Police Attack with Taser Sleeping Man in His Own Home

[Molyneux]

I wonder - do you realise that you didn't ask what the police department was obligated to do, but rather what they should do if they want to be given any credence?

They fulfilled what they were obligated to do. They must justify their actions to the local authority, in this case the DA.

That's a complete non sequitur, though. His response was to your question:

What can they do to prove their story to you over Mr. Hicks?

It has nothing to do with what they are or are not obligated to do. You're being nonsensical.

[Kamakazie Sith]

The newspaper which is the most read newspaper in western pennsylvania is somehow insignificant to the DA who will at some point need to get reelected?

Look, there is nothing from the police. No statement. There is no conflicting version of events from either the police or the DA. Why?

Yes, what the DA released to the media is very standard. Usually the media doesn't ask for specifics. Notice how in the Nov. 3 article they don't say they were denied specifics.

I apologize if I have misread your position, but every post you have posted here is in the defence of the police. You have not at once even acknowledged that Mr. Hicks may have been telling the truth.

Allow me to acknowledge that now then. He may be telling the truth, and if he is I hope he wins his civil suit, the officers involved are fired and spend time in jail, and the DA is fired, and is charged criminally if appropriate.

So, going by what we have now there is a story telling me that the police abused a man, and there's nothing from the police. No other version. Nothing. So actually there's no reason not to jump on the bandwagon of condemming the officers involved, since at this moment, there is no other version.

Right, so you are in fact saying that the DA's ruling isn't good enough. What's to stop them from straight up changing the story?

You are just arguing from nothing, trying to explain that because there is nothing, there must be something there that exonerates the officers. Well, if there is, why is it not being released?

Umm they were exonerated. I also do have the decision of the DA which I understand is meaningless to you, but Mr. Hick's story doesn't hold water over the DA just because...I need more of a reason.

If the police publish a credible version of events that explains every single point raised by Mr. Hicks, then yes, you might have an argument. But right now you are simply argumenting ex nihil.

They have. It's in the report which the media can obtain if so interested. Which they aren't...

I'll tell you what. I'll ask for it.

Please note the big, bolded word.

Is there actually a list of countries that are "civilized"

[Kamakazie Sith]

That's a complete non sequitur, though. His response was to your question:

Opps, sorry about that. Yes, his response is the obvious answer. However, something tells me it isn't that simple.

[Big Phil]

Kamikaze Sith,

You might have received a much better reaction, and not been accused of mindless defense of the police, had you bothered to offer any fact-based reasons to withhold judgment. This could have included you saying something like: "In my experience as a police officer, there is probably an ongoing internal affairs investigation; these typically last X months, and they won't comment until the investigation is complete."

Now you didn't say that, probably because you don't actually have a clue how this department should have reacted, and instead you mindlessly defended your brother officers. You still haven't offered any logical reason not to accept the story at face value, other than your idiotic variation of the golden mean fallacy.

[Justforfun000]

After reading through this thread, I think everyone is being too harsh on Kamikazie Sith. He admits that Hick's might be telling the truth, and he also says that the silence from the police doesn't look good which means he probably agrees they'd be better to issue a statement, but as he explained, they don't HAVE to and maybe there is a good reason they haven't. I can't think of one myself, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Just because he's a fellow police office doesn't mean he's defending his "brothers & sisters". That's an ad hominem attack if I'm not mistaken...

His point is that BEING a police officer, he has a little more knowledge than the average citizen as to what procedure is involved, and he's saying that a DA that clears the police and then sends it to the FBI for review is either incredibly bold or interminably stupid if he's lying and they are guilty.

This is why he is seriously RESERVING judgement. Note that word.

He never stated that he was on either side, he's simply saying that the ACTIONS of the police and the related investigators are suggesting that the story is not that simple. I think that's perfectly reasonable.

[Justforfun000]

You might have received a much better reaction, and not been accused of mindless defense of the police, had you bothered to offer any fact-based reasons to withhold judgment. This could have included you saying something like: "In my experience as a police officer, there is probably an ongoing internal affairs investigation; these typically last X months, and they won't comment until the investigation is complete."

