dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=31772096

Most if not all police departments are very reluctant to show 'justified' shootings caught on video by police officers - They prefer to show it in Court and not to the media circus.

This was told to me by an NYPD officer that works in the media / public relations department.

Why is that the police's job - to decide what can and can't be released - and when?

Shouldn't it be the job of - say - an independent judge - to determine whether public release was prejudicial to an active case or not?

fat-ass-bike wrote:
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=31772096

Most if not all police departments are very reluctant to show 'justified' shootings caught on video by police officers - They prefer to show it in Court and not to the media circus.

This was told to me by an NYPD officer that works in the media / public relations department.

Monroe wrote:
I don't see any outrage over transparency like the lies told by the woman Obama put in charge to clean up the Secret Service after the screw-ups in South America and South Africa, which has led to the White House leaving the front door unlocked and letting an intruder with a knife inside. Nor the lies she told Congress by omitting the gun toting felon in a freaking elevator with Obama from her testimony.

Or the lies about the IRS not targeting conservatives.

Or the lies Holder said about Fast and Furious.

So any fauxrage about our police, feel free to start at the top with our Commander in Chief about 'you can keep your doctor', our top law enforcement agent Holder lying about when Fast and Furious began and when he learned of it, or Lois Lerner saying she was innocent and then taking the 5th. Or the lies the Secretary of State told about Libya and the loss of four Americans. Because all those are about a million times more important than trying to gin up fauxrage over a couple of tragedies that happen when police arrest millions of criminals each year.

Because all those are about a million times more important than trying to gin up fauxrage over a couple of tragedies that happen when police arrest millions of criminals each year.

user1111 wrote:
This is what the march was about, but so many RACIST are too blind to see it.


Nobody really knows why Kenwin Garcia was walking on the highway that July day in 2008 when a State Police trooper stopped him ? or why he wound up dead.

He spent most of his last conscious breaths face down in the grass along Interstate 287 in Hanover Township, according to police reports and recordings, with his hands and ankles handcuffed and zip-tied behind his back and three state troopers on him after he broke two patrol car windows.

Garcia, 25, of Newark, groaned, kicked and struggled for several minutes before going still. His limp body was carried to an ambulance. His heart had flat-lined, his breathing stopped, his brain starved of oxygen, medical records show. He died a week later after being taken off life support.

The police on scene later said in reports they never punched, hit or otherwise struck Garcia. But an autopsy found he suffered severe internal injuries, including a broken breastbone and ribs, a torn kidney and extensive bleeding. Tests showed he had no drugs or alcohol in his system.

The full story behind Garcia?s death has never been told, the details never publicly disclosed by state authorities or the court system. Now, more than six years later, an NJ Advance Media investigation reveals a series of flaws and inconsistencies in the official accounts of that day, which were then incorporated into a criminal investigation into the troopers? actions that determined Garcia died of a controversial medical condition.

More
...

LEGAL EXPERTS: PLAGUED BY CONFLICTS
Though state investigators are trusted to act impartially, legal experts said the system was plagued by conflicts and a lack of transparency. The investigation and grand jury presentment was led by the Attorney General?s Office, which oversees the State Police and dispatches a team when a death in custody occurs involving one of its members. But that team consists in part of troopers investigating fellow troopers, and authorities do not routinely announce or explain the team?s findings. In some cases, even the team?s investigations themselves are not announced.

At the same time, the Attorney General?s Office also oversaw the medical examiner and prosecutors making decisions about the criminal case. The attorney general?s Division of Law paid a private law firm more than $150,000 to defend against the family?s civil wrongful death lawsuit, state financial records show, but a state attorney still oversaw the case and had final say over strategy and decision making, and ultimately the office was responsible for authorizing the settlement.

?When you have one agency that is supposed to investigate impartially, yet it?s also supposed to defend one side, you can see the problem,? said David Harris, a law professor and policing expert at the University of Pittsburgh. ?If you have a glaring sort of conflict like that, the best you?re going to get is that people will be suspicious of the conclusion, and the worst you?re going to get is self-interested decision making.?

