Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 40 of 40

Thread: Student Tasered at UCLA

  1. #26
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,101

    Default Re: Student Tasered at UCLA

    The Taser needs to be considered potentially lethal. The (police) perception that it is not potentially lethal is empowering its use too early and often.

    Being stuck on dialup I am not able to watch this particular clip so am not speaking to it specifically.

    People do take drugs, legally and otherwise. People do have heart ailments that lie dormant. Even athletes. Some people have known heart ailments. You can't always tell by looking. Just because someone has drugs in their system doesn't justify their death.... And you can't tell me putting voltage into someone's body can be good for their heart (or other organs) whether medicated or not.

    The police acknowledge it causes pain. Here's a little tidbit... pain is a warning signal that your body gives.

    I don't have a problem with police having tasers but it's pretty obvious they believe them to be 'safe' tools. And as Peck has said, their training has enforced that thought. It should be drilled that every use of a taser could be potentially fatal. If the situation still warrants it then that is fine but the police officer should always ask himself if this is a situation that he feels would warrant the death of the detained.

    Yes, I know being a police officer is a tough job but there are more dangerous occupations out there. Also, it's a job you've chosen to do.

    -Bball
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  2. #27
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    21,083

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Student Tasered at UCLA

    There is a definate anti-police bias in this country, from the general public and even the media. Here's a prime example of that biasness and how situations can escalate even with people who most wouldn't deem a threat.

    Woman, 92, dies in shootout with police

    ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- The niece of a 92-year-old woman shot to death by police said her aunt likely had reason to shoot three narcotics investigators as they stormed her house.

    Police insisted the officers did everything right before entering the home Tuesday evening, despite suggestions from the woman's neighbors and relatives that it was a case of mistaken identity.

    The woman, Kathryn Johnston, was the only resident in the house at the time and had lived there for about 17 years, Assistant Chief Alan Dreher said.

    The officers had a legal warrant, "knocked and announced" before they forced open the door and were justified in shooting once fired upon, he said.

    Sarah Dozier, the niece, told WAGA-TV that there were never drugs at the house. (Watch niece's fury at police shooting)

    "My aunt was in good health. I'm sure she panicked when they kicked that door down," Dozier said. "There was no reason they had to go in there and shoot her down like a dog."

    As the plainclothes Atlanta police officers approached the house about 7 p.m., a woman inside started shooting, striking each of them, said Officer Joe Cobb, a police spokesman.

    One was hit in the arm, another in a thigh and the third in a shoulder. The officers were taken to a hospital for treatment, and all three were conscious and alert, police said.

    The Rev. Markel Hutchins, a civil rights leader, said Johnston's family deserves an apology.

    "Of the police brutality cases we've had, this is the most egregious because of the woman's age," Hutchins said.

    Hutchins said he would try to meet with Atlanta Police Chief Richard Pennington and would also meet with lawyers.

    Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
    http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/22/wom....ap/index.html

    How many would think a 92 y/o woman would even have a gun, let alone within reaching distance and actually firing it at police officers that identified themselves before coming in? I know it sure as hell surprised me.

    But what does the article talk about? How she was a victim and all these people are demanding an apology for police brutality. WTF! If officers have a freaking warrant to enter your house, then you have NO right to fire upon them, whether a mistake has been made or not.

    I think this is a pretty good example of the attitude about LEOs in our country. Instead of complying, and giving them the respect they deserve, everyone tries to paint them as the bad guys.

    I hate it when cops bust parties I'm at, but I've ever called one a "pig" or something along those lines. Their job is to keep me safe, and a that even calls for them to put their own lives in danger to ensure my safety, and I'm thankful for that.

    I can't watch the vid here, but I've got a pretty good idea of what it shows. Whoever resists LEOs, whether by just not obeying a command or anything else, is asking for trouble and have no right to ***** once they get it.

  3. #28

    Default Re: Student Tasered at UCLA

    What do you think the odds are he will show his ID card next time he is asked?