Yes, but he's under no obligation to say.....lol. Sorry. I couldn't resist.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Kamikaze Sith,

You might have received a much better reaction, and not been accused of mindless defense of the police, had you bothered to offer any fact-based reasons to withhold judgment. This could have included you saying something like: "In my experience as a police officer, there is probably an ongoing internal affairs investigation; these typically last X months, and they won't comment until the investigation is complete."

The sad thing is I'm not defending the police. I'm attacking the rush to judgement based on one side of the story. I haven't once said that tasering a sleeping man could ever be justified. Like you I don't know the entire story, so maybe it's just a difference in personality, but you get both sides of the story before you conclude who to throw in jail and fire.

Yes, we have Shawn Hick side of the story, and I do need to give that more credit that I have been.

Now you didn't say that, probably because you don't actually have a clue how this department should have reacted, and instead you mindlessly defended your brother officers. You still haven't offered any logical reason not to accept the story at face value, other than your idiotic variation of the golden mean fallacy.

I apologize for making it seem that way. It's easy to get on the defensive, so I'll tone it down a notch. I don't have any actions to defend of the officers because we don't have their side of the story.

With the only side we do have then their position is not defensible, and is not excusable. That being said, I want to hear both sides before coming to a conclusion. However, I concede that I can't blame any of you for coming to the conclusion that you have, but I do think it's very premature given the serious nature of the situation.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

However, something tells me it isn't that simple.

And there is the sum total of your argument. "Something tells me..."

No evidence, no logical conclusions. Just, "We shouldn't believe Mr. Hicks because something tells me..."

What is this 'something' pray tell? The evidence against the police is pretty damning:

-The claims of Mr. Hicks.
-Precedent of racist actions before.
-The fact that they have made *no* effort to clarify things to any concerned parties on their own end.

While the evidence for them?

-The DA says it's okay.
-Something tells you...

So far everything you've said revolves around "You shouldn't question the DA!" and "Well, something tells me..."

Why? Why shouldn't we question it? And what tells you it isn't 'that simple'.

Here's an even better question: What actually happened? If Mr. Hicks is lying, why? What does he stand to gain and how did the events really unfold?

[18-Till-I-Die]

That is precisely what i was saying.

Kamikaze has made NO argument at all, besides "Well i just cant believe this" and he's given no reason NOT to believe it. Nor has he given any reason why the events did not play out as described.

Frankly i see no evidence that tells me not to believe this story, at all. The fact the cops refuse to even talk about it only makes it MORE likely in my mind.

[Thanas]

Yes, what the DA released to the media is very standard. Usually the media doesn't ask for specifics. Notice how in the Nov. 3 article they don't say they were denied specifics.

And this influences the statement that they've got nothing...how exactly?

Allow me to acknowledge that now then. He may be telling the truth, and if he is I hope he wins his civil suit, the officers involved are fired and spend time in jail, and the DA is fired, and is charged criminally if appropriate.

Very well then.

Right, so you are in fact saying that the DA's ruling isn't good enough.

If there was a ruling, it might be good enough. However, what we really have is just a statement saying that the DA says that the police determined that the officers did not commit a crime.

Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen Zappala Jr. says county police determined Officers Gerard Kraly and Lukas Laeuricia (loo-REE'-see-uh) didn't commit a crime when they Tasered Shawn Hicks, who was sleeping on his couch.

There is no report on this that is open to the public. Surely if they were innocent they would have nothing to fear from opening it to the public.

Umm they were exonerated. I also do have the decision of the DA which I understand is meaningless to you, but Mr. Hick's story doesn't hold water over the DA just because...I need more of a reason.

Ah yes. The DA says so, therefore it must be so. Sounds like a real argument to me.

Honestly, just because someone who might have a reason to cover up something (e.g. the PD or the DA who is interested in good relations with the PD) says the situation is so and so does not make it so. Even less if that someone has not provided any argument at all.