Harris and others said the competing interests and sensitivity of the case, particularly given that the State Police were under federal oversight at that time for racial profiling, should have prompted the attorney general, Anne Milgram, to turn it over to a special prosecutor. They said an external review should be undertaken to identify mistakes and improve transparency.

heights wrote:
This guy is nothing but a trouble maker. Well at least he will be in a remote area of the city.

Old-Skool-JC wrote:
Yes, I understand what you are referring to.
I'm asking why you are referring to it in both these cases especially in context of your pro-killer cop stance. You seem to think that a person with mental problems has only himself to blame when killed by a cop.

user1111 wrote:
This is what the march was about, but so many RACIST are too blind to see it.

Old-Skool-JC wrote:
Yes, I understand what you are referring to.
I'm asking why you are referring to it in both these cases especially in context of your pro-killer cop stance. You seem to think that a person with mental problems has only himself to blame when killed by a cop.

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

Old-Skool-JC wrote:
So it's just a crazy coincidence that you think both of the victims had mental health issues?
Why are you bringing it up?

Because it points to the unhinged state of mind in both cases. In Brown's case, the 'independent' witnesses who spoke to him-after his strong arm robbery and assault at the convenience store, but before his death, said he was talking about Jesus and his role in his life. Bizarre, given that he just left the scene of a crime.

In the NJ case, HIS OWN FAMILY THINKS WE WAS MENTALLY ILL AND VIOLENT.

His behavior changed around 2005, after he was fired for yelling and threatening his boss at a nursing home where he had worked, police records show. His family thought he was mentally ill, perhaps depressed. His father, Kelvin, told investigators his son?s behavior was ?erratic? and sometimes violent, according to police reports.

Old-Skool-JC wrote:
So it's just a crazy coincidence that you think both of the victims had mental health issues?
Why are you bringing it up?

Old-Skool-JC wrote:
On Mike Brown talking about Jesus.

Quote:

Monroe wrote:

Sounds like someone on drugs or schizophrenic, which raises questions about his state of mind during the sad event that led to his death.

On Kenwin Garcia wanting to go to the beach.

Quote:

Monroe wrote:

Garcia was obviously unhinged...

Looks like Monroe sees mental illness in every victim of our brutish militarized police force.
Is he saying that it's ok for cops to kill mentally ill people?

Monroe wrote:

Sounds like someone on drugs or schizophrenic, which raises questions about his state of mind during the sad event that led to his death.

Monroe wrote:

Garcia was obviously unhinged...

Which JCMan did you eat?

JCMan8 wrote:
....

Except both nyrgravey and DA demolished your "points," and you couldn't even respond to DA's long post. The only thing you continually do is hide behind insult after insult. It is the mark of a feeble intellect.

Old-Skool-JC wrote:
Clearly the question is being answered by white oppressors.
A better analogy would be asking Hitler if he was in favor of gassing Jews.
Hitler paid taxes too.

MidwestTransplant wrote:
While this thread has clearly played itself out, one quick question for the crowd - is anyone here actually in favor of our white oppressors? If so, why?

MidwestTransplant wrote:
While this thread has clearly played itself out, one quick question for the crowd - is anyone here actually in favor of our white oppressors? If so, why?

MidwestTransplant wrote:
While this thread has clearly played itself out, one quick question for the crowd - is anyone here actually in favor of our white oppressors? If so, why?

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Not entirely related, but Bill Maher, whom I like and respect despite not always agreeing with, slams Americans for having completely misguided outrage and dumb shit, while letting truly egregious acts slide. DTJC and OS, watch and learn:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDFrNQAjDYA

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:

Keep on master-baiting - circle jerk (definition 3). Creeping out sociopaths in my playbook is ok. Fun too.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=circle+jerk

Hey, keep on proving that you are bereft of any ideas or abilities to provide an actual rebuttal to my slam down of you and OSs ridiculous and racist rhetoric. Just stick to the insults, it's about all you've got.

More comedy from the failed dog-shit crusader. And you and DA in the same circle, jerking together on this issue?

I rebutted every one of your points. Come again?