  4. #29
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,101

    Default Re: Student Tasered at UCLA

    Since 86,
    When you get down to the issue that she was an honest woman, 92 years old, living alone in her same home of 17 years then things get a little stickier for the police busting in in the first place.

    Yes, they thought they were doing the right thing but this goes back to the question of police knocking before they enter... and how much work was done to be sure they were given a proper address and name. And another question enters into this... how about surveillance prior to all of this?

    I imagine a thief could yell "Police" just before knocking down her door too. Yelling "Police" and then to come smashing in... is that what a 92 year old woman would/should expect the police to do?

    And it appears this could all be in the name of a drug bust...

    There should be some serious looking into how the mistaken identity was made.... and I hope it doesn't come out that neighbors were telling the police BEFORE this all went down that this was a case of mistaken identity.

    Power and adrenaline can do strange things to both sides in these conflicts.

    The police carry a tremendous responsibility and the burden should be pretty high on them when things go wrong.

    And all that said... this article may not be telling the whole story so the above is dependant on the truth being presented in the first place.

    FWIW... I am one of the people who believe it is better that 100 guilty people go free rather than 1 innocent person be wrongly convicted. ...And I'd even expand that to say "stand accused".

    -Bball
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  5. #30
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    21,083

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Student Tasered at UCLA

    I think you just made my point for me.

    -Calling her an "honest" woman. (She had a gun within reach)
    -Shot three, not one, but three officers after they "announced and knocked"
    -Shot at officers when they had every legal reason to be there.
    -Saying a serious look of how a case of mistaken identity could have happened, when there is no evidence other than her relatives saying that was the case. Do you think that a family would admit that their grandmothers house was used for drug deals?

    You automatically assume that the police was in the wrong, and that was exactly the point I was trying to make.

  6. #31
    All is full of Orange! Mourning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Bilthoven, The Netherlands
    Age
    38
    Posts
    8,987

    Default Re: Student Tasered at UCLA

    I still don't see why it was crucial to taser this guy REPEATEDLY. IF he doesn't cooperate with police handcuffing him then taser him once then handcuff him. What's the problem with doing it like that?

    There has to be a balance and this seemed far from beying balanced. Offcourse, you have to obey to the police, but that doesn't mean they should knock you until you lose conciousness or repeatedly taser you. That's way out of line IMO.

    Regards,

    Mourning
    2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

  7. #32
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,101

    Default Re: Student Tasered at UCLA

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think you just made my point for me.

    -Calling her an "honest" woman. (She had a gun within reach)
    That doesn't make her dishonest.

    -Shot three, not one, but three officers after they "announced and knocked"
    She's 92 years old. Men just rushed her home busting thru the door. Her eyesight and hearing may not be 100% at 92 years of age (and I realize that could put some question on whether she should have a firearm or not.

    OTOH... How much time was there between the "Announced and knock" and the door flying down? Time for her to comprehend what was said? Time for her to answer the door or check the peephole?

    -Shot at officers when they had every legal reason to be there.
    They might've had no legal reason to be there. If the warrant was wrong, or misread, they had an excuse why they were there but it doesn't make anything 'right'.

    -Saying a serious look of how a case of mistaken identity could have happened, when there is no evidence other than her relatives saying that was the case. Do you think that a family would admit that their grandmothers house was used for drug deals?
    That's why I added a caveat above.

    FWIW- This story itself may or might not be accurate as presented but for discussion's sake we can assume it is to talk about these situations in general terms.

    You automatically assume that the police was in the wrong, and that was exactly the point I was trying to make.
    I believe the police have a high standard and ideal to live up to. I'd like to speak more to that to make sure it's understood what I mean by that... and why... BUT... I've got no time right now. I want to come back to it though.

    -Bball
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  8. #33
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    21,083

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Student Tasered at UCLA

    QUOTE=Bball;506290]That doesn't make her dishonest.[/QUOTE]

    What makes her honest to begin with?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    She's 92 years old. Men just rushed her home busting thru the door. Her eyesight and hearing may not be 100% at 92 years of age (and I realize that could put some question on whether she should have a firearm or not.