If the police publish a credible version of events that explains every single point raised by Mr. Hicks, then yes, you might have an argument. But right now you are simply argumenting ex nihil.

They have. It's in the report which the media can obtain if so interested. Which they aren't...

And your proof for that assertion is where?

I'll tell you what. I'll ask for it.

Please do so. It would be cool to read it but I am afraid as a foreign national I cannot.

Please note the big, bolded word.

Is there actually a list of countries that are "civilized"

I don't know, but when people use the word they usually mean first world countries like the EU, Canada, Japan and of course the USA.

Those countries in africa certainly do not fit that criteria and honestly I am wondering if that wasn't clear by the context of the sentence.



But yes, please do everyone here a favor and ask for the report.

[Kamakazie Sith]

And there is the sum total of your argument. "Something tells me..."

No, that isn't my argument at all. Did you even read the posts that lead up to that remark? Obviously, you did not. Something tells me it wouldn't be as simple as them releasing a more detailed statement to convince the people here that they were justified.

No evidence, no logical conclusions. Just, "We shouldn't believe Mr. Hicks because something tells me..."

I did imply that, and I apologize. My position is actually "we don't have all the facts"

-The claims of Mr. Hicks.

No evidence

-Precedent of racist actions before.

I'd be willing to go on previous accusations of racism from the officers involved, but just because the department has a prior history doesn't mean that's what happened.

-The fact that they have made *no* effort to clarify things to any concerned parties on their own end.

On their own end? Could you clarify who the concerned parties are on their own end?

-The DA says it's okay.

Yes, the DA is supposed to review the information, and then decide if force was justified. He then sent the information to the FBI. Those facts have caused me to reserve my judgment.

-Something tells you...

You're confused by the statement. See above.

So far everything you've said revolves around "You shouldn't question the DA!" and "Well, something tells me..."

Actually, I've never said that. I did say that the decision of the DA does cause me to withhold my judgment.

Why? Why shouldn't we question it? And what tells you it isn't 'that simple'.

Again, you're confused.

Here's an even better question: What actually happened? If Mr. Hicks is lying, why? What does he stand to gain and how did the events really unfold?

Money. Bad publicity for the police. Like racism in the police department is a past occurence so is people suing the police for justified actions. I guess what's good for the goose is good for the gander huh? If you can conclude this a matter of racism based off the past history of an entire department then surely it's reasonable for me to reserve my judgment, and not make a conclusion, based off the past actions of other offenders.

[Kamakazie Sith]

That is precisely what i was saying.

Kamikaze has made NO argument at all, besides "Well i just cant believe this" and he's given no reason NOT to believe it. Nor has he given any reason why the events did not play out as described.

I never said that. I also have given you a reason to reserve your judgment, but you don't accept that. Which is fine.

Frankly i see no evidence that tells me not to believe this story, at all. The fact the cops refuse to even talk about it only makes it MORE likely in my mind.

Yes, and like I said before that reason is beacuse of policy considerations that are in place throughout many other departments during investigations. The department is under obligation by law to represent its employees if they did operate within policy. However, they are under no obligation to represent their employees if they operated outside policy. It's not a huge stretch to say that tasering a sleeping individual is outside policy, so the department isn't liable, unless the officers involved have a prior history and weren't fired.

[Kamakazie Sith]

And this influences the statement that they've got nothing...how exactly?

The fact that it's SOP means that they don't necessarily have nothing. The fact that the DA agreed it was justified, and then put his own neck on the line is cause, for me, to reserve my judgment.

If there was a ruling, it might be good enough. However, what we really have is just a statement saying that the DA says that the police determined that the officers did not commit a crime.

Which is a determination that the DA has to review. It's possible that he didn't do that, but then he's an idiot for sending it off to the FBI. It'll be amusing if he is brought up on Federal Civil Rights violations all because he submitted it to the FBI himself.

There is no report on this that is open to the public. Surely if they were innocent they would have nothing to fear from opening it to the public.

Are you saying they didn't complete a report? Where did you get this information? It's not in the article?

