Seattle Pays 10 Mil For Body Slam

[Fargo]

Uh, I believe the paramedic testifying that the officer told him the guy had ran into the wall by himself contrary to the video would be just such a detail...

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What cover up, it's only mentioned in passing.

The cover up that started from the very first Chief Wiggum press conference where we learned that if you say "probable cause" multiple times that it excuses a civil right violation.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Uh, I believe the paramedic testifying that the officer told him the guy had ran into the wall by himself contrary to the video would be just such a detail...

Got a link to that claim? And if so, that's not indicative of a cover up.... that's an "un-official" lie. The only way one could say that a cover-up was attempted, is if the "official" report... which we all know was done immediately after, falls out of line with what the video shows.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

See Post #3 of this thread where I quoted the article with the witty commentary "Ouch."

 

[Kutnupe14]

See Post #3 of this thread where I quoted the article with the witty commentary "Ouch."

Ah, gotcha. Still... is that a "coverup?" I'm leaning towards "no." What does the report say that the officer in question completed?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Can't answer that, sir. I too would like to see the police report.

If you are looking for official sanction of the cover up then I would say Chief Wiggum's press conference is fairly damaging to the defense's case.

 

[hornadylnl]

Ah, gotcha. Still... is that a "coverup?" I'm leaning towards "no." What does the report say that the officer in question completed?

Please tell me why the officer almost immediately moved his unconscious body if he didn't realize that he majorly f'd up.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Looks like an accident, does appear they tried to cover it up though. Looks like he was thinking about running but changed his mind. What was he wanted for?

 

[Benny]

Looks like an accident, does appear they tried to cover it up though. Looks like he was thinking about running but changed his mind. What was he wanted for?

He wasn't.

There is a link to the article in the first post.



BTW, there was nothing "accidental" about the excessive force Officer Fatass used on that guy.

 

[Love the 1911]

Are you serious? Still, we're paranoid? GO WATCH THE VIDEO. The cop ended the man's cognitive life and tried to cover it up. I didn't suggest stupidly shooting a cop. I suggested defending your brain from ANY piece of **** who charges at you, intending to put you in a coma and cover up the crime like a sub-human dirtbag not worthy of air. It says a lot about you and your kind that you defend this beast. I'm not paranoid, you're just a blind follower.

I missed the part about someone defending the officer on this. Could you point it out to me? I think the word "accident" has been used but not "justified/guy deserved it."

There is nothing to interpret. You ought to take the time to read the document you swore an Oath to protect. It's obvious you haven't done so.

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There is only one way to read that, unless you're a word-twisting, freedom-hating cop who tries to cover up breaking someone's neck.

 

[Love the 1911]

Does that include posting on an Internet message board as well? It would be comical reading the authoritarian coming out of some of the leos here if I could believe they could keep all interactions with citizens professional and not personal. If they can't do it here, then it's hard to believe they can do it on the job.

I've said before that I believe that the officer had no intention of causing a brain injury with that shove. But he knew he screwed up because he moved his body. Telling the paramedic he fell shows he knew hescrewed up but that's he said, she said. Is there a copy of the officer's statement in the police report as to what happened? If he stated in the report that he fell, then there should be no less than immediate termination and criminal charges.

Sorry, but no one is going to become the internet police here and ask their fellow LEO's to control their anger on a forum. Freedom of speech applies here, as all the tin-foil hat guys love to point out whenever they feel the JBT's are coming for them.

I agree completely with your second statement. This instance of excessive force I feel was an accident, not a curb-stomping handed out because this officer was angry. Like I said before, an accident does have to be punished when it affects someone's life like this. Lying about the circumstances makes this officer unable to perform his duties any longer as we are nothing without our integrity.

 

[hornadylnl]

Sorry, but no one is going to become the internet police here and ask their fellow LEO's to control their anger on a forum. Freedom of speech applies here, as all the tin-foil hat guys love to point out whenever they feel the JBT's are coming for them.

I agree completely with your second statement. This instance of excessive force I feel was an accident, not a curb-stomping handed out because this officer was angry. Like I said before, an accident does have to be punished when it affects someone's life like this. Lying about the circumstances makes this officer unable to perform his duties any longer as we are nothing without our integrity.

I'm not saying you or any other officer can't speak your mind here. I just think it's telling when you see people posting with an authoritarian bent.

I've not seen if this officer has received so much as a reprimand. Are there any links that say what if any discipline this officer has received?

 

[jeremy]

Newsflash, running from the police is illegal.

Really?!
What is the IC on this...

 

[Kutnupe14]

Please tell me why the officer almost immediately moved his unconscious body if he didn't realize that he majorly f'd up.

How about you watch the video again, and see if you still think that he "moved the body" because he "f'd up." The first time I watched the vid, it was clear as day to me what he was doing.

 

[jeremy]

Not true. Your interpretation of the document maybe. Mine, not soo much. If you truley think that shooting a police officer is a better option than talking to them and straightening out the confusion, then YES I STRONGLY BELIEVE YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CARRY A FIREARM!

Depends on where I am at...

 

[jeremy]

No, I save my yipping and barking for those who need it, like policy makers and those who make the decisions. Running from the police when one has done NOTHING wrong is idiocy. Why provoke the body politic enforcement when one has done nothing wrong? Paranoia meet common sense.

I can name of Several Countries were Only an Idiot stays to talk to LEO...

I can name several Cities in the US that only an Idiot stays around to talk to the Law also...

Paranoia is not always a bad thing...

 

[Kutnupe14]

I can name of Several Countries were Only an Idiot stays to talk to LEO...

I can name several Cities in the US that only an Idiot stays around to talk to the Law also...

Paranoia is not always a bad thing...

Most of the time it is. I once had a case where a girl (adult) had gotten into a fight with her mother, and both of them injuries. I spoke to the mother, and she told me everything her daughter did, and placed the blame squarely on her. I then tried to speak to the daughter. She told me "I've been told never to talk to the police." I told her sincerely that it was honestly in her best interest to tell me what happened. Then she "lawyered up."
Now, if the daughter had of told me what happened, I would have separated them both, let them go home, and send up to PCs to the pros office (knowing full well that charges wouldnt be filed...it would be chalked up as mutual combat).
Well since the daughter held firm to her notion not to talk to police. I had to arrest her. And so away to jail she went.

 

[03mustgt]

Really?!
What is the IC on this...

IC 35-44-3-3 Version a
Resisting law enforcement; mandatory sentence
Note: This version of section amended by P.L.100-2010, SEC.6. See also following version of this section amended by P.L.102-2010, SEC.2.
Sec. 3. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally:
(1) forcibly resists, obstructs, or interferes with a law enforcement officer or a person assisting the officer while the officer is lawfully engaged in the execution of the officer's duties;
(2) forcibly resists, obstructs, or interferes with the authorized service or execution of a civil or criminal process or order of a court; or
(3) flees from a law enforcement officer after the officer has, by visible or audible means, including operation of the law enforcement officer's siren or emergency lights, identified himself or herself and ordered the person to stop;
commits resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor,

 

[jeremy]

IC 35-44-3-3 Version a
Resisting law enforcement; mandatory sentence
Note: This version of section amended by P.L.100-2010, SEC.6. See also following version of this section amended by P.L.102-2010, SEC.2.
Sec. 3. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally:
(1) forcibly resists, obstructs, or interferes with a law enforcement officer or a person assisting the officer while the officer is lawfully engaged in the execution of the officer's duties;
(2) forcibly resists, obstructs, or interferes with the authorized service or execution of a civil or criminal process or order of a court; or
(3) flees from a law enforcement officer after the officer has, by visible or audible means, including operation of the law enforcement officer's siren or emergency lights, identified himself or herself and ordered the person to stop;
commits resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor,

So even though an Officer has no Legitimate reason to Stop me, I can still be detain?!

 

[03mustgt]

So even though an Officer has no Legitimate reason to Stop me, I can still be detain?!

Nope, as long as you dont flee.