    OTOH... How much time was there between the "Announced and knock" and the door flying down? Time for her to comprehend what was said? Time for her to answer the door or check the peephole?

    Obviously enough time for her to get a gun out. If you're doubting her eyesight and hearing, then you should add her quickness level to that as well. I doubt she can sprint to get a gun, or even have a lightening quick draw.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    They might've had no legal reason to be there. If the warrant was wrong, or misread, they had an excuse why they were there but it doesn't make anything 'right'.
    By wrong do you mean the warrant read the wrong address, or the police read the address wrong. If the warrant was carried out on the correct house, then they have EVERY right to be there, whether or not they turned anything up. There has to be some evidence to get a warrant, obviously a judge thought they had enough.

    Now on to whether or not the police read it wrong. It really doesn't matter. They identified themselves before entering. It also doesn't give her the right to just start shooting. Unless they were grouped together holding hands, she had to have shot more than 3 times to hit three of them. If her eyesight is so bad that she couldn't identify that they were police, then obviously she was just shooting away at anything and everything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    That's why I added a caveat above.

    FWIW- This story itself may or might not be accurate as presented but for discussion's sake we can assume it is to talk about these situations in general terms.

    I believe the police have a high standard and ideal to live up to. I'd like to speak more to that to make sure it's understood what I mean by that... and why... BUT... I've got no time right now. I want to come back to it though.

    -Bball
    They can't live up to that standard, when early judgements are made without knowing the details.

    You read the story and came up with 5 or 6 different reasons why the police were in the wrong from the beginning. How can they live up to that standard when you can't even give them the slightest benefit of doubt?

    The department has even publicly said that the officers did nothing wrong, and yet she is still viewed as an innocent woman sitting in her living room that feels the need to have a gun on her in her own home.

    I seriously doubt I'm coming back to this, because it's already gotten further away from where it was supposed to go. Biasness towards anything the police do is alive and well.

  9. #34
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,101

    Default Re: Student Tasered at UCLA

    Chief: Warrant Served at Right House

    Web Editor: Tracey Christensen
    Last Modified: 11/22/2006 9:38:33 PM


    Three police officers who killed a 92-year-old woman after she shot and wounded them were serving a warrant at the correct address, Assistant Atlanta Police Chief Alan James Dreher said at a news conference Wednesday.

    Chief Dreher said the officers bought illegal drugs earlier in the day from a man at Kathryn Johnston's house on Neal Street in Atlanta. The man who sold the drugs has not yet been identified or arrested.

    "As a result of that narcotics purchase, members of the narcotics team obtained a search warrant for that same address. As they were executing the search warrant, they announced themselves before they forced open the door. Once the door was forced, the female inside began shooting at the police officers. The officers returned fire," said Chief Dreher.

    Johnston received fatal gunshot wounds from the officers. Investigator Gregg Junnier, 40, suffered three gunshot wounds -- one in his chest which was protected by a bulletproof vest, one in the side of the face, and one in the leg. The second officer, 38-year-old Investigator Gary Smith, received one gunshot wound to his left leg. The third officer, 38-year-old Investigator Cary Bond, received one gunshot wound to his left arm.

    After the shooting Tuesday night, Johnston’s relatives rushed to the scene. They told reporters that they were convinced the police made a mistake and went to the wrong house.

    "They done the wrong house," said Johnston’s niece, Sarah Dozier. "And they killed her! This lady lived to be 92. She lived to be 92 and in good health. They went in there and she was scared to death."

    According to family members, Johnston lived alone. Dozier said that Johnston did have a firearm. She says she took her aunt to get a permit for that firearm for her own protection.

    Chief Dreher said officers search Johnson's home after the shooting and seized some suspected narcotics, which are being analyzed at a laboratory. He did not know if Ms. Johnston was suspected of being involved in any drug deals at the home.