Ah yes. The DA says so, therefore it must be so. Sounds like a real argument to me.

No, I didn't say that. I said that the DA's decision, and Mr. Hicks account holds the same weight. Now do you have evidence to support your accusation that the DA is a lying piece of shit? I mean besides the whole generalization fallacy...

Honestly, just because someone who might have a reason to cover up something (e.g. the PD or the DA who is interested in good relations with the PD) says the situation is so and so does not make it so. Even less if that someone has not provided any argument at all.

Right, and then he sends it off to the FBI because deep down he's feeling guilty and wants to spend time in a federal prison.

And your proof for that assertion is where?

Police reports are a matter of public record. Interested parties can use the FOIA to obtain these reports. However, certain exceptions exist to releasing these reports, and one of those is if the case is under investigation.

I don't know, but when people use the word they usually mean first world countries like the EU, Canada, Japan and of course the USA.

Ah.. And what time period are we going off of? I've looked up civilized countries, and I can't find anything. Maybe you should have said first world instead.

Those countries in africa certainly do not fit that criteria and honestly I am wondering if that wasn't clear by the context of the sentence.

You didn't specify first world. You said civilized. I guess I don't know what that means in your context. Anyway, according to some sources I've found this is a list of first world countries.

First World

But yes, please do everyone here a favor and ask for the report.

I sent the DA a request yesterday. It'll be interesting to see how long this takes...

[brianeyci]

This accusation of "rush to judgment" really pisses me off. If you have evidence that Hicks is a lying shitbag, then show it.

If it turns out that later Hicks is a lying shitbag, that doesn't mean that other people were "quick to judge" and should have suspended judgment. It means that given the facts available, they made the right conclusion, and with more facts they made the wrong one so they change their mind.

Changing your mind given more information is absolutely fine. Your approach, trust the authorities that they have good reason to do what they do, is naive. It reminds me of Bush administration apologists and Giuliani's freedom is authority perversion. And your idea, do not rush to judgment unless you have the same perspective of facts as the authorities, until "all the facts are in" is poisonous and an anathema to freedom, meaningful debate and the role of the press in keeping possible abuse of power in check. If the DA chooses to shut his mouth then he should be prepared for all the trash going his way and rightly deserves it. But I'm sure you won't change your mind about that.

No obligation to release a press statement my ass.

[Kamakazie Sith]

This accusation of "rush to judgment" really pisses me off. If you have evidence that Hicks is a lying shitbag, then show it.

Is that remark on your emotional instability suppose to scare me, or make me feel anything else but personal amusement?

If it turns out that later Hicks is a lying shitbag, that doesn't mean that other people were "quick to judge" and should have suspended judgment. It means that given the facts available, they made the right conclusion, and with more facts they made the wrong one so they change their mind.

Yes, it does. It means they were wrong, and completely disregarded the decisions by both the police investigators, and the DA just because they didn't release their side of the story to an organization that they are under no obligation to satisfy (the media)

Changing your mind given more information is absolutely fine. Your approach, trust the authorities that they have good reason to do what they do, is naive. It reminds me of Bush administration apologists and Giuliani's freedom is authority perversion. And your idea, do not rush to judgment unless you have the same perspective of facts as the authorities, until "all the facts are in" is poisonous and an anathema to freedom, meaningful debate and the role of the press in keeping possible abuse of power in check. If the DA chooses to shut his mouth then he should be prepared for all the trash going his way and rightly deserves it. But I'm sure you won't change your mind about that.

Seriously, Brian. I don't fucking care what it reminds you of. What it reminds you of is not a reflection of fact at all. It's your own subjective evaluation of a situation that clearly has you upset. (your words)

No obligation to release a press statement my ass.

If you have evidence that they are under obligation to satisfy the media then please show it. I remind you that the media is simply another business that holds no authority over another organization whatsoever.

[brianeyci]

This accusation of "rush to judgment" really pisses me off. If you have evidence that Hicks is a lying shitbag, then show it.

Is that remark on your emotional instability suppose to scare me, or make me feel anything else but personal amusement?

