I don’t know - maybe if one ever shows we can debate them.
Just out of curiosity - did the part about “break ins” even register on your retinas? Let alone on your brain.
What if he said “I tried to pull him over because he didn’t have a light on his bike, but he took off and refused to stop, and then he pulled a gun”? Because that is what he said, and he is, in fact, legally in the clear.
You quoted this part of the DA’s report -
Is it your allegation that the cop could actually see that West was black, and that was why he stopped him?
Never suggested otherwise. In fact, if you look at my previous post, you’ll see that I quite clearly said that the stop was legal. Lucky you’re not a cop, I guess, because whatever bullets you weren’t putting into black kids you’d probably be shooting into your own feet.
Last week, I was walking down the street after dark. I saw a guy on the other side of the street. I couldn’t see who it was, but I could see that he was black. Same with the white guy I saw five minutes later.
You mean apart from actually finding the gun on the scene.
No doubt the police stole the gun, hung onto it for three years, and then gave it to Sgt. Giese in hopes that eventually he would run into West so he could shoot him and plant it.
First, I see that you didn’t answer my question. What should have the cop done at that point? With your vast law enforcement back ground, you must have some ideas.
Second, is there some evidence that I am unaware of that contradicts the officer’s version of events? If so, please show it to me. Or was it all buried in some vast conspiracy?
Don’t tell me what my default position is, I’ll tell you. My default position is: Don’t jump to any conclusions until the evidence is in." In this case, an investigation was done and a lengthy report was issued. Sorry it doesn’t fit your narrative.
You are making noise about other posts in this long thread say that have nothing to do with this particular case. They may be relevant but they are certainly not material. If you don’t know the difference, look it up. I’m talking about this specific incident.
Actually, it was not the cop but the DA’s decision that asserted these. AFAIK, the cop did say that he pulled West over only because of the light. If he has stated otherwise, I have not seen the cite.
manson1972 has asserted that West was part of group in a stolen car earlier that night and that there is photographic evidence. If that is true, then it does go a ways to backing up the officer’s version of events. Or at least, the DA’s decision not to file charges.
So, in an area that has been suffering break-ins, a cop shouldn’t check out (hassle, in your terms) someone who is riding a bike without lights at 1:30 am and when he runs not chase him? In what world do you live? Are one of those people who think the police should just sit at the station and wait for calls to come in?
An Orlando police officer who was working as a school resource officer arrested two six year olds and charged them with battery, put them into the back of a squad car, and booked them. Thankfully, he has been fired:
One of them was a little girl who had kicked her teacher. I’m sure the fact that the little girl was black had nothing to do with her arrest. In my lily-white town, kids are arrested all the time for having meltdowns in school</sarcasm>. The charges against the kids have been dropped, but that must have been one traumatic experience!
Check out what? A person riding a bike? Is that a criminal act or something?
Is it reasonable to think person riding a bike without lights has committed a break in? Is it probable (>50% chance) that a person riding a bike at night has committed a break in?
Or is it reasonable and probable that the person riding at night is just trying to get somewhere on a bike that doesn’t have an aftermarket light attached to it?
This whole neighborhood break in schtick is just an excuse that let’s cops hassle literally anyone they want, any time they want.
Aye; what other transgressions would get that kind of treatment? A car not signaling a lane change? How about a person crossing the street outside a marked crosswalk at 1:30am? :dubious:
IMHO, there’s a decent chance she is going to be found Not Guilty of Murder. Which is damnably unfortunate for Mr. Jean’s family, as I think a charge of Manslaughter or Criminally Negligent Homicide would have resulted in a guilty verdict. It’s also unfortunate for the citizens of Dallas, as I doubt the citizenry will react to a not guilty verdict with detachment and indifference.
My understanding is that the indictment only listed the culpable mental states for Murder, and did not list other mental states such as recklessness or negligence. AIU Texas law, though IANAL, the required mental state for lesser included offenses within Murder, like Manslaughter or Negligent Criminal Homicide, must be included within the indictment, in order for the prosecution to seek a jury charge for those offenses. See, Havard v. State, 800 S.W.2d 195, 214-217 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). Maybe things have changed since Havard, I dunno.
Anyway, I thought you all might like to watch the trial as it unfolds.
You’re kidding, right? First of all, it doesn’t have to be “probable” that someone is committing an offense before they can be questioned by the police. There only needs to be a reasonable suspicion that have committed an offense, are committing one or have just committed one. In this case the officer had reason to believe he was committing a traffic offense. He needed a legal reason to stop the guy and he had one. Even if the stop was a pretext to investigate the possibility of burglary, the courts have said that’s O.K. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the courts and legislature. You want the police to play by the rules and this officer, clearly, was. Apparently, that’s not good enough.
If the cop stopped him and he said (truthfully), “I live right there and am heading home from work” that would, likely, have been the end of it. When the suspect fled, that certainly ramped things up. As is often the case, non-compliance at a lawful stop got the ball rolling. Is the cop supposed to say “Let me see here. There are break ins going on and this guy is fleeing from a lawful stop at 1:30 AM. But since its only a bike light violation, I should just let him go.”?
If there were break ins going on in my neighborhood I’d want the police to check out everyone that they had a legal reason to. That is their job.
What offense are we talking about here? Riding a bike or committing a break in? The only thing this cop actually had any evidence of is riding a bike.
Fuck the courts. This pretext shit is why black kids get stopped all the time and white kids don’t. The pretext is the veneer that covers what’s actually going on, a cop hassling a kid on a bike for no reason other than biking while black.
It ain’t good enough when you’re punching holes in kids with your gun. No, your pretext for the stop isn’t good enough. He stopped the kid because he suspected him of a crime other than biking without a headlight, suspected him because he’s young and black, suspected him with no evidence other than there were some break ins in the area (like that’s not true fucking everywhere) and the young black kid is a good suspect.
Some years ago a black co-worker came in seething because he’d been pulled over on his way to work. The reason? There’d been a burglary by a black man about a mile away some hours before. “So, if he’d been wearing a cowboy hat you’re gonna stop everybody you see with a cowboy hat?” he asked the cop.