    "Any death is a tragic death," said Dreher. "What we do know is that she was elderly. She also shot three police officers. Our heartfelt prayers go out because it's just a tragic and unfortunate incident."

    The three injured officers were placed on administrative leave with pay. All have been released from the hospital.

    Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard also spoke at Wednesday's news conference. He said a preliminary review shows the officers acted appropriately, but that his office is conducting its own independent investigation.

    http://www.11alive.com/news/news_art...?storyid=88020
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  10. #35
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,101

    Default Re: Student Tasered at UCLA

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by Bball
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Originally Posted by Bball
    That's why I added a caveat above.

    FWIW- This story itself may or might not be accurate as presented but for discussion's sake we can assume it is to talk about these situations in general terms.

    I believe the police have a high standard and ideal to live up to. I'd like to speak more to that to make sure it's understood what I mean by that... and why... BUT... I've got no time right now. I want to come back to it though.

    -Bball
    They can't live up to that standard, when early judgements are made without knowing the details.

    You read the story and came up with 5 or 6 different reasons why the police were in the wrong from the beginning. How can they live up to that standard when you can't even give them the slightest benefit of doubt?

    The department has even publicly said that the officers did nothing wrong, and yet she is still viewed as an innocent woman sitting in her living room that feels the need to have a gun on her in her own home.

    I seriously doubt I'm coming back to this, because it's already gotten further away from where it was supposed to go. Biasness towards anything the police do is alive and well.
    You are correct when you say I don't give the police/government the benefit of the doubt in these situations. There should be no doubt. If there is then we already have a problem. As the investigation moves along that doubt should be erased from the police's side of things.

    As further info comes to light then I'm open minded enough to move my position but I believe in a presumption of innocence of Amercan citizens first and foremost.

    Americans have an ingrained distrust of government and government agents (police). A big part of what this country is founded upon is a freedom to go about our lives as unencumbered as possible without government intrusion. Obviously some of that freedom has been whittled away over the years.

    Among other things drug laws, DUI laws, and now 9/11 have expanded police powers and the way the court interprets certain acts. The presumption of innocence seems to be slipping away into a "let's see what he's doing" attitude across the board. Courts bend over backwards to allow certain things and rubber stamp others.

    Take a natural distrust of government, add in a declining checks and balances from the court system, expand police powers (create an 'us vs them' atmosphere) and you start seeing an erosion of respect for the police of this country. From young officers that are "hard chargers" and taking advantage of rubber stamping judges and prosecutors (and Americans who can't afford (or feel much use in) fighting a traffic ticket regardless of circumstances) all the way to prosecutors and judges that want to be perceived as 'tough on crime' and look more to win at any cost than to back off a weak case regardless of size or importance.

    Obviously there are exceptions to the above... the above very well might even be the minority (it probably is the minority). But that is the type of thing that shouldn't be allowed to exist in the system. So it's up to those in the system to rise above it and put a stop to it. They can't just look the other way and certainly can't condone it just because of a 'thin blue line'.

    So, from the outside looking in, when I read a story about a 92 year old woman alone in her home suddenly finding men busting her door down (announced or not) I don't find it too surprising that she fired shots and asked questions later. She gets the benefit of the doubt on first blush. It was her home that was invaded. That she had a gun nearby could simply mean she was old, scared, and paranoid. And she was well within her rights to have that gun (from what we're told). And what would she be scared of? It could be of young men busting into her home. The exact scenario that unfolded.

    And this follows on the heels of a court ruling lessening the burden on police to 'knock and announce'. So how much of a 'knock and announce' was it? Or was the 'knock' the door being rammed down?

    I see in the other article I posted that the police are saying it was the proper address on the warrant and that an undercover officer had made a drug purchase there earlier. For some I suppose that is plenty to let the police (and system) off the hook. Personally, I'm curious about the amount of research/investigation that went into the warrant to determine who lived in the house in order for the police to have a better idea of what to expect. Let alone a little observation of the premises. My guess? Nobody bothered to do or require any of that- The judge rubber stamped the warrant.