So you're amused by fence sitting limp wristed retards who know-tow to authority?

So emotional instability is getting passionate about freedom eh? Maybe that's why your country is going into the shitter, too many people thinking like you, that getting passionate over possible civil rights violations is somehow wrong. Ever think of that?

If it turns out that later Hicks is a lying shitbag, that doesn't mean that other people were "quick to judge" and should have suspended judgment. It means that given the facts available, they made the right conclusion, and with more facts they made the wrong one so they change their mind.

Yes, it does. It means they were wrong, and completely disregarded the decisions by both the police investigators, and the DA just because they didn't release their side of the story to an organization that they are under no obligation to satisfy (the media)

Wrong. It means that given the facts available, they made a conclusion, and the DA should have given more facts if he wanted to dispell the accusations of abuse of power. Because you know, the DA serves the people.

Changing your mind given more facts later is not an indication of weakness asshole.

Changing your mind given more information is absolutely fine. Your approach, trust the authorities that they have good reason to do what they do, is naive. It reminds me of Bush administration apologists and Giuliani's freedom is authority perversion. And your idea, do not rush to judgment unless you have the same perspective of facts as the authorities, until "all the facts are in" is poisonous and an anathema to freedom, meaningful debate and the role of the press in keeping possible abuse of power in check. If the DA chooses to shut his mouth then he should be prepared for all the trash going his way and rightly deserves it. But I'm sure you won't change your mind about that.

Seriously, Brian. I don't fucking care what it reminds you of. What it reminds you of is not a reflection of fact at all. It's your own subjective evaluation of a situation that clearly has you upset. (your words)

Upset at a flaming dumbass who thinks that government should be trusted in cases of possible racial and overuse of force? Oooooohhhhh no what is there to be upset about? Accusing someone of getting "worked up" over something is not an insult except to the dumb, fence sitting assholes like you.

You believe the DA when he doesn't press charges.

Some people believe Bush when he says the terrorists he tortures are holding information vital to the nation.

Why the fuck is this healthy or desirable?

No obligation to release a press statement my ass.

If you have evidence that they are under obligation to satisfy the media then please show it. I remind you that the media is simply another business that holds no authority over another organization whatsoever.

They have an obligation to serve the people, which they did not by withholding information from them you dumbass. You keep harping on media this media that, with no understanding of what a healthy media is supposed to do. Maybe when you take your head out of your ass you'll realize this man's family and the community deserves answers, and that people are not "quick to judge" when they come to a conclusion nine months after the fact with no response by the other side.

[brianeyci]

What's particularly disgusting is Sith is so mentally retarded he doesn't realize what he's attacking. He's attacking the process by which the media guarantees the basic freedoms of individuals like Mr. Hicks, and the freedom of the American people. What happens, at worst, if Hicks is a lying shitbag? Absolutely nothing of substance. What happens, at worst, if Hicks is telling the truth? He was violated by police officers who are utter scum who deserve their pensions stripped and fired at the least.

So what if more information comes out later to show that Hicks was lying? Lying is always a possibility, and Sith's rebuttal is completely devoid of anything but the possibility Hicks is lying. And here's the shit: the standard of evidence for the government and for an individual is not the same, not in a healthy society. He treats the DA and the media as if it was another individual. Well of course, one individual has no obligation towards another. But the government has a greater obligation to its citizens. Were the situation reversed, Hicks has no obligation to reveal everything and everything to the government, but the government has to be as transparent as possible and any lack of transparency is their failing.

To put it simply this is not a versus debate where both sides have equal burden of proof. Even the smell, the hint, the taint of corruption, racial discrimination or coverup must be investigated, and burden of proof is greater on those who wish to defend the government. A healthy society which guarantees civil rights has to operate this way. But Sith doesn't realize he's joined the millions of first rate retards who say, trust Big Brother.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Oh sure, but do I see the police doing anything to convince the public except stonewalling here? Why, do I see the police inviting the public to news conferences? So apparently, to you, the main news medium is an invalid communication method of convincing the public that they are doing their jobs. Is this "accountability" of yours in name or in action? So far, you have done nothing to convince me otherwise but except that you have an apparent distaste for the media.

Well, that's a good question. How big of an issue has this situation raised in North Braddock? Is the public calling for an explanation, or is it just a few newspapers, and Mr. Hicks?

Wait What? Are you practically suggesting that if no one asked, it would actually be fine to bury this under the rug?!?! So "Don't ask Don't tell"? You call this accountability!?!?!

Again, other than your very apparent dislike for the media, there is nothing that you have suggested that proves the Police have done no wrong. All you have done is consistently insinuate that Mr Hicks lied.

And you have yet to address why the damn DA refuses to refute the accusations. Oh sure, he is under no obligation, but hey, we aren't under any obligation to believe that the DA is even remotely telling the truth, or not stonewalling.

[Kamakazie Sith]

So you're amused by fence sitting limp wristed retards who know-tow to authority?

Are you unable to read? I said I'm amused by your emotional instability. You know the part where you feel I care enough about your emotional state to let me know.

So emotional instability is getting passionate about freedom eh? Maybe that's why your country is going into the shitter, too many people thinking like you, that getting passionate over possible civil rights violations is somehow wrong. Ever think of that?

Oh is that what you call it. How exactly am I thinking? What's been very amusing about this entire thread is how numerous people have tried to strawman my position to make it appear as though I have no wish to see the cops held accountable for their actions. (Despite saying so several times)

Wrong. It means that given the facts available, they made a conclusion, and the DA should have given more facts if he wanted to dispell the accusations of abuse of power. Because you know, the DA serves the people.

That's right. I even said I didn't think withholding the information was a good idea, but that doesn't mean they're lying, or they're trying to cover it up. Do you know why I'm reserved about that? I've said it several times in this thread.

HE SENT IT TO THE FBI FOR REVIEW.

Changing your mind given more facts later is not an indication of weakness asshole.

Here's another one. Exactly where did I say it was weakness to do? Show me fucker. Copy and fucking paste. I am saying that it is unreasonable to make a conclusion when there is a reasonable doubt.

Upset at a flaming dumbass who thinks that government should be trusted in cases of possible racial and overuse of force? Oooooohhhhh no what is there to be upset about? Accusing someone of getting "worked up" over something is not an insult except to the dumb, fence sitting assholes like you.

Who should be trust then. This is exactly what I was talking about earlier. You've just admitted that there is simply nothing they could say to change your mind. If they do release a report you'll probably just dismiss it.

You believe the DA when he doesn't press charges.

Maybe I should start counting the number of times I've been misrepresented in this thread. No, I think it's reason to RESERVE FUCKING JUDGEMENT. Jesus fucking christ. READ

They have an obligation to serve the people, which they did not by withholding information from them you dumbass. You keep harping on media this media that, with no understanding of what a healthy media is supposed to do. Maybe when you take your head out of your ass you'll realize this man's family and the community deserves answers, and that people are not "quick to judge" when they come to a conclusion nine months after the fact with no response by the other side.

Please show me where the people have requested a more thorough explanation.

Besides, this happened in July. Hardly, nine months after the fact, and IA investigations can take that amount of time depending on the size of the department, and their workload.

[Kamakazie Sith]

What's particularly disgusting is Sith is so mentally retarded he doesn't realize what he's attacking. He's attacking the process by which the media guarantees the basic freedoms of individuals like Mr. Hicks, and the freedom of the American people. What happens, at worst, if Hicks is a lying shitbag? Absolutely nothing of substance. What happens, at worst, if Hicks is telling the truth? He was violated by police officers who are utter scum who deserve their pensions stripped and fired at the least.

I disagree. If those officers are guilty as charged they deserve hard time in prison.

So what if more information comes out later to show that Hicks was lying? Lying is always a possibility, and Sith's rebuttal is completely devoid of anything but the possibility Hicks is lying. And here's the shit: the standard of evidence for the government and for an individual is not the same, not in a healthy society.

