is part of it.

Amazon

******Hi skypuppy,

Quote

I hope they get charged.

My son is an attorney with a corporate law firm in Portland; they have 40-45 lawyers on staff.

He is going to ask the managing partners if he can defend some of these people pro bono.

He has 6 yrs experience as a prosecutor / criminal defense attorney. There are a number of other lawyers at his firm wanting to also do a pro bono defense; but since they have no courtroom experience, they are asking him if he will brief/assist them if & when they go to court.

I did raise him to think for himself.

Jerry Baumchen

Sorry Jerry, but I hope he loses spectacularly and they either go to jail or are fined into bankruptcy.


Sorry Clint.... but I see you are just not a fan of the OTHER parts of the constitution.... funny about how many compassionate conservatives seem to have a severe hypocrisy built into what it is they have that they are calling patriotism. The constitution has a few more components than just the 2nd amendment.....

I have always take to heart that oath I once took to support it.... ALL OF IT.
I may not agree with the actions of those who protest but I certainly love their right to voice their opposition to corporatism.... I do believe that is our right as Americans.

I get the right to free speech, and the right to association, etc. but they don't have the right to block legal commerce, as far as my reading goes. And I would have them charged individually and as a group for it.

billvon

>There is no reason there should be a background check to begin with

Do you think it's a good idea to sell guns to convicted murderers?

to me the question here would be = what is a convicted murderer doing out in society anyway - as far as I'm concerned a convicted murderer should be in jail. Or have been executed.

JerryBaumchen

Hi Anvil,

Quote

little bs things

From this evenings news:

- Two people were arrested. The guy who padlocked himself to the railroad bridge and one kayaker who attacked the LEO's who were trying to move him out of the way.

- 13 kayakers have been cited for blocking a waterway

- And the Coast Guard & DOJ are considering charges against the 13 people who were hanging from the bridge

Jerry Baumchen

good. I hope they get charged.

jakee

***
I didn't say point it at the guy, and I didn't say he was waving it around. I said the guy was being antsy, and his job was to get to the bottom of the situation, and get the guy out of the car...

You said he may have drawn his gun in case he needed to enforce compliance. So, since the gun merely being drawn doesn't yet count as enforcing compliance, what would he have done with his gun to enforce compliance if not point it at the guy?

If a cop was drawing a gun while interacting with me, that would be enforcing compliance. he doesn't have to point it at me. Merely putting his hand on it would reinforce to me that I'd better pay attention. The fact that the driver didn't pay attention is what led to the rest of the problem, IMO...

GeorgiaDon

Quote

If there had been a female duct taped in the trunk and the cop let him run and get away it would be a completely oposite dialog coming from some here.

What????
That kind of "logic" could be used to justify killing anyone, any time.

Don

not at all - it does however justify NOT ALLOWING THE DRIVER TO LEAVE without further investigation, which is what the cop was attempting to do.

tkhayes

I never said the cop 'did' any of those things. I am opening up a dialogue about the possibility of changing things so maybe fewer people die....and you are making assumptions about things that I said that i did not say.

i am pretty clear on what I say and what I mean and i am also pretty clear about what I DO NOT mean.....again, i said I did not have all the answers.

If you comprehension of what I say is limited, then that is your problem, not mine.

Let me try that....."so what you are really saying is that all cops should be free to shoot black people in the head whenever they feel threatened". Not what you said, but could be the way I interpret it.

so like I said, stop nitpicking and join the conversation. or don't.

The scenario Georgia Don articulated here

" Do you think people should have to have a driver's license at all to drive on public roads? If people do have to have a license, and this fellow did not have one on him, what should a cop do? Just let him drive off? Assume he has one but just forgot it at home? Around here, if you are stopped and don't have your license on you, you get a ticket and have to call someone to come and pick you up, you are not allowed to continue driving. It's a nuisance, if you did just forget your license, but what is the alternative (in your opinion). BTW if you did just forget your license you have to go to the sheriff or police station and show it and they will cancel the ticket, another inconvenience but preferable to the alternatives IMO. "

is exactly what happened to my wife.

She was pulled over for going 5 km/hr over the limit going down a hill, and ended up calling me to bring her paperwork. Are you saying she should have just driven away.

Incidentally, I don't really see the guy being black as necessarily being relevant. My wife is white - she got pulled over and asked for paperwork. Are you saying if a white guy had acted the same way when pulled over the cop would have done something different? I don't see how. Yes, it may not have been smart to reach in the car, but once he did and the guy started moving, he was in danger...

billvon

>I said the guy was being antsy

Well, there's your justification right there. Antsy people are dangerous, and a bullet to the head is really the only reasonable response.

If you got that from my post, that says more about you than it does about what I wrote...

JerryBaumchen

Hi folks,

This Greenpeace protest is now into its 2nd day:

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2015/07/judge_fines_greenpeace_2500_fo.html

Jerry Baumchen

the problem I have with this, is the individuals should be fined as well. Not some anonymous organization, but the people carrying it out as well.

tkhayes

arguably the cop did not/should not have the right 'to get the guy out of the car' for something as simple as a license plate violation.

Escalating a non-violent situation unnecessarily over what was clearly an administrative detail. Bottom line is that no one ever deserves to be shot for not having a license plate, or not having a drivers license. Nor should they even be subject to search in my opinion.

The absolute worst case, I would suggest is that the cop takes down the details of the car, the supposed name of the person and leaves it at that. If the police want to pursue verifying it or following up with a summons, then do that later on through another means of investigation.

The police officer had no reason to suspect that this person is a wanted felon, was carrying illegal weapons, was a terrorist, or was about to commit a violent crime.

I would advocate for changes to laws that actually DO NOT allow officers to search for things over and above what the suspected 'crime' is. Not sure how that might work, but if I pull you over for a tail light being out, I would prefer that the scope of the investigation is related to your vehicle only - not treating you as if you are 'deadly'.

Now if you and your car fits the description of an armed robbery suspect that happened 3 blocks away 10 minutes ago, then I can see where there needs to be some discretion.

I do not claim to have the answers, but I am sure that good rules and legislation can be written that allow people a little more freedom and keeps cops from drawing their guns in such situations.

If the cop never reached into the car, then the possibility of getting dragged would not have been there.

And I am glad that this guy is facing a murder charge - it is truly horrific that people's lives are brought to an end in violent confrontations with police over such bullshit.

Prosecutor called it “a senseless, asinine shooting” and that is exactly what it is.

I was going to say it, but Georgia Don beat me to it. What if the guy is suspected of being drunk now? Let him go? In the video he just handed the guy a bottle of gin off the floor in front of his feet. You don't think that's reason for search?

jakee

***how do you figure he drew his gun in anger? from what I can see the guy was attempting to drive away and he reached into the car to attempt to shut it off. He may have drawn his gun then in case he needed to enforce compliance. Once the guy started moving, he was in danger of harm, and he shot the guy... I see no indication whatsoever that he drew the gun in anger. I see he drew it to emphasize compliance (getting compliance is his job, as I see it).

First 'in anger' doesn't mean the same thing as 'while angry'.

Second, you're a scary guy! No one, not even the police, should be pointing guns at people to emphasise compliance. You only point guns at people you might need to shoot. If he was waving a gun at someone he had no cause to shoot and it accidentally went off, that's still murder.

I didn't say point it at the guy, and I didn't say he was waving it around. I said the guy was being antsy, and his job was to get to the bottom of the situation, and get the guy out of the car...

Amazon

***>But you are not looking at it correctly - as the population goes down, they
> could charge an increasing rate

That's true. Think about how much you could charge a hunter to let him kill the last lion on the planet. The mind boggles. Heck, you could afford most mid-sized wars with a business plan like that.

source?
They get far more revenue in Africa from tourists who shoot pictures of the animals than they do from the few rich men shooting the animals with weapons.

jakee

***
I've watched the body cam video several times. I wasn't there, but what I speculate happened is the cop perceived he was in danger when he was leaning into a car that attempting to drive away. It wasn't the brightest idea to lean into the car, but it appears to me he considers himself in danger and draws his weapon.

Further speculation on my part is he didn't intend to shoot the dude. He just didn't have good trigger control and the movement of the car and/or struggle with the occupant caused him to squeeze off a round.

Ok, but the thing about that is that no matter what the motivation or intention it's still all the cops fault. He learned into the car, he initiated a struggle, he fired his weapon.

In any other situation, for anyone but a cop, if you point a gun at someone in anger and it goes off, you're a murderer.

how do you figure he drew his gun in anger? from what I can see the guy was attempting to drive away and he reached into the car to attempt to shut it off. He may have drawn his gun then in case he needed to enforce compliance. Once the guy started moving, he was in danger of harm, and he shot the guy... I see no indication whatsoever that he drew the gun in anger. I see he drew it to emphasize compliance (getting compliance is his job, as I see it).

CanuckInUSA

The guy is a major dipshit. If a lion attacks you, then yes shoot it in self defense. But this wasn't the case.

On a somewhat related/unrelated note, as a child I remember watching the movie "Born Free" but I was pretty young at the time and I am not sure how much of the movie I really absorbed. But last month the movie replayed on my local cable TV classic movies station and I watched it. What a great movie this is from the mid 1960s era. The movie is based on the real life events of Joy and George Adamson who adopt three lion cubs after George is forced to shoot the cub's mother (in self defense). Eventually the cubs grew too big and the Adamsons had to give the cubs up. But Joy and the smallest cub Elsa the Lioness had this special bond with each other and the Adamsons kept Elsa and raised her. Of source even Elsa grew too big and the Adamson's were forced to either give Elsa up to a zoo or try the unthinkable and reintroduce Elsa back into the wild. Joy was persistent in her beliefs that Elsa should not be locked up in a cage for the rest of her life (hence the name of the movie "Born Free"). Many said it couldn't be done, and it took months, but they succeeded and Elsa was successfully reintroduced back into the wild and the following year the Adamsons met up with Elsa again in the Kenyan wild life reserve where Elsa mothered her own litter of cubs. Of course the movie does not mention this, but Elsa's life was cut short after only five years when she succumbed to Babesia felis, a tick-borne blood disease similar to malaria.

I only bring this up because A) it is a fantastic story based on real people and a real lion and people should watch it if they get the chance ... and ... B) animals are a lot smarter than humans believe they are.

Once again this dentist is a major dipshit for taking the life of such a fantastic creature. I am not anti-hunting when people hunt for food. But I am anti-hunting when it is only done for sport. Killing is not a sport.

Interesting side note - George Adamson was murdered by poachers in ('89 I believe) while attempting to stop them from attacking a tourist. His wife Joy had been murdered separately (they lived apart at the time) some years earlier, but I think over a dispute with a former employee.

gowlerk

Before y'all get too high up on yer high horse about baited lion hunting in Africa, tell me what the difference between that and this is?

http://www.trophybookoutfitters.com/blackbear-hunts.htm

maybe the fact that there are lots of bears, but lions are becoming scarce. also I don't think they're luring bears out of a protected game reserve.