    Once again, from the outside looking in this isn't sounding like a situation that needed quite so dramatic of an entrance in the first place.

    And it was for a drug bust. Apparently based on a small time buy. So a woman is dead and several people were injured. It doesn't seem worth it.

    I respect Marion Deputy and Skaut Ech as they talk about these situations and explain things from their view. Many, if not most, times I agree. Sometimes I am just playing devil's advocate in these discussions because I firmly believe that police powers should not go unchecked. Citizens should speak out and ask questions. And they should get answers.

    Before any government agent goes breaking down the door of someone's home they should be damn sure of the circumstances and reasons and that they are taking a necessary action.

    As a matter of fact, when executing a search warrant on someone's home I feel that not only should the police be required to knock and announce, they should also be required to wait and give the person(s) inside time to answer the door. There would be exceptions to this, and with exceptions comes the possibility of abuse, but if there is no fear for someone's life inside (domestic violence or kidnapping for example) then the element of surprise is not always necessary.

    It's about the rights of the individual inside their home and person, a presumption of innocence, and respecting the Constitution first and foremost.

    The Government shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt. There shouldn't be any doubt. And the police do have a high standard to uphold- It's called the Constitution.

    -Bball
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  11. #36
    Rebound King Kstat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Age
    32
    Posts
    28,066

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Student Tasered at UCLA

    There's a very good reason why there is an anti-police bias in this country, ESPECIALLY if you're a minority.

    From experience, I really can't blame someone for expecting to get treated unfairly by the cops. It's second nature. There are some good cops in this country, but WOW do we have some of the worst scum on earth wearing badges. I'm not sure how some of these guys get gun permits, let alone a badge.

    All that said, this guy in the video sounded like he was asking for problems. I have little sympathy for him.

    However, to live for the last 92 years as a black woman in THIS country?

    I think by that time i'd be sleeping with a gun under my pillow, let alone having one within reach at all times. I'd be paranoid as hell.

    I don't really blame the cops either though, assuming they announced themselves coming in. I just also don't blame the old lady for being scared to death.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

  12. #37
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    21,083

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Student Tasered at UCLA

    Innocent until proven guilty doesn't just cover the victim as well Those who make up the police force are just as much a citizen who has the same proven until guilty rights as those they're sworn to protect.

    Just because you have a badge doesn't mean you forfit those rights.

    Instead of "Wow, that's awful to hear," it's "Wow, those dirty rotten policemen shot another innocent woman."

  13. #38

    Default Re: Student Tasered at UCLA

    It appears now that they did have the wrong house, or perhaps no drug sale even took place. And more importantly they didn't knock. Am I reading this wrong?

    http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/28/atl...ing/index.html

    From CNN:
    An informant cited in a search warrant as having purchased narcotics at an elderly Atlanta woman's house denies buying drugs there, authorities say.
    Undercover officers raiding the 88-year-old woman's house shot her to death last week after she fired on them while they broke down her door in a high-crime neighborhood.
    Federal prosecutors will investigate the case, Atlanta police Chief Richard Pennington announced Monday.
    Pennington said the eight-member narcotics squad that took part in the raid has been placed on paid leave while investigators look into the informant's story and the circumstances surrounding the November 21 death of Kathryn Johnston.
    The informant also told investigators from the Atlanta police internal affairs bureau that he was told to lie about the matter, the chief said.
    "The FBI will investigate his statements, along with the police officers' statements as well," Pennington said.
    Authorities said Johnston opened fire on police who tried to enter her home, prying off burglar bars and forcing open her door, during a "no-knock" drug raid. Officers returned fire, killing her.
    Relatives put Johnston's age at 92, but Fulton County medical examiners said she was 88.
    Neighbors and relatives said the raid had to have been a mistake. They said Johnston lived alone and was so afraid of crime in her neighborhood west of downtown Atlanta that she wouldn't let neighbors who delivered groceries for her come into her home.
    Atlanta police reviews 'no-knock' policy