Wrong. The standard is the same. Even police officers are guaranteed the same rights afforded to the public. Those rights are that in a criminal case they need to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Such a doubt exists...

He treats the DA and the media as if it was another individual. Well of course, one individual has no obligation towards another. But the government has a greater obligation to its citizens. Were the situation reversed, Hicks has no obligation to reveal everything and everything to the government, but the government has to be as transparent as possible and any lack of transparency is their failing.

Unless of course nobody has requested it. Let me ask you something. Did the police refuse to give the media the report in the latest update? No. The media makes no mention of that whatsoever.

To put it simply this is not a versus debate where both sides have equal burden of proof. Even the smell, the hint, the taint of corruption, racial discrimination or coverup must be investigated, and burden of proof is greater on those who wish to defend the government. A healthy society which guarantees civil rights has to operate this way. But Sith doesn't realize he's joined the millions of first rate retards who say, trust Big Brother.

Again, the government is also protected by the same rights. They are also citizens of this country. They are held to a higher standard in the sense that their actions will be examined under a microscope.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Wait What? Are you practically suggesting that if no one asked, it would actually be fine to bury this under the rug?!?! So "Don't ask Don't tell"? You call this accountability!?!?!

Umm, this is common practice among almost every DA in the country unless there is a request for information. You can't assign them fault just because you have a particular interest in this case.

Again, other than your very apparent dislike for the media, there is nothing that you have suggested that proves the Police have done no wrong. All you have done is consistently insinuate that Mr Hicks lied.

I have, but you dont' accept it. You look at the conclusion of the DA as completely worthless. I'm not saying it's the end all be all, but I am saying it causes me to take pause. If that conclusion would not have been there then I'd be on your side.

And you have yet to address why the damn DA refuses to refute the accusations. Oh sure, he is under no obligation, but hey, we aren't under any obligation to believe that the DA is even remotely telling the truth, or not stonewalling.

Was he asked by the media to give a more detailed explanation. It looks like they've just done a follow up, and nothing more.

[brianeyci]

I disagree. If those officers are guilty as charged they deserve hard time in prison.

Looks like among other faults, Kamakazie Sith cannot read and doesn't know what "at the least" means. And he's also a "law and order" type. What a surprise.

Wrong. The standard is the same.

You fucking retard. The government should be the epitome of high standard and held to the highest standard. If a judge breaks a law it's far more serious than an average citizen, and if the government is not transparent it is far more serious than a citizen keeping quiet. Not that you've met any standard of evidence at all -- your entire rebuttal is an argument from ignorance insinuating evidence exists that Hicks lied but not presenting it.

No, I think it's reason to RESERVE FUCKING JUDGEMENT.

Code for don't judge the government at all. Tell me, what happens if judgment is reserved and a coverup is actually happening? Absolutely-fucking-jack-shit, because under your way of thinking no judgment is done at all. Which is why the media and people have a right to question the government.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Looks like among other faults, Kamakazie Sith cannot read and doesn't know what "at the least" means. And he's also a "law and order" type. What a surprise.

It's you that cannot read. I'm not saying you're wrong for what you at least want for punishing. I'm just saying I disagree. I'm saying that because they are police officers they should be held to a higher standard when they abuse their authority.

As for the law and order type. I'm not sure what part of my post you're referring to.

You fucking retard. The government should be the epitome of high standard and held to the highest standard. If a judge breaks a law it's far more serious than an average citizen, and if the government is not transparent it is far more serious than a citizen keeping quiet. Not that you've met any standard of evidence at all -- your entire rebuttal is an argument from ignorance insinuating evidence exists that Hicks lied but not presenting it.

The government should be held to a higher standard, but as for the standards of proving criminal charges against them the burden of proof is the same. Do you think it should be easier to prove criminal charges againts government personnel?

Code for don't judge the government at all. Tell me, what happens if judgment is reserved and a coverup is actually happening? Absolutely-fucking-jack-shit, because under your way of thinking no judgment is done at all. Which is why the media and people have a right to question the government.

Oh please. Save your dramatics.

LMAO. If they wanted to cover it up they could just release a fake cover story. They could have the officers write in their reports that Mr. Hicks was awake and refused to provide identification. He then tried to run, and the police tasered him in the back.

It would be stupid to cover it up, and then send the cover up to the FBI.

[brianeyci]

It's you that cannot read. I'm not saying you're wrong for what you at least want for punishing. I'm just saying I disagree. I'm saying that because they are police officers they should be held to a higher standard when they abuse their authority.

As for the law and order type. I'm not sure what part of my post you're referring to.

When you quote someone else's post and say you disagree, I assume you disagree with the content of said post. No fucking duh.

As for the law and order type, it is a general reaction of law and order types to call for serious punishment for what they perceive to be hard crimes.

The government should be held to a higher standard, but as for the standards of proving criminal charges against them the burden of proof is the same. Do you think it should be easier to prove criminal charges againts government personnel?

This isn't a court of law. Criminal charges have a higher standard than a fucking Internet debate you douche, due to the serious consequences of conviction. They're just saying that more likely than not Hicks was assaulted, so they conclude Hicks was assaulted. If evidence comes later, well they can change their mind. What part of that is unacceptable to you?

Oh please. Save your dramatics.

LMAO. If they wanted to cover it up they could just release a fake cover story. They could have the officers write in their reports that Mr. Hicks was awake and refused to provide identification. He then tried to run, and the police tasered him in the back.

It would be stupid to cover it up, and then send the cover up to the FBI.

Or maybe they're hoping people will act like you, and assume that the officers did nothing wrong and kept their mouths shut. I like how you assume that because the government could do a better job fucking things up, they didn't fuck things up. Sort of like how people say Bush didn't have an agenda because for sure he would've planned shit better.

Please, rethink the way you judge the government. This is not simply dramatics: if it is true you're going into law enforcement you'd better not be the kind of fucktard who gets angry when citizens accuse the police of abuse due to lack of transparency or information. This is absolutely essential in checking police powers, whether you like it or not.

[Kamakazie Sith]

When you quote someone else's post and say you disagree, I assume you disagree with the content of said post. No fucking duh.

Excuses...

As for the law and order type, it is a general reaction of law and order types to call for serious punishment for what they perceive to be hard crimes.

What I perceive? The violations of someones civil rights by a government official is a very serious crime, and has serious penalties up to including death. It has nothing to do with what I perceive. It's the reality of the situation. (Note that there's never been a death penalty handed out to my knowledge)

This isn't a court of law. Criminal charges have a higher standard than a fucking Internet debate you douche, due to the serious consequences of conviction. They're just saying that more likely than not Hicks was assaulted, so they conclude Hicks was assaulted. If evidence comes later, well they can change their mind. What part of that is unacceptable to you?

And I conclude that it's reasonable to reserve judgment. What part of that is unacceptable to you? Besides, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to have the same level of standard in a debate regarding criminal charges.

You crack me up though. You're so hardcore, Brian. Call me another name. Try harder!! I want to see better. Douche is so overused.

Or maybe they're hoping people will act like you, and assume that the officers did nothing wrong and kept their mouths shut. I like how you assume that because the government could do a better job fucking things up, they didn't fuck things up. Sort of like how people say Bush didn't have an agenda because for sure he would've planned shit better.

People like me? What part about reserving judgement escapes you?

Please, rethink the way you judge the government. This is not simply dramatics: if it is true you're going into law enforcement you'd better not be the kind of fucktard who gets angry when citizens accuse the police of abuse due to lack of transparency or information. This is absolutely essential in checking police powers, whether you like it or not.

I'm getting angry at having my statements in this thread misrepresented. I'm not angry with the accusations against the police. Perhaps, you could point out where I indicated that I was angry at the accusations.

Another thing amusing to me is it seems you think you have me "figured out". Though your basis for this rests on those misrepresentations. I haven't made any conclusion on this matter. I do see reason to reserve making a conclusion, and that is a sincere statement. It is not "code" as you put it.