Let’s see what sort of wrist slap the Chief gets now.
Jesus, what these cops did was worse than what they framed the kids for by a factor of eleventy.
Leave aside for now the horrifying civil rights abuse. The betrayal of oath they took and the duty they owed their community and the lackadaisical attention from the DA…I mean, one of them is gonna get grounded???
These cops deserve to be dragged out back and shot. At the very least, they should do all the time they tried to imprison these kids for PLUS being charged with conspiracy and as an accessory after the fact in all robberies. After all, they conspired to end the investigations into the actual perpetrators of the crimes, shielding them from prosecution.
Los Angeles cop whose job was to investigate child sexual assault cases arrested for raping 14 year old girl whose case he was investigating.
http://www.fltimes.com/tns/national/la-deputy-arrested-on-suspicion-of-raping-girl-in-case/article_c52b1110-74cd-55c3-9449-03f6662be2e0.html
What the ever-loving fuck is wrong with people? Cop or not, everybody, i mean EVERYBODY, knows that sex with an underage girl is illegal, immoral, and (other words I can’t think of right now).
I just don’t get it 
For a disturbingly large large segment of humanity, how they act is not about whether it’s right or wrong, it’s about whether they believe they can manage to go unpunished.
Wonder what the interviews are like for Sheriff’s office?
It’s worth noting that this man is not a “Los Angeles cop” in quite the sense implied here.
When I hear the words “Los Angeles cop,” my first thought is usually Los Angeles (City) Police Department, but that’s not who this guy works for. He’s a member of the Los Angeles (County) Sheriff’s Department, which is a completely different organization.
Wow. Between the alleged child rapist and the convicted drug runner, it’s quite a day for the LA County Sheriff’s Department.
Byron Ragland is a court-appointed intermediary who was supervising a yogurt treat between a mother and her son who were apparently not allowed to be meeting alone. While the mother and son were enjoying their yogurt, the yogurt place called the cops on Ragland because he was sitting in their restaurant and frightening the staff by being there. Mr. Ragland is black.
(I couldn’t find the living black in America thread so I posted this here).
you were about 13 posts late to that party
So it’s unclear whether Bradford was doing something which justified the officer killing him.
It sucks that we live in a society where we know that even today there’s a good chance this will boil down to “he was black, he had a gun and he was in public: no foul on the officer for shooting him”.
:mad:
He was a black man with a gun. Justification enough, in their eyes.
Nothing like conclusion jumping. How about waiting until the facts come out? That way if they back your conclusion you can say, “See? Racist, trigger-happy cops!”. If they don’t you can say, “Cover-up! Racist system!” Its a win-win.
The police have already lied once about this incident; it’s not a stretch to think that there would be more shenanigans.
Oh and hey: look what else is going on in America:
The conclusion jumping is done by the cop defenders in these threads. They like to say that the cop must have had a good reason to kill someone, and will go to any and all lengths to defend them.
The other side is looking for information, is looking for an investigation, in order to get the facts of the case. We don’t jump to the conclusion that it was a bad shoot, we simply “jump” to the conclusion that we would like to have more information about this incident, and the police are withholding that.
Now, if the police continue to withhold information about the case, it is natural to speculate on what that information is, and why they would withhold it.
For instance, you have already jumped to the conclusion that other have done so, and are not waiting for the facts to come out in order to defend police that you don’t have any idea whether or not they were in the right. Why not wait until the facts come out, so that you can say, “See? He did that thing (moved, stopped, didn’t move, didn’t stop, put his hands up, put his hands down, pulled out a cell phone, owned a cell phone, didn’t hear and understand the cop’s shouted orders, followed the cop’s orders) that made the cop think that he was in fear for his life.”
I suppose I am what you would consider a cop defender. What I consider myself to be is someone who waits for investigations to be completed before deciding on who did what. The reason I think that way is because I was a detective in my younger days and have personally seen how wrong first impressions can be when investigating incidents that occur under chaotic conditions. Sometimes the conclusion jumped to turns out to be the right one. Its looking more and more like that in this case. But that doesn’t make reaching conclusions on insufficient information O.K. or correct. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Likely, if the police had video in this case showing the officer acted reasonably they would be releasing it sooner rather than later. But even that isn’t enough to be sure that the officer acted illegally. In the wake the most recent mass shootings, police are being reminded that number one goal is to stop the shooter as quickly as possible. It can be a fine line between acting too hastily and waiting too long. If the cop in the case was indeed, “trigger happy”, then he should get whatever the law requires. However, if the victim this case did something (even accidently) that the officer could reasonably believe presented a deadly threat then what you may have is a tragic, deadly mistake. It is situations like this that call for literal split second decisions. The courts and the law realize the time pressure officers may be under and make allowances for that. If the cop was wrong, he was wrong. But let’s not convict him without hearing all of the evidence.
Fuck off: this isn’t a court of law and we aren’t Judges.
We’re talking about things using all the available evidence we have. YOU are free to wait to post until you have all the information YOU want. I will applaud as you exercise your freedom at every available opportunity, knowing that this thread is better off because of your efforts at restraint.
It seems to me that your formulation here represents one of the fundamental contradictions at the heart of our discussions about law enforcement in the United States.
On the one hand, we are constantly told that the police are highly-trained professionals, people we can trust to do the right thing in high-stress and high-pressure situations. The police, according to the standard narrative, have a level of training and expertise and control that allows them to confront highly unusual situations with a level of professionalism that regular civilians just don’t understand.
On the other hand, we seem willing, as a society, to accept that police are just as frightened and trigger-happy as any other useless civilian would be under similar circumstances. We are told that if an officer sees the slightest movement, even an accidental one, and can offer a sufficient post-hoc argument that he felt threatened, is justified in blazing away at whatever civilian happens to be at the other end of his gun.
Conversely, many defenders of police seem to hold everyday civilians up to a higher standard than the trained officers when it comes to dealing with high-pressure situations. It is apparently acceptable for a trained and armed police officer to shoot someone dead if he feels vaguely threatened, but if a completely untrained civilian, someone unaccustomed to high-pressure or violent situations, makes the slightest wrong move and gets himself shot, then apparently thatt’s just an unfortunate consequence, and people need to learn to do what they’re told when confronted by the cops.
You are right that the courts and the law have institutionalized this set of practices, but in my opinion they have done so to an extent that police can quite easily avoid accountability for things for which they should be held accountable. I believe that this is something that needs to change. I understand that it must be frightening to confront the possibility of violence in your day-to-day job, and I’m not sure that I would be very good at doing that. I fully concede that I might, if I had a gun in my hand, be tempted to shoot before I took full account of the situation. But it is precisely because I recognize my limitations in that area that I did not pursue a career as a police officer. If police are going to hold themselves up as trained professionals, we as a society should have the right to expect that they perform better in high-pressure situations than the average person.
I understand the policing is a difficult job. I have a tendency, based on family connections, to sympathize with police. My stepfather retired at the level of inspector after more than 25 years as a police officer, and my mother’s last paid employment before she retired was a 10-year stint as a civilian aid in a police department. But it seems to me, in the United States, that police and many of their defenders want it both ways: all of the power and authority that comes with the gun and the badge, but without very much of the responsibility or accountability.
You do have a point. He was black, and officers certainly have been justified by the courts in believing that that the state of being black (even accidentally) allows an officer to reasonably believe that they are a deadly threat.
I mean, really, how hard is it to just not be black? You are pretty much just asking for people to make split second decisions that lead to tragic deadly mistakes. (Deadly for you, tragic for the poor, poor officer that had to go through such a terrible ordeal of killing you.)
I predict a complete acquittal (assuming that there are even any charges ever filed), based on this information. I mean, you see a black guy, you probably ought to shoot him. If he’s got a gun, then you just have to. Why should anyone be held to account when faced with such an obvious threat?
I do find it amusing that you are here, accusing some members of a messageboard for “jumping to conclusions” when we are just really speculating on the event in light of other recent events. We have no power, no say. We are not the judge, the jury, nor the executioner. What we say or think has no bearing on the fate of the officer that pulled the trigger and ended another human’s life.
But you use that complaint of some people on a message board jumping to conclusions to defend an officer whose jumping to conclusions ended a person’s life. How about saving your lectures for him?
Here’s a thought. Perhaps the first step should be ‘figure out who the shooter is’.