    In an affidavit used to obtain the search warrant, narcotics officers said an informant had purchased two bags of crack cocaine from a man identified only as "Sam" in the home earlier that day.
    Pennington said he called in federal prosecutors and the FBI after internal affairs investigators questioned the informant during the weekend.
    "After we brought the informant in and interviewed that informant, he told us that he had no knowledge of going into that house to purchase drugs," he said. "That's what he told us. I don't know if he went in or not. We don't know if he's telling the truth."
    In an interview with Atlanta's WAGA-TV, the informant said he had never been to Johnston's house.
    "I'm telling them, I never went to the house," the informant told the station. "The police can't say I ever went to the house."
    The informant then said police called him and told him "you need to cover our ***."
    "It's all on you -- have to tell them about this Sam dude," the informant said police told him.
    Pennington said the man was being "put away in a secure place" until the FBI could question him. The chief also promised to make "every document, every witness and piece of evidence" available to investigators.
    Meanwhile, the seven narcotics officers and a sergeant were put on administrative leave with pay, and the department is reviewing its use of "no-knock" raids after the shootout, he said. The warrants are common in narcotics cases when officers fear suspects may try to dispose of drugs or evidence in the time it takes authorities to gain access to the home.
    In addition to the FBI and Justice Department, the Fulton County district attorney's office and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation are taking part in the probe.
    Pennington made his reputation cleaning up a corrupt New Orleans, Louisiana, Police Department in the 1990s. He said the "intense speculation and suspicion" surrounding Johnston's death spurred him to call in outside agencies.
    "There are many unanswered questions. I promise each and every citizen that the complete truth will be eventually known, whatever that might be," he said. "But we must all exercise patience while we examine and re-examine every single aspect of these tragic events."
    A spokesman for Johnston's family, the Rev. Markel Hutchins, went to Washington to request a federal investigation Monday. Hutchins said he had received assurances that agents would conduct a "swift and thorough" investigation into the woman's death.
    Hutchins said the three midlevel officials with whom he met also promised "all resources at our disposal" to help counter the fallout in the African-American community from the shooting. He said he urged Justice Department officials to press for strong federal guidance to local police departments against the use of no-knock warrants.

  14. #39
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,101

    Default Re: Student Tasered at UCLA

    Quote Originally Posted by Manuel View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It appears now that they did have the wrong house, or perhaps no drug sale even took place. And more importantly they didn't knock. Am I reading this wrong?

    http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/28/atl...ing/index.html

    From CNN:
    Perhaps this thread needs revisited... or at least remembered:
    http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=21915

    -Bball
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  15. #40
    You Did It Joseph!!!! AesopRockOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    honolulu
    Age
    26
    Posts
    7,877
    Mood

    Default Re: Student Tasered at UCLA

    Cops in general are more likely/willing to bust young people, especially male, or minorities; a lot of them try to take out college students as evidenced in the video. If it's just me, as some of you have suggested, consider this. A friend and I are on campus walking to a party, minding our own business. He is half cuban and I am half Japanese; not sure how easy that was to understand considering it was dark. It's real late and we're with a group of people being real social and stuff. Anyway, this cop car passes the group and just slams on the brakes and reverses to the group. This guys comes out, singles out me and my friend, and accuses us of proclaiming "**** the police/cops." No proof, no nothing, but he took down our information and seemed disheartened by my middle name. That having been said, I have experienced that cops/authority figures either show an obvious bias against people like me, or they are smart enough to hide it but hope to act in a way that could disadvatage you. I think it's just disgraceful that one of the most racist sections of our nation is the law enforcement section. If you disagree, watch the video of the dude that got gunned down in Compton whose only weapon was a flip flop. Though the topic is something many have joked about, it is serious and is something you just won't get until your mom's purse gets searched while hundreds of white women walk through the gates of a baseball stadium untouched. You guys have made some good points but you've got to try to see this through a different perspective.
    You Got The Tony!!!!!!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •