community-based, non-corporate, participatory media

About Contact Us Policies Mailing Lists Radio Video Publish! Calendar Search

View article without comments

Cops shoot 12yr old in back in Fayette County
by Regina Friday, Dec. 27, 2002 at 8:48 AM

Cops shoot 12 yr old in back on Christmas eve.

Wow. Does anyone know anything being organized to see justice done for this kid? Just another reminder that the police are waging a war on the citizenry Scary to think these cops will probably not even be fired.

from corporate media
An autopsy showed that a 12-year-old Fayette County boy who died on Tuesday after he was chased by state police was shot once in the back, but authorities are not saying who fired the fatal shot.

The bullet passed through the heart of Michael Ellerbe, 12, of North Union, then through his chest and out of his body, Fayette County Coroner Dr. Phillip E. Reilly said yesterday.

Because the bullet was not recovered from Ellerbe's body, Reilly said he could not determine its caliber or identify the gun from which it was fired. State police would not say yesterday if they have identified who fired the bullet, but they have placed two troopers who were involved in the chase on administrative leave.

State police have said that several shots were fired during the chase, but have not said whether Ellerbe was armed or if he fired any of the shots.

Reilly said he will hold an inquest into the shooting Jan. 29. Although he usually allots a three-month period to pass between an incident and an inquest so laboratory and other tests can be completed, Reilly said he did not want to wait that long in this case.

"There are various stories circulating about the circumstances here," he said. "Because of the cloud and concern that hangs over the circumstances, we want to move it up."

The shooting occurred about 2:30 p.m. after the owner of a sport utility vehicle that had been reported stolen earlier in the day spotted the car on Connellsville Street in Uniontown, authorities said. The owner called 911, and Uniontown city police responded to pursue the car.

They lost sight of the car, but troopers picked up the chase. The driver of the car, later identified as Ellerbe, wrecked it after crashing into a house and a tree, then jumped out and ran.

State police Capt. Roger Waters, who is in charge of the Uniontown barracks, could not say whether Ellerbe was alone in the car.

State police said troopers ran after Ellerbe for several hundred yards and shots were fired during that chase.

Ellerbe was shot while running between two houses from Cleveland Avenue to Murray Avenue in a residential section of the city. People in the neighborhood said the boy collapsed in a back yard. He died a short time later at Uniontown Hospital.

Asked if a weapon was found on Ellerbe or in the vicinity of the chase, Waters said: "I'm not certain, but I can't say that there was."

Reilly said the preliminary autopsy results he received yesterday did not indicate if gunshot residue had been found on Ellerbe's hands, which would have indicated if he had fired a weapon.

Ellerbe's hands were covered after he was shot to protect any evidence that remained on them, Reilly said. But he said tests for gunshot residue would be conducted by state police in their laboratory during their investigation, rather than during the autopsy.

"I will be calling for that information at the inquest," he said.

Reilly farmed the autopsy out to Allegheny County Coroner Dr. Cyril H. Wecht, who is under contract to privately render pathological services to Fayette County.

The troopers involved in the incident, Juan Curry and Samuel Nassan, both of the Uniontown barracks, were reassigned to administrative duties pending completion of the investigation by state police and the Fayette County district attorney's office.

Such reassignments are routine when troopers are involved in critical incidents.

Curry, 32, is an eight-year veteran of the state police while Nassan, 30, has not yet completed a year on the force, Waters said.

Neither trooper has been involved in a shooting incident while working for the state police, Waters said.

Funeral arrangements for Ellerbe are incomplete but will be handled by the Muriel E. Lantz Funeral Home, Uniontown.

A woman who answered the telephone at the Ellerbe residence said family members had no comment.


from-
http://www.postgazette.com/localnews/20021227boyshotr2.asp

add your comments


pigs
by tt Friday, Dec. 27, 2002 at 6:03 PM

Fucking pigs. I hope someone who has been involved with anti-brutality actions in Pittsburgh will post something on the latest killing spree by the police. It's been open season on black males in Pittsburgh.

add your comments


American Values
by pjd Saturday, Dec. 28, 2002 at 12:01 PM

Hey, sad but true, but most Americans, (especially Fayertte County residents) would fully agree that a summary police-administered death sentence was perfectly appropriate - even for a 12 year old - for these reasons:

1. He stole a car - especially a SUV!

2. He disobeyed a police officer - he didn't stop running when the cop told him to stop. Police don't carry deadly force for nothing; they carry guns so you will obey them when they order you to do someting! without fear of getting shot by a cop, the rabble would rule and we would have anarchy!!!

3. The kid would just have gone on to more crime, especially if he was black!

Remember, guns (along with greed and god) are what makes America great!.




Fuck America.

add your comments


drive by
by dude Sunday, Dec. 29, 2002 at 6:48 AM

apparently there was a drive-by at a gas station near by sometime after the boy was killed. two cops were shot in retalliation for the pigs killing the young boy.

add your comments


Samuel Nassan
by Concerned Friday, Jan. 03, 2003 at 7:22 PM

Samuel Nassan as a sniper in the UMS.Thanks for turning our streets into a war zone .I am not sure how he ever passed the test to be a state trooper .They are still testing to see who is the bad guy and who is the good guys .. right ?

add your comments


Challenge
by Fellow Cop Monday, Jan. 06, 2003 at 10:42 AM

I challenge anybody who wants to second guess these officers to put on a uniform and a badge and go to work. Go through a 6 month police academy away from your family (except weekends, maybe) and study state laws and traffic laws till the wee hours of the morning, and then go to your first duty where your mission in life is to see people at their worst. When was the last time a cop was called to a family just sitting around watching television? But, when was the last time a cop was called because a husband was beating the crap out of his wife? I challenge anybody to put on a uniform and a badge, and walk into a strangers house and be willing to get punched , kicked, stabbed or shot for a total stranger because it is your job. You want to second guess the officers but you weren't there!!!! You don't know what happened, but my question is this. Why was a 12 year old boy in a stolen SUV and how come his parents aren't being held accountable for his death? Where were they when their twelve year old was out joyriding in a stolen vehicle? Some states have laws that would hold the parents accountable. And if that was your car that was stolen and the police didn't find it your comment would be, " Well, those damn cops must be to busy at the donut shop to find my car." But in this case they did their jobs, they found the car, and a FELONY suspect fled after a CAR CHASE. The pretty red and blue lights and the loud 230 Db siren means stop. Everybody knows that, even a twelve year old kid. But he didn't stop, he made a life altering decision. Then after the vehicle was involved in an accident, he committed another crime by fleeing the scene of an accident and once again failed to obey the orders of the troopers to stop running. Now I challenge you to go to work, put on a uniform and get cussed at, spit at, fought with and second guessed and do it for their pay . Then raise a family and pay your bills with their pay and go back and do it day after day after day. Seeing the scum of society at their finest and always wondering if you are going home at the end of the night. Will you see your wife and kids again, your parents? The twelve year old boy dictated the actions of the officers, the officers did not dicatate the twelve year old boys actions. The boy acted and the officer reacted. Now put yourself in those officers shoes for one minute of your life and ask yourself this question? Justified or night, could I live with myself for shooting and killing a twelve year old boy? Most of you probable can't answer that question because you don't know. ut these officers have to live with it and so do there families. How many of you would? If you would, then GO TO WORK!!!!!!!

add your comments


The law, Mr. Officer
by teamsterturtle Monday, Jan. 06, 2003 at 12:50 PM

Far be it for me to presume to know more than an officer about the law, but I am positive that given the facts you mentioned (kid driving stolen car, gets into an accident, and flees) it would still be ILLEGAL (even under your pro-capitalist, pro-police Supreme Court) to shoot the person fleeing from the scene (unless there was a display of a gun).

Should the parents take some responsibility for their child's actions? Of course -- especially when they know how racist and trigger happy some officers can be. However, shifting blame for a kid's death onto his parents and away from those that shot him seems a leap in logic to me.

add your comments


response to the officer
by andy Monday, Jan. 06, 2003 at 5:04 PM

a couple of points if i may:

1. being a police officer is a tough job. i won't deny that and i don't really think anyone will. it's also a choice you make. no one forced you to take that career path, and i for one would never go for it. it's a choice that forces one to surrender her own personal conscience to her superiors, which in my opinion is a deadly choice. a dangerous job is not necessarily a job commanding of respect.

2. a felony suspect does not deserve to die after a car chase. obviously i think stealing cars and leading high-speed chases is dumb and can be deadly. at the same time, there's no reason for officers to have their guns drawn on a boy who doesn't have a gun.

3. quoting:
"The twelve year old boy dictated the actions of the officers, the officers did not dicatate the twelve year old boys actions. The boy acted and the officer reacted. "

it's rough to be a police officer. i bet it was also rough to be Michael Ellerbe. i don't know much about his background, but from what i do know i imagine his home life was not pretty. he was a boy. a 12 year old boy. my nephew is about to turn 12. he doesn't have the capacity to think like an adult yet. Michael Ellerbe didn't either. he made a really dumb mistake, and he died for it, and there was no reason for him to die for it. and if the officers chasing him on foot didn't have their guns drawn- despite his not having a weapon- he would not have died.

3. maybe his parents should have kept closer track of him. that doesn't mean it's their fault he died. if they *knew* he was stealing a car maybe, or if they *helped* him steal it, sure, but not if they were simply negligent. there was no reason for them to think he was out endangering his own life or those of others.

4. police are payrolled by taxpayers. we have as much right to question their behavior as you do when you go to a restaurant and complain because the the steak is undercooked and could give you food poisoning. the fact that you've never been a chef doesn't mean you don't know that undercooking meat is bad. the fact that i've never been a cop doesn't mean i don't know that shooting an unarmed boy is bad.

5. thanks for setting forth a polite argument and not name-calling or making personal attacks. we disagree but it's important that we keep up dialogue and not polarizing vitriol.

add your comments


Dear officer...
by pjd Tuesday, Jan. 07, 2003 at 11:07 AM

When I wrote "american values" it was an over-the top parody of how I believe a policeman and their friends view the public.

Little would I know that you would actually _confirm_ what I had hoped were just anti-cop biases of mine.
You actually admitted the purpose of American cops carrying and using deadly force was to force obiedience and punish unarmed people who don't obey you.

Sounds like Fascism to me....

...and to blame the childs parents for the killing is positively twisted logic. Sadly this is the logic of Power.

Silly me! I thought American cops carried guns as self defense against an imminent threat from a similarly-armed, violent person. After, all in the UK, regular police don't carry anything more deadly than their batons, and last I checked the UK is a pretty civilized place.

add your comments


Re: Challenge
by Uniontown resident Wednesday, Jan. 08, 2003 at 6:10 AM

You are an idiot, and not just because you are a cop. Since when does stealing a car consititute shooting an unarmed child in the back? Police officers know the stress involved with the job long before they hit the street, and if they cannot still make common sense decisions then they need to consider another occupation. Common sense tells you that an unarmed person running away from you, especially a child, is not a threat.

add your comments


Challenge
by Dave Wednesday, Jan. 08, 2003 at 7:14 AM

Mr. Policeman,
I do appreciate the hard word and dedication you and others provide to our cities. This is an unfortunate incident and anyone could easily sit back and criticize the actions of the police officer that shot and say that he was wrong.

That answer will come out at the conclusion of the investigation... but it is instances like this that everyone is so quick to point the finger at the police. Probably because of the expectation from the public... expectations that result in being available 24hours a day, responding to situtations that require a split second decision, and the criticism from the public when a situation goes bad. I know that a person's decision to become a police officer is obviously not to become a millionare but more a sense of honor and duty to our country. It is people that have this sense of honor and duty that have made this country great. And with any good relationship we do have bad times.

Thank you for serving... god bless

add your comments


Education
by Fellow Cop Wednesday, Jan. 08, 2003 at 7:16 AM

I will try to address all of your comments-

1. teamsterturtle- The 'fleeing felon law' which was established in Tennessee does not require the display of a gun or any other deadly instrument. The 'totality of the circumstances' dictates the actions of the officers. Taking into account everything that happened, YOU are ASSUMING the police knew it was a 12 yr old boy that was running from him and he was unarmed. Check the FBI and Dept. of Justice statistics and you will find that most suspects who commit an felony are armed. And yes sir, that is a pro-police Supreme Court decision.

2. Andy- Based on the comment above, yes the officers were justified both morally and legally in having their weapons out of the holster. Once again, most fleeing felons are armed and despite what our society would like to believ, the law does not require an officer to be shot at or even have a gun pointed at him before he can respond. Example, you and your significant other are walking on a city street one night and a male emerges from a dark passage way and demands your wallet. Is he armed? You don't see a gun or knife, but at that point are you not in fear of you and your significant others physical well being? Yes you are!!! And a REASONABLE person in a similar circumstances would feel the same. So are you justified in using physical force to protect yourself ? Absolutely you are. You don't have to wait for this male subject to physically attack you!!! I did not balme the parents for the death of their son. There can be nothing more horrible that I can think of than a parent losing the a child. My point in that comment is that juvenile crime is on the rise and has been for 5 years. If we as a society put the power or parenting back in the hands of the parents we wouldn't have such a large percentage of juvenile crime. As far as the Chef comment goes, undercooking certain meat is recommend such as prime rib. Steak can also be served rare and I would HAVE to be a Chef to know the the core temperature of the meat was safe to serve and consume. I as a person don't have o be a Chef to know how I like my steak though. You are comparing apples and oranges. That goes back to my comment don't second guess. The citizen are second guessing the police without the benefit of police training or intimate knowledge of the law and how to enforce it.

3.pjd- Not once did I say or even imply that the purpose of cops carrying guns was to "force obiedience and punish unarmed people who don't obey you" to quote you. The reason cops carrying guns is because bad guys do. And when someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night who do you call? The cops? Or maybe you grab your gun out of the night stand and take care of business yourself. If you would do some research you will find that since the country of Austrailia mandated all citizens turn in their guns, the violent crime rates have tripled. Why? Because criminals carry guns. Cops carrying guns to protect themselves and others, not punish people. Speaking of twisted thought !!! And once again I did not blame the parents for the death of their child, that is what you wanted me to do to justify your own screwed up outlook on life. And pjd once again, research is a beautiful thing but, the 'Bobbys' in the UK do now carry guns and have for several years. Why because bad guys carrying guns and their job is to catc the bad guy and put him in jail so the general law abiding citizen do have to be bothered with him. But that doesn't make sense to you because all police are facist right?

4. Uniontown resident- your comment doesn't deserve a response because you are the idiot. Do you have a job? have you ever had to make a split second decision? probably not because based on you limited vocabulary and the content of your comment, I would say you were lucky to graduate from high schol so you probably work at McDonalds somewhere. But once again, I explain it in small words just for you. Police officers are bound by duty and othe to arrest people who commit crime. If a suspect is running away from you how do you tell his age and know if his is unarmed or not. Read the example posted above. You are second guessing the oficers actions now with the benefit of partial pieces of the whole truth. Who is to say the suspect didn't have a gun and as he runs in between two houses, he stops, hides and ambushes the officers. That is the way officers have to think. They don't have the luxury of hindsight. So before you pass judgement, why don't you wait until all of the facts are out. So now you tell me where common sense fits in. How are you, as a Police Officer in the same situation, supposed to know this person who just led you on a high speed chase in a stolen vehicle, that resulted in an accident and then continues to resist arrest by running is a child and is not armed. You aren't supposed to know because you CAN'T know!!!!!!!

add your comments


response to dave
by - Wednesday, Jan. 08, 2003 at 7:52 AM

"That answer will come out at the conclusion of the investigation... but it is instances like this that everyone is so quick to point the finger at the police. "

This assumes you believe the investigation will take place in an impartial manner. Pittsburgh (like the rest of the country) does not have a history of police being brought to justice. As far as quickly pointing the finger the police do this all the time. Do you ever consider the fact that almost every incident that takes place the police immediately present one side of the story? When do they say we can't talk about what happened, we need to wait for the investigation to finish? When it initially appears that the police have committed a crime. A symbiotic relationship exists between the corporate press and the police department. Each needs the other one to advance the goals they have: the police to maintain power and the obedience of the public, the media to maintain privileged access to the information and footage from which they derive profit.

People are unjustly beaten, arrested, convicted, and otherwise mistreated every day by the police. We will never hear about most of these incidents because no one is there to witness them. Many of us on progressive websites have witnessed first hand the brutality of a police force that is unaccountable in all but the most egregious instances (where video or other irrefutable evidence exists) so excuse our refusal to pat the police on the back when another person is needlessly murdered.

add your comments


Response to Dave
by Fellow Cop Wednesday, Jan. 08, 2003 at 9:00 AM

Your final sentence shows your true belief. The word murder is very strong and to those people involved in the law in some aspect implies a very different meaning that probably what you know. Murder implies the police planned to kill that 12 year old boy. Is that your belief. The legal definition of murder is 'the intentional taking of a human life accomplished through premedition or aforethought.' So what you are saying is that the police planned to kill and then executed a 12 year old boy. If you believe that, go to the nearest hospital and seek psychiatric treatment. There are more violations of ethics, laws and codes of conduct in the priesthood than exist in all of law enforcement. For how many years have priests sexually molest boys without anybody knowing abooyut it? So your theory exists in all careers, not just Law Enforcement. Statistically, the percentage is much less in the Law Enforcement community. But you sound like one of those people who condemns all cops because of one bad cop. I'll admit there are bad cops, everybody knows that . But there are also crooked judges, greedy pharmacist, crooked car salesman and the list goes on. So do you never go car shoping because you heard a car salesman is crooked or do just not shop at HIS lot? What about pharmacist that are killing elderly people by filling prescritions with sub-standard or lethal drugs so the profit margin is increased. These types of people knowingly commit an act that will hurt or kill somebody. Police Officers once again REACT to a situation, they do not cause the situation.

add your comments


response to dave
by Dave Wednesday, Jan. 08, 2003 at 9:02 AM

You can sit there and talk about it all you want. Will it bring that kid back? If you have the talent to run your mouth and have magical things happen then do it... I have yet to see any police officer or innocent victim brought back as a result of sitting around and "talking" about it. But if this allows you to cleanse your feelings and convince yourself of what you believe to be right the SIT AND THINK as much as it takes... especially if you come up with the right answer.

I in no way do I think that any police department, government agency, private industry or religious organization have a track record for doing things without error . I do however have confidence in people because there are many that do what they're supposed to, and have enough courage to make it right.

add your comments


response to cop
by pjd Wednesday, Jan. 08, 2003 at 1:16 PM

>You wrote: "pjd- Not once did I say or even imply that >the purpose of cops carrying guns was to "force >obiedience and punish unarmed people who don't >obey you" to quote you."

My Response - I'll repeat what you wrote..
"But he didn't stop, he made a life altering decision. Then after the vehicle was involved in an accident, he committed another crime by fleeing the scene of an accident and once again failed to obey the orders of the troopers to stop running...."

You clearly implied that the use of the guns in this situation was justified based sole on the childs disobiedience of the officers request to stop.

>And when someone breaks into your house in the >middle of the night who do you call? The cops? Or >maybe you grab your gun out of the night stand and >take care of business yourself....

It is interesting that you presumed that I would be so paranoid as to keep a gun in a night stand. Actually, all I've got is a .22 rifle back in my closet somewhere and I can't imagine pointing it at a human. The situation you are referring to - an armed person breaking into an occupied house and willing to gun down the occupants is rare. Not quite as rare as it ought to be, but pretty damn rare. (We're not talking about common burgularies in unoccupied houses). At any rate, killing someone just to protect property is not justified in any code of morality I can find.

Statistically ,there are dozens of more likely ways I will meet my demise - and I live right off Penn Avenue right against Garfield. What suburb or outlying town do live in, Mr. Cop?

For more on American paranoia, please see the film -"Bowling for Columbine" by Michael Moore. It is playing at the Manor in Squirrel Hill.

>If you would do some research you will find that >since the country of Austrailia mandated all citizens >turn in their guns, the violent crime rates have tripled. >Why?

I will forward this remark to some Austrailian friends and see if they agree.

>Because criminals carry guns. Cops carrying guns to >protect themselves and others, not punish people.

Thank you for saying that, but that is not what you originally wrote.

> Speaking of twisted thought !!! And once again I did >not blame the parents for the death of their child, that >is what you wanted me to do to justify your own >screwed up outlook on life?

Fair enough; when you wrote that some states would hold the parents accountable, I see you meant stealing the car, but the topic was the childs death, so I assumed you meant the parents could be held accountable for that - which is kinda twisted you have to admit.

>And pjd once again, research is a beautiful thing but, >the 'Bobbys' in the UK do now carry guns and have >for several years.

Yes, but my point was that societies can be plenty peaceful with unarmed cops. Arming the Bobbys was no doubt a Maggie Thatcher thing and post-Thatcher, the Brits have partially acquired the paranoia of the US.

>Why because bad guys carrying guns and their job is >to catch the bad guy and put him in jail so the general >law abiding citizen do have to be bothered with him."

Fine, but that's not the only thing cops do. You must understand that for many of the users of this site, their only experience with cops has been brutalization, humiliation and imprisonment, or, at a very minimum, presented with intimidating police force, all for merely for expressing their political views in public spaces.

Let's hope the police remember our Ist, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendment rights on January 25th and 26th, because some of us have experience seeing all of them have been violated in past demonstrations in Pittsburgh and elsewhere. Maybe some of you can join us - Cops against the war!



add your comments


Cop confused with law?
by teamsterturtle Wednesday, Jan. 08, 2003 at 6:02 PM

While I do not recognize the legitimacy of police in any way, this is for some less radical readers to familiarize themselves with the law:


To the extent that this may be considered more strict than 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 508(a)...
Some quotes from the opinion in
TENNESSEE v. GARNER, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=471&invol=1
(terms highlighted by me, and my explanations in parenthesis)

(Note: The suspect in Tenn. v. Garner was about to hop a fence. What was the situation here, with Ellerbe?)

"The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of ALL FELONY suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape.

(thus, one cannot group all felony suspects together)


"[I]f the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used IF NECESSARY to prevent escape, and if, where [471 U.S. 1, 12] feasible, some warning has been given."

(if there are alternate means of apprehending suspect without deadly force, such as a longer foot chase, then the availability of those means precludes the legality of the use of deadly force)

Furthermore, I would argue that in Garner, the court commented that nightime burglary is not an inherently dangerous crime. Where does that place a stolen vehicle, that has not necessarily been obtained through the use of force? The police report seems to be that a vehicle had been stolen, not that it had been forcibly taken.

And after all is said and done, if you cops are so good with the guns, why not shoot him in the leg instead of the heart!? Cause the cops didn't care about his life. The Police Dept. hasn't said anything because they know they fucked-up big time. If Ellerbe fired shots or had a weapon, the Dept. would have brought this up right away.

Here's some corporate opinion:
http://www.post-gazette.com/firstamendment/20030108edshoot0108p2.asp

add your comments


Erratum
by teamsterturtle Wednesday, Jan. 08, 2003 at 6:12 PM

I take back part of what I said. I think that everyone should be fairly familiar with the law to preserve whatever rights have been given to them by the capitalist system. Use what you can to get free.

add your comments


Confusion
by Fellow Cop Thursday, Jan. 09, 2003 at 4:09 AM

Teamsterturtle- I'm glad you took the time to do a little research and be an informed citizen. However, there aparently is ome confusion on you interpertation of the Garner v. Tennessee ruling. You are absolutley correct that using deadly force to prevent the escape of all Felony suspects is unreasonable. However, you wrote "[I]f the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used IF NECESSARY to prevent escape, and if, where [471 U.S. 1, 12] feasible, some warning has been given." This threatened infliction of serious physical harm is not limited to the police officers only. It applies to all of the citizens in the area of the crime. When the suspect chose to flee in a vehicle and failed to stop for the police, the vehicle became a weapon and an instrument of the crime. Therefore, the threat of serious physical harm did exist to the motoring public at large as the vehcile was being operated with disregard for the safety of other vehicles on the roadway. So if the suspect is willing to go to those lenghts to avoid capture, is it really that far of a leap to deduct that the suspect is not above possibly entering somebody's house and hiding from the police? And what if the occupant of that house was home? You see the law attempts to protect the citizens as a whole and that is why Garner v. Tenn exists. If the police had to let every criminal go that ran from them, we would be in a terrible position as a society. Yes Garner was getiing ready to hp a fence but in this case the suspect was in a residential area running though and across private property in an attempt to avoid arrest. the cases are more similar in facts than you want to admit. No the car was not stolen forcibly, but when it was used to aid in the escape and put the general public in danger, then it became a weapon.

add your comments


Analysis
by teamsterturtle Thursday, Jan. 09, 2003 at 5:35 AM

Of course the ruling applies to private citizens as well as police. The language in the case is plain. I cited the case and provided a link so people could read it for themselves. However, I do not think you would find support in the 3rd Cir. or state cases for your proposition that since the car was a deadly weapon [sic?] when Ellerbe exited the car he was still subject to that proviso in Tennessee v. Garner. In my mind, Ellerbe running from the car is as if a person running from the cops dropped their weapon. And, again, *assuming* this case would fall under Tennessee v. Garner, is there any evidence that the police could not have seized him another way? Please come forward with an appropriate case if you know otherwise. Thanks. And thanks for confirming the fact that Ellerbe had not taken the vehicle by force.

add your comments


Addendum
by teamsterturtle Thursday, Jan. 09, 2003 at 5:39 AM

And I really doubt any self-respecting legal mind would argue that driving a stolen vehicle and evading police would constitute an "inherently dangerous felony" justifying the use on deadly force. Again, it has to be 1) an inherently dangerous felony (and remember, nightime burglary does not qualify) and 2) one that would justify the use of force. Then again, the legal system never ceases to amaze me.

add your comments


A relevant case
by teamsterturtle Thursday, Jan. 09, 2003 at 6:22 AM

Here is a citation from a 3d. Cir. case (that dealt with summary judgement, but also with reasonableness as a matter of law):

In sum, the undisputed facts are that Abraham had stolen some clothing, resisted arrest, hit or bumped into a car, and was reasonably believed to be intoxicated. Given these facts, a jury could quite reasonably conclude that Abraham did not pose a risk of death or serious bodily injury to others.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/3rd/992230p.html

It is hard to predict how the courts will come down in many situations. One cannot resort solely to Supreme Court decisions, as they are often written in a vague manner to allow for future development of the law and compromise in reaching an opinion for the judgement.
One can count on the fact that decisions rarely come down on the side of minorities, leftist political activists, etc. When they do, it is only because the system has to keep-up appearances, or because evidence is so overwhelming that there would be a huge public outcry if the decision went any other way.

add your comments


Follow up
by Fellow Cop Thursday, Jan. 09, 2003 at 9:20 AM

Teamsterturtle- Once again you are putting facts into the case that are being assumed. Based only on what we know right know, this case parrallels Garner v. Tenn. And like I wrote in my last response, even though the suspect is running away, can we not consider the fact that the suspect may run into somebody's house or even quite possibly take somebody hostage to negotiate a possible road to freedom. That is the thought process in Garner v. Tenn. This subject was fleeing from the police, had just commited a felony, and presented a danger ot the public at large at that particular point in time. Now, if the police had the luxury of 'arm chair quarterbacking' and taking several hours to think things through, then nothing would ever get done. And to refute your position, if a Police officer respondes to an armed robbery in progress and enters the building to find the armed gunman pointing a gun at the store clerk does he have to give the gunman an oppotunity to drop the gun? It is advised, but if the officer can articulate that his verbal commands could have resulted in the store cleck being seriously injured or killed, then he has no obligation to tell the bad guy to drop his weapon. His only obligation is to identify himself as a police officer. Once again he should give the gunman the opportunity to drop the weapon. So after identifying himself, the gunman turns and runs away with or without the gun. Is the officer justified in shooting the suspect in the back? Maybe he drops the gun but the officer doesn't see it. The officer has an obligation to stop this person from becoming a threat to society as a whole.

In Graham v Connor, the court decided that an officer willnot be judged on his/her use of force based on hindsight. The court can only consider the factors known to the officer at the time the force was used.

add your comments


re: follow up
by craig Thursday, Jan. 09, 2003 at 9:48 AM

"In Graham v Connor, the court decided that an officer willnot be judged on his/her use of force based on hindsight. The court can only consider the factors known to the officer at the time the force was used."

You said it by your statement; now hopefully this will not result in another life being ruined...

add your comments


debate
by - Thursday, Jan. 09, 2003 at 12:02 PM

This debate on the law is interesting and all so I don't mean to distract from it with my comments.

The police comments here have articulated yet again that we can not look solely to the courts for protection at protests or in general. The only thing that is going to end the abuse currently taking place is systemic change in society.

We have seen the Pittsburgh police lie time and time again. Mayday 2001 anyone? There is tons of video evidence of them lying and attacking people for no legitimate or legal reason. It's not like this problem is isolated to our area or to a couple rogue officers. This is an institutional problem. They will not hesitate to lie and brutalize to protect their own interests and those of the power structure. If the courts do rule that killings like the one being discussed are legal that doesn’t mean the police should be let off the hook. Events can not be judged solely on the courts evaluation. In that case we must find ways to protect ourselves while trying to change the laws involved.

As far as the January anti-war convergence: I hope no one gets arrested or hurt but it will work out no matter what happens.

The police are not dealing with another Mayday this time around. People will be prepared for police violence and a lot of people will not accept the police dispersing marches. Not only that but the organizations planning these events have said since the beginning of this process that they will not accept people's rights being violated or people getting arrested. If the city denies permits they will sue. If police attack non-violent people they will sue. If the police mass arrest people they will sue. The thing that's different this time around is that groups have the resources to drag the city and police through the courts for years. The police can do the same thing to activists but I think this at least puts us on a more equal footing. I also think the activist community here is on stronger ground then the police. We have the numbers, money, and influence to win a test of wills with the police. I wouldn't have said that a year ago but times have changed. People are tired of putting up with abuse. POG in particular seems eager to bring legal action as many of them have against the DC police for the IMF-WB protests. Let’s not forget the potential media backlash of a police crackdown. Look at the list of endorsers for these events and then imagine what will happen if the police try to bring dogs to this? I do think the police will get away with arrests and violence against people who damage property, but that's about it.

At least for this event the streets will belong to the people!

add your comments


Good point
by teamsterturtle Friday, Jan. 10, 2003 at 5:03 AM

I think your comments are right on point. Use of the law will only get one so far, especially when all the surrounding events can be manipulated by the police, bosses, etc.

(Note: I think Fellow Cop is still wrong with his legal interpretation, but will not clutter up this forum with legal minutae)

add your comments


Can't help myself
by teamsterturtle Friday, Jan. 10, 2003 at 5:11 AM

OK, I cannot help myself. I must say a bit more. Fellow Cop, are you even aware that your buddies in Tennessee *lost* Tennessee v. Garner? Really, its not clear from your responses that you have even read the case carefully. (Though you are still more knowledgeable than the average cop) I guess you have officer case notes, or something like that, so that you can sound educated about the law when chatting it up with civilians.

add your comments


The Law
by Fellow Cop Friday, Jan. 10, 2003 at 6:20 AM

Actually, I don't have officer case notes, you say my buddies lost in Tennessee v. Garner lost but there is a fleeing felon law. I gained my knowledge through 11 years on the streets as a cop. I have attended more continuing education classes to keep my certification as an officer than most other profession require. There is a misconception that cops are 'stupid' when in fact the majority of cops you see in a patrol car have at least an associates degree and have completed at least a four year enlistment in the armed services. Hell, I've worked with cops that have had a B.S. in Engineering or Psychology. I know Chiefs of Police that have Masters degrees. Once again that is more than I can say for most other professions. I would venture to say that you have never taken the time out of your 'busy' day to actually sit down and talk to a police officer. You're too busy looking down your nose at them and percieve them as the enemy instead of the keepers of the peace and a human being. Of course if you don't like it, we can resort to a communist form of government in which case your ability to publicly write or speak against the government and any of it's entities, such as this forum, would get you put in prison without so much as a trial. Our system may not be perfect and it may work slow, but at least it works.
Most departments offer a civilian ride along program. Go to you local Police Department, sign the necessary waivers and go on patrol for eight hours. When you have walked 8 hours in my shoes, write me back.

add your comments


Education
by teamsterturtle Friday, Jan. 10, 2003 at 6:42 AM

I've worked with more cops, prison guards, etc. than have most people. I do find them incredibly ignorant, though there are always exceptions. You state that the alternative to this society is an authoritarian communist one. That is what we were taught to think in school. There are other alternatives. And any idiot can get a degree. I'm talking about street smarts *and* self-taught people who read and think beyond the lines.

Tenn. v. Garner did not really establish the fleeing felon law. Read the discussion in that case for its deviation from common law.

See you in the streets!

add your comments


Oh Really
by Fellow Cop Friday, Jan. 10, 2003 at 7:23 AM

I have made no bones about what I do for a profession but you have yet to acknowledge yours. And yes any idiot can get a degree. That must explain your large vocabulary. So if you work with more cops and prison guards than most people, what do you do. By what baseline of measurement do you determine them to be ingnorant? By your standards? As you said, any idiot can get a degree but you want self taught and street smart people. Do you have a degree? Do you even have a job? Or are you sitting at somebody elses computer using a dictionary and thesaurus to come up with your words? I have not yet once had to resort to the internet as a source of knowledge. I haven't posted any links where you or other people can read about cases. I know the cases because they are my business and yes teamsterturtle, there is a fleeing felon law, period. No discussion, no interpetation of opions, it is there in black and white. So stop twisting things to make them fit your thought process and discuss facts. The fact is, there is a fleeing felon law. And if you worked with as many cops and prison guards as you claim, anyone of them can tell you about it. I noticed you haven't brought up Graham v. Connor. Why? Because you know as well as I do that you weren't in the officers shoes at the time and it is what THE OFFICER percieved at that moment in time, based on his training and all of the circumstances. I can give you my POST certification number, can you give me your's. See me in the streets? Yeah maybe you as a protester marching against whatever it is you decide to bitch about that day. So far you have not shown anybody that you are in a position to even second guess or discuss this case based on anything other than personal opinon. I am discussing this case based on years of experience as a police officer. Where does your knowledge base come from? I just noticed that a 4 year old little girl is recovering from her wounds in a Hospital after she was shot in a Home Invasion crime in New Kensington. Was it you or *pjd* that said "someone breaking into an occupied house and gunning someone down is rare" ? well it apparently isn't that rare is it?

add your comments


rare?
by - Friday, Jan. 10, 2003 at 7:54 AM

Look cop. This is not hard to understand. Police constantly abuse people and those people have little respect for the police. Please stop with the try walking 8hrs in my shoes etc. Social workers, hospital employees, activists, those with 4 kids working a minimum wage job, and just about everyone else has a stressful life. That doesn't excuse violence and abuse against people nevermind shooting an unarmed person. You sound like the parent who beats a child only to claim that they were just so stressed out. The excuse that the courts judge things based on the officers mindset at the time is irrelevant to me. That gives the police a free hand to do what they want. Any cop can say they feared for their life at the time. That's even easier when you've killed the main witness to any abuse.

The problem is that there is little to no accountability with incidents involving the police. The groups that are targeted the most have the least respect for the police. Not hard to understand. Most of us on this site have witnessed firsthand police beatings, unlawful arrests, sexist and homophobic threats and behavior, police horses stepping on people, threats from the police that they could kill us and get away with it, torture in jail, threats of rape from the police, denial of food and water, denial of medical treatment, police using people's heads to push open doors, and the list goes on and on and on. Oh and don't forget blanket lying after the fact. I've probably witnessed firsthand 150+ incidents in jail of police abuse. Total brutality maybe 200 incidents involving 100+ officers. That's just me. How can anyone respect police when the majority of them are liars? Time and time again they lie to protect themselves from being held accountable. We've witnessed it when cops make statements on tv, in the courts at trial, and any other time it is in your interest.

Funny that you use one example to refute a claim of something being rare. Rare-A lot etc are all relative.

Take police brutality, police murdering people, police framing people and planting evidence. That happens all the time. Are you going to admit it isn't rare?

If you're are going to criticize others for not giving personal info why don't you give us your name?

add your comments


OKAY
by Fellow Cop Friday, Jan. 10, 2003 at 9:19 AM

My name is not relevant but what is relevant that I have backed my opinion and knowledge up with real life experience. In what capacity were you in a jail or prison to witness these incidents of brutality? Were you an employee of the prison or were you an inmate? If you were an employee, why didn't YOU do more to see that the officers were brought to justice? If you are or were an inmate then your opinion means nothing to me. Why? Because you are a criminal and biased towards the police so you have nothing but your own biased experience to base your comments on. So keep them to yourself. I have admitted that there are crooked cops. I have never denied that . So why don't you take the time to read all of the postings before you run your suck? Your worried about bad cops, what about the priests that are molesting little boys, or the pharmacist that are killing elderly people to increase their profit margin. In prison, cop killers are heros. But if someone is holding one of your loved ones hostage, or someone broke into your house, you want the police. And if they don't catch the guy they are not doing their job. I've said all of this before, so read before you reply. You're probably the kind of guy that if a car is speeding on the street you live on you want to know why the cops aren't enforcing the speed limit. But when you get stopped for speeding, all of the sudden the cops are picking on you, or it is because you are a certain race. BULLSHIT!!!!! You ask for speed enforcement then curse the police when YOU are speeding. If YOU had not been speeding then you would not have been stopped. How is it the fault of the police that YOU decided to break the law. People speed and break the law everyday and don't get caught. That's a chance you take when you decide to break the law. So what is your name and occupation? Like I said, I'm not scared to say I'm a cop as matter of fact I'm proud of it.

add your comments


Your case
by teamsterturtle Friday, Jan. 10, 2003 at 9:26 AM

I did not cite Graham v. Connor because it is not that relevant to what was being discussed. Yes, it does bring excessive force cases within the ambit of Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" analysis.
---
The Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" inquiry is whether the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.
---
However, you keep comparing this situation to Tennessee v. Garner, and I can't see how that helps the police at all. Also, just because one looks at the "totality of the circumstances" does not mean anything goes. As even your Supreme Court said in Garner, some things are just unacceptable.

Here are the abhorrent facts in Graham v. Connor (where a decision on how the law was applied to these facts was not reached):

On November 12, 1984, Graham, a diabetic, felt the onset of an insulin reaction. He asked a friend, William Berry, to drive him to a nearby convenience store so he could purchase some orange juice to counteract the reaction. Berry agreed, but when Graham entered the store, he saw a number of people ahead of him in the checkout [490 U.S. 386, 389] line. Concerned about the delay, he hurried out of the store and asked Berry to drive him to a friend's house instead.

Respondent Connor, an officer of the Charlotte, North Carolina, Police Department, saw Graham hastily enter and leave the store. The officer became suspicious that something was amiss and followed Berry's car. About one-half mile from the store, he made an investigative stop. Although Berry told Connor that Graham was simply suffering from a "sugar reaction," the officer ordered Berry and Graham to wait while he found out what, if anything, had happened at the convenience store. When Officer Connor returned to his patrol car to call for backup assistance, Graham got out of the car, ran around it twice, and finally sat down on the curb, where he passed out briefly.

In the ensuing confusion, a number of other Charlotte police officers arrived on the scene in response to Officer Connor's request for backup. One of the officers rolled Graham over on the sidewalk and cuffed his hands tightly behind his back, ignoring Berry's pleas to get him some sugar. Another officer said: "I've seen a lot of people with sugar diabetes that never acted like this. Ain't nothing wrong with the M. F. but drunk. Lock the S. B. up." App. 42. Several officers then lifted Graham up from behind, carried him over to Berry's car, and placed him face down on its hood. Regaining consciousness, Graham asked the officers to check in his wallet for a diabetic decal that he carried. In response, one of the officers told him to "shut up" and shoved his face down against the hood of the car. Four officers grabbed Graham and threw him headfirst into the police car. A friend of Graham's brought some orange juice to the car, but the officers refused to let him have it. Finally, Officer Connor received a report that Graham had done nothing wrong at the convenience store, and the officers drove him home and released him. [490 U.S. 386, 390]

At some point during his encounter with the police, Graham sustained a broken foot, cuts on his wrists, a bruised forehead, and an injured shoulder; he also claims to have developed a loud ringing in his right ear that continues to this day.
***

Do you really wonder why people don't like the cops?

add your comments


bias?
by andy Friday, Jan. 10, 2003 at 9:30 AM

if a person who has been in jail has no right to comment on police because she is biased against them, then it logically follows that someone who is a police officer has no right to comment on police because she is biased in favor of them.

add your comments


Pure ignorance
by teamsterturtle Friday, Jan. 10, 2003 at 9:34 AM

Fellow Cop wrote:

"If you are or were an inmate then your opinion means nothing to me. Why? Because you are a criminal and biased towards the police so you have nothing but your own biased experience to base your comments on."

So people in prison should not be able to bring lawsuits against police brutality?

What about people who were locked-up for doing nothing? Will you admit that this happens?

You are making this argument toward several people who were locked-up for being in a park. I hope you realize this.

And you are not biased? We all have our biases. Some for good reasons.

add your comments


actually sir,
by - Friday, Jan. 10, 2003 at 9:39 AM

Actually Sir I have been arrested many times at protests, but I have zero convictions as a result because frankly I did nothing illegal. In most instances I have been released by the police before I even had a hearing. I am currently involved in 2 suits against the police. If any brutality occurs in January I expect to be involved in a couple more. What is most disturbing to me is the brutality I have witnessed as a result of protests. The fact that the police I witnessed didn't have the will power to keep personal anger in check from people who did essentially nothing is illustrative of why so many shootings and beatings occur. If so many officers don't have the ability to restrain themselves against non-violent protesters it makes sense they use so much violence in a situation with someone who has stole, robbed, or committed what they feel is a more personal crime.

It is the majority of cops that allow abuse to take place because they don't speak up. What have you done to see that rogue officers are brought to justice? That's not really even a fair question because the problem is institutional. There is a climate that makes it virtually impossible for police to "police" themselves. The FOP also acts as a check against any real accountability reforms being ennacted. I do feel each individual officer has a responsibility to do what they can to change things, but it is a complicated situation. Look at Seattle during the WTO. A number of police quit the force after the protests in disgust of the police crackdown. Many join with the best of intentions, but eventially most either conform to the current climate or quit.

Your comment about well I would call the police if blank blank happened is ridiculous. I was born into this system. While I strive towards a system that has no need for the police as they currently exist the current system makes it necessary to utilize them sometimes. That is unfortunate and something that causes a lot of people great soul searching. To use the police does not invalidate critcisms of them. The same goes for the government. Because I don't approve of a particular policy of the government should I not use anything that recieves money from it (well it's actually my money)?

add your comments


The Park
by Fellow Cop Friday, Jan. 10, 2003 at 10:00 AM

I feel quite confident there is more to the story than just being in a park and, out of the blue, 40 cops showed up and arrested you. It probably went something more like: you were demonstrating in a park, the police or somebody with the legal right, asked you to leave and you refused because it is your right to be in a park and demonstrate. And you are correct. Under the constitution, you have the right to free speech and peaceful demonstrations. But, if somebody with the legal right asks you to leave, then by law, you have to leave. If you don't then you are trespassing. And I am sure I am telling you nothing you don't already know. But, there's more to the story. And in response, to the writer who still refuse to give even a fake name, I have done plenty to make sure crooked cops don't wear a badge. Because they are the ones that embarrass me and I don't want to be associated with them. One thing remains constant though, neither one of you has still said what you do as a profession/job or what personal knowledge and /or training you are basing your arguements off of. I can go to the supreme court homepage and cut & paste decisions. I know what Graham v. Connor is that is why I cited it. What is your knowledge base?

add your comments


The Park, Part II
by teamsterturtle Friday, Jan. 10, 2003 at 10:11 AM

OK, we're getting onto a different subject with the park, but here is a quick take on what happened:

1. A large contingent of Pittsburghers decided to do civil disobedience (People's Strike) by blocking a street. Some did not do civil disobedience.

2. The group blocking the streed dispersed upon the demand of the cops. Some were detained after leaving, though all continued to walk on the sidewalk to my knowledge.

3. The group ended up marching into Pershing Park in D.C. with a number of others who had not done any civil disobedience.

4. The police pushed a number of other groups, individuals, etc. into the park.

5. There was no order to disperse. Repeat, there was no order to disperse. All of the folks in the park were there lawfully.

6. To the contrary, I witnessed an officer on a motorcycle go around telling his drones that "nobody gets out of the park."

7. The police proceeded to arrest almost all of the people in the park (a few whiny corporate press folks got out, though not all), charging them with failure to disperse.

add your comments


knowledge base
by - Friday, Jan. 10, 2003 at 10:53 AM

I'm not a fan of giving any personal info to the police but in my case it's not a big deal. If you have privilage use it. I wouldn't advocate anyone else ever giving possibly indentifying info to the police as they can make your life miserable.

Knowledge base besides the usual tv, newspapers, and extensive reading on the general themes we're discussing was gained from: Working at UPS, Grocery store, Antiques Dealer, Uncle is a cop, other relatives work for the State Department and City Government, being a Non-Violent Direct Action Trainer, attending 50+ demonstrations, being arrested 4 times, living in a extreme poverty environment with no house/food to living in a comfortably middle-upper class environment, being the victim of violent crime (from someone not a cop) on 3 occasions, being hospitalized by police at protests (without being arrested or charged) on two occasions, extensive traveling around the country, and the list goes on and on. I think most people including yourself have reason to believe we can comment on the issues being discussed.

add your comments


Comments
by molotov Friday, Jan. 10, 2003 at 3:18 PM

I've been reading these posts, and these people are wiping the floor with you, officer. Sounds like they know what's up.

My name is Ernest Malatesta, and I live in Greensburg. I work at a cafe near the courthouse. Are you happy?

I have a hot scoop for you, too. Why not investigate the criminal activity at several Wall-Marts in the area? I hear they exploit their workers. Oh yea, that's not illegal, is it?

add your comments


let's cut ot the chase..
by pjd Sunday, Jan. 12, 2003 at 11:12 AM

you wrote:

"If you are or were an inmate then your opinion means nothing to me. Why? Because you are a criminal and biased towards the police so you have nothing but your own biased experience to base your comments..."

This is an amazing and disgusting statement! If former inmates have no credibility, solely because are all to be automatically labeled "criminals", then I guess "criminals" like Univ. of Pitt Prof. Dennis Brutis, Pittsburgh grandmother Molly Rush, Pittsburgh resident Vincent Irene, the late Phil Berrigan, Martin Luther King, former South African president Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, Andrei Sakarov, Axexander Solzenitsin, and many, many more (including some of those in this discussion), would also have no credibility in this discussion.

Your criteria for labeling someone a "criminal" because they broke the law is preposterous. Aren't all political prisoners imprisoned for breaking some kind of law? You _do_ acknowege that there have been, and are, numerous political imprisonments and jailings in the United States, don't you? You _do_ acknowege that throughout American history, laws have often been selectively enforced solely for the purpose of keep the powerful in control of dissident views, don't you? If you don't agree, the people who post to this site can give you plenty of examples just over the past couple years.

Keep it up, fellow Cop, my views of policemen as political reactionaries who are prejudiced toward huge chunks of society (be it hair style, skin color, professed politics, economic status) is getting reinforced... and I haven't ever gotten busted for anything worse than some minor traffic violations.

PS - since I named-names, in the interest of full disclosure, here's my name and address -

Paul Donahue
4620 Carroll Street
Pittsburgh, Pa.

add your comments


SO!!
by younggirl Monday, Jan. 27, 2003 at 3:35 AM

u know none of all that really matters. the fact is that the police acted badly when a little boy most likely just out of elementary school did things that he shouldnt have. punishment was in order but not death. this child lost his life because he was a scared stupid kid? how any one can justify that is beyond me. life shouldnt be something that someone in a blue suit with a bage can take away because they dont know what else to do with out being punished siverly just like regular people. if this kid would have gotten caught then he would have gone to a juvinal detention center and then in a fue years let out again and would have gone on with his life most likely learning from his mistakes but people LIKE YOU disided that he wasnt going to be able to do that because he was scared and ran. HE RAN! oh my god what a horrible thing to do! run away when you are in truble because u dont want to face the consiquences. everyone runs from there mistakes but sooner or latter you have to face them (unless ur a cop then its justifyable. fucking pigs) and he would have faced them but he was killed first. if the rest of america thinks like u and dave and the other cop god help everyone in my genoration cuz the real world is fucking scary as hell.

add your comments


hold on
by younggirl Monday, Jan. 27, 2003 at 5:56 AM

my last coment was directed to the people who think that its ok .... sorry if there was any confustion

add your comments


in response to the ''oh really'' by the cop
by crs Monday, Jan. 27, 2003 at 6:43 AM

there are a cupple things that you said that really botherd me but im going to just talk about one little thing u said. '' whatever you disided to bitch about today'' ? incase u havent noticed we are ''bitching'' about how no one cares what the general people think. and oh yeah remember THE MOTHER FUCKING WAR! how can u be ok with someone disideding to bomb an entire fucking nation over the attacts of 9/11. one basterd living there dose not make inosent sivilians bad people. god its odd to me that u can be educated in some ways but so blind and ignorent in others

add your comments


child shot
by donna Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2003 at 6:19 PM

He was just a child & the cop that shot him should have to answer for it. They said he was running with his hands in his pockets,,,cut me a break. Fayette county cops, politicians, judges are just as disgusting as anywhere else & one by one they will get caught. I use to look up to our police, judicial system then watching a friend deal with it & get screwed bad makes me so damn sick. I dont think it was racial, i believe that cop was so pissed cause the kid was getting away which made him faster & probably smarter than he could of ever been and killing him was his only answer. Lets hope the truth comes out with this coroner and i do hope this family follows through with every available charge they can file against this cop plus whoever assisted in trying to cover up. The whole story makes me wanna puke!! Did this cop have kids? Cops are pigs!

add your comments


The Law
by Debbie Thursday, Jan. 30, 2003 at 5:43 PM

I feel bad a 12 year old died, but when you put yourself if a criminal situation you must take responsibility for the circumstances. If he didn't steal the car, he would be alive today

add your comments


ummm
by andy Friday, Jan. 31, 2003 at 4:42 AM

debbie, even in strict "eye for an eye" terms (which themselves are ridiculous) no one deserves to DIE for stealing a car. that's absurd.

add your comments


12 year old shot in the back
by Jeff Friday, Jan. 31, 2003 at 5:53 AM

Hmm so if you speed, you should expect to be shot? If you jaywalk you should expect to be shot? Yes the child was breaking the law. But the whole story seems somewhat fishy to me. Why did the officer who was chasing him and going over the wall have his gun drawn in the first place. Do police often keep thier firearms out when climbing a fence? I don't think this death was the result of racisim, but then this is fayette county so who knows. I do feel that the truth is being covered up. And I believe that it might be more of a case of incompetance. Either way the police that shot this child in the back should lose thier jobs.

add your comments


12 year old shot
by donna Friday, Jan. 31, 2003 at 4:36 PM

Well the coroner says these cops were just doing their job & now the DA just released her findings & says these cops will not have charges filed against them by her office! I live in Fayette county & trust me there is so much corruption by our officials. They say we are a very "poverty stricten county" yet so big on cover-ups. This child didnt deserve to die. The cop said he felt so bad he wanted to find the hole, put his finger over it to stop the bleeding, what a joke, i mean a 40 caliber makes a hole where it goes in but probably blew his little chest away. All of my sympathy is with his family not the killer cop. I didnt think at first it was racial but the child was black, the cop white, white coroner, all white jury & the DA is white also. the more i think it makes me ashame to admit i live in a county like this.

add your comments


PIGS!!!!!!!
by NICOLE Wednesday, Feb. 12, 2003 at 1:34 PM
AOLMEMBER1@AOL.COM 606-7068 395 RIVER RD

U FUCKIN COPS KILL A LITTLE KID WHAT IS UP WITH THAT FUCKIN COPS GO TO HILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

add your comments


Gestapo
by Poppi Friday, Feb. 14, 2003 at 3:28 PM

I'm a white middle class 60 year old grandfather who had a best friend once, he happened to be a Philly cop, "white". We got along very well until one day he confided to me his feelings on police brutality, after that
conversation I only saw him a few times. My feelings
changed toward him, I could no longer call him my
friend. This is a man who named his new born daughter after one of my daughters who had just died of cancer 2 weeks earlier. After all these years I still
ask why! How could such a great guy feel the way he
did about the use of police force. Its really very sad...
note:
I will never return to this URL so no need to write me...
ciao
Gramps

add your comments


NOT ALL ARE PIGGS
by JAKE Sunday, Jun. 08, 2003 at 1:24 AM

Not all cops are BAD. I have been a Deputy Sheriff
for 12 yrs in the same office. The men and women who work here are for the most part good people. I would hate to tag every person who is not a cop as a
criminal just for the few that are. If these officers are in the wrong then they need to be punished. I wasnt there just like you were not there. Do not judge until you know the facts.

add your comments


Jake
by grace Sunday, Jun. 08, 2003 at 8:55 AM

Jake,

While I agree that not all cops are bad, let me tell you something about how things have become...

I No Longer Feel 'Safe' when a Cop is around. I now Feel INTIMIDATED. I do not feel safe expressing my feelings in the street anymore, not because of terrorists, but because of the police. I DO NOT FEEL SAFE - BECAUSE OF THE POLICE.

Why is that?

add your comments


Grace does not feel safe
by George K. Monday, Jun. 09, 2003 at 7:19 AM
dodgerambler@yahoo.com

Well, Grace, you probably do not feel safe around cops, because you are a criminal, or you are associated with criminals. If you and the people that you associate with would not self-perpetuate lawlessness, then you would not be arrested or the target of justifiable deadly force by police officers. It never ceases to amaze me when a criminal, who is inevitably dealing and armed confronts the police in some way, refuses to comply with instructions to disarm, and, when he or she is shot, is surprised! The family cries racism and economic supression, and moans that the police are evil and out to get them.
The fact that the perpetrator of the crime, NO MATTER WHAT AGE, is armed, committing a crime, or is threatening the police. Even if the accused is not committing a crime and does not have a weapon, why resist? Comply and submit so you don't get shot instead of running away. Don't try to ram a cop with a car, or shake a gun in the policemans' direction. If a person puts him or herself in a situation that could lead to a confrontation with a police officer where deadly force is a possibility, then that person is at fault for starting that chain of events, NOT the police officer.
So you can take your other arguments about fault and shove them up your whiny ass.

add your comments


George K - your assumption could not be more incorrect.
by grace Monday, Jun. 09, 2003 at 6:21 PM

George K.

I am not a criminal.
I have not ever commited a crime.
I do not mix with criminals.
I have not perpetuated lawlesness.
I have not been arrested.
I am not armed.
I don't Deal drugs.
I don't do drugs.
I have not threatened the police.
I have not 'rammed' a Cops car.
I have not 'shaken a gun in the cop's direction' (????!!!)

I do find the implication that Not Complying with an order can get you shot quite an interesting assertion of yours... smacks of fascism. You obviously seem to welcome it.

Quite frankly, George K, why would I want to take those arguments and shove them up MY arse, when the arguments never came from me, but from the arse belonging to yourself?

I hope you're enjoying your idea of freedom, because if you took your head out of your own arse for one second, you might see what lies outside of your reality.

add your comments


Cops
by Me Monday, Jun. 09, 2003 at 9:07 PM

I hate most cops. Whenever they come around, trouble starts. I hate cops because they think they can bully innocent people around and get away with it. I hate cops because they treat EVERYONE as a criminal. I hate cops because I have seen them beat the hell out of a 16 year old kid who was not resisting a false arrest. I hate cops because they are not held responsible for the many injustices they do. Do you get the picture? I hate 99% of cops.
When you have a society where the police, who are supposed to be our protectors, think they have the authority to do anything they please and get away with it, then the society falls apart.

add your comments


society is already apart
by George K. Saturday, Jun. 14, 2003 at 6:51 AM
dodgerambler@yahoo.com

"Me" and "gracie"...society has already fallen apart. Essentially, "lawlessness" (white collar, blue collar, whatever...) is fairly common. When law-breakers regularly are allowed to be released from responsibility due to all-to-liberal laws, then people get frustrated. When people get frustrated, violence is met with with violence. When a sector of society is statistically violent and criminal, the police will respond with their own rigid set of rules, violence, and intimidation. While an individual may not commit any particular crime, they could possess characteristics of that societal group that is known for committing those crimes. Thus, "profiling" is a known tool for targeting individuals that are more likely to commit a crime than other individuals.
I am sorry if profiling offends your sense of individuality, but the facts are irrefutable. Groups of humans act in similar ways (statistaically) bases on sets of various conditions decided on by the observer. Common conditions are economic, geographic, biological, and educational. These conditions ALSO tend to be related, so there are confounding factors which must be taken into account.
Anyway, this issue boil down to the fact that if some police had trouble with a group of people in the past and you, as an individual exhibit characteristics of those individuals, then you are a target, right or wrong.
If a person is committing a crime, and shows any aggressive action, he/she is more likely be met with deadly force, since criminals nowdays possess more powerful weapons.
Poor people may not commit multi-billion dollar crimes, but millions of poor committ petty crimes. And, on the socio-economic ladder, minorities tend to be a larger portion of the "poor" population, so more crimes are committed by minorities. Its not racist, its an economic fact.

add your comments


George K.
by Grace Monday, Jun. 16, 2003 at 8:21 PM

That doesn't explain getting shot in the back.

add your comments


george
by Me Monday, Jun. 16, 2003 at 10:01 PM

Yes, and its the same society that encourages poor (and rich) people to go out and obtain a certain status quo, whether they do it illegally or not. Poor people have less opportunities open to obtain the status quo so they commit crimes. I am sorry if this sounds "liberal" to you, but its the truth. I don't think anyone should be given any special treatment because they are minority. The problems need to be treated at the root, and uncovering those roots are the first step.
It is the media and the big corporations (same thing, really) that introduce what will make (or make people THINK) them happy. And they play with you. Ever really watch or analyze MTV? It's full of shallow messages and product endorsements targeted at certain people. Rap starts drive cadillacs and benz, wear really expensive clothing and gold, and throw money around with women shaking their asses around in their face. Women are painted, lipoed, waxed, given bigger boobs and get everything they want through their body. And lots ofpeople buy into that (and even if you don't it still affects you). Personal value seems to be related to how much stuff you can buy and/or how good you look. It's a shallow world. And a hard world for people living in certain conditions. So they do whatever it takes...sell drugs, steal, etc to get some "personal value." I'm not saying that we should throw out personal responsibility either. I am saying we need to look at how the society gives mixed messages and works in shallow and greedy ways. You never solve a problem by dealing with the surface. You have to look down deep to what causes certain people to act certain ways. And it turns out that all the underlying causes seem to be related to the same people who create the laws in the first place.
BUT then you have lots of white collar crime going on behind the scenes that never gets reported! You think they don't write "company" cars, vacations, and golf outings off on their tax forms?? Don't you think that is stealing too? What about the person who works way way under them? The little guy who works at wal-mart for 6.50 an hour who can't afford to go on vacation that year or even health insurance? Do you think the CEO cares about his workers? No, he has no idea who they are. You don't think its stealing to do such things? Using compnay or government money on his/her European vacation- That IS stealing and it happens everyday.
You have cops who break the law daily. Look, I have been around the block a few times with cops, and lots of them break the law and unjustly accuse people. They are like big bullies who have no one to answer to.
My friend (who wouldn't hurt a fly and is very nice) was pulled over by a cop who punched the car and said he did it because she was trying to flee the scene and almost ran him over. He was lying because she was on the sidewalk and parked and he punched it for no reason that she could rationally see. He pulled her over for speeding.
PEOPLE GET FRUSTRATED AT THIS! People feel powerless and angry. How can someone not be upset for a 12 year old boy to get shot in the back??!!
A 12 year old running away with nothing in his hand is NOT a threat to a cop's life and should not be shot like a wild bear.

add your comments


Cops rights??
by Matt Outinen Thursday, Sep. 18, 2003 at 10:09 AM

Cops go out and risk their life every day; so who are you to say that he turned the streets into a "war zone". But if you expect to go out and stop a "war zone" just by asking them to stop shooting and violating the law that cops uphold; you are going to change your mind very fast after that first bullet wizzes past your head; if your lucky and it doesn't kill you. Personaly I think that what SAmuel Nassan did was the right thing to do, because it is a split second reaction and in the end he came out alive. That is the important thing.

add your comments


The fuck do you know?
by Matt Outinen Thursday, Sep. 18, 2003 at 10:16 AM

You probably don't like cops because they pull you over and give you tickets! Well stop breaking the fucking law asshole. Cops are trained to know what actions are to be taken and when to use the necessary force. The cops are supposed to do whatever is necessary to stop the threat; and if that includes shooting someone where ever then I support that decission 100%.

add your comments


Armed collections agents-period.
by Knowbetter Thursday, Sep. 18, 2003 at 10:29 AM

You just exist to protect the interests of the capitalists. Safety is just a sad excuse, revenue generation is job one.

add your comments


Covering up
by ZandraEssex Friday, Nov. 14, 2003 at 4:32 PM
cutiez@bellsouth.net

If he was shot in the back he couldn't have hadf a gun because if he did he would have been shot in the chest area. Similar situation happened in my State and it was covered very well.

add your comments


Laws
by survivor of murdered husband Friday, Nov. 14, 2003 at 5:19 PM

to you MatOut I disagree with you because if I break the law its a problem , but when the Cops break the law they get away with it who gives them tickets / Situation occured: Police Officier in marked unit speeding in the school zone when I passed the School Zone I caught up with him and I did his job I asked him was he aware he was speeding in the School Zone he was silent I told him I'll let him go this time but next time I will issue you a citizen's ticket. Who should be the best and set positive examples in abiding by the laws they are the example but know one pays attention to the Police because they can commit any and every crime and get away with it. They are number 1 in breaking the Laws pay attention to the Police

add your comments


99%are bad 1%?
by Ronnie Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2003 at 1:19 PM

They all look down their holier than thou noses at everyone who is not a cop. They have so called laws to go by ,that are written so they can do any damn thing they want to, to any damn body they want to,innocent or guilty.They are dishonest, and our court system,(what a line my pockets F###### joke), make sure that they continue to do so.And I saw where some one was trying to explain through some legal BULLSHIT, that shooting a 12yr old BOY in the back while running awayis alright !! An to associate that with an armed felon, with a gun or not. I think they need to find a different kind of employment. An about the education, I dont know one cop that has more than a highschool education. An as far as a gun, you can hide behind a tree, just as easy as a gun.

add your comments


99%are bad 1%?
by Ronnie Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2003 at 1:34 PM

They all look down their holier than thou noses at everyone who is not a cop. They have so called laws to go by ,that are written so they can do any damn thing they want to, to any damn body they want to,innocent or guilty.They are dishonest, and our court system,(what a line my pockets F###### joke), make sure that they continue to do so.And I saw where some one was trying to explain through some legal BULLSHIT, that shooting a 12yr old BOY in the back while running awayis alright !! An to associate that with an armed felon, with a gun or not. I think they need to find a different kind of employment. An about the education, I dont know one cop that has more than a highschool education. An as far as a gun, you can hide behind a tree, just as easy as a gun.

add your comments


shitheads
by cooldude Thursday, Nov. 20, 2003 at 1:27 AM

all the cops are stupid- assed shitheads. they are worthless pieces of trash. the police contribute nothing to society, they are scumbags. they are all dumb. no more cops! everyone hates the pigs; they know they have no reason to do what they do. everyone knows it.

add your comments


Wow Cooldude
by George K. Thursday, Nov. 20, 2003 at 9:59 AM
dodgerambler@yahoo.com

Cooldude, you give such an eloquent discourse on the situation at hand. I am sure you feel this way, because you feel your right to be disruptive and destructive has been, at some point in time, restricted by a police officer. I am sure you were about to contribute some service or communicate some ideal worthy of improving the general state of things, and those damn pigs held you back. Those bastards! They are always stopping people from hurting other individuals, arresting child-molesting pop singers, and helping prevent mass protests by the peace loving but confused anti-war protestors. To hell with the keeping general order in the streets and enforcing local laws, the organization of police officers should be abolished! I am sure you will never need a police officer to help you out, since you must be a fine, upstanding citizen of your locality. You embody so much of your philosophy in your two-line meditation on the police, that I am still analyzing your childishness! Are you this socially maladjusted due to a pathetic upbringing and education? Oh, and don't try to say you are educated; your command of the language and comprehension of what role the police and government take in creating society are shockingly poor! I am surprised that you can log on and use a keyboard! Is that kind of instruction included with your Playstation2?
Will you leftist trolls wake up and realize that the root cause of this incident is the parents not controlling the whereabouts of their son? He was running wild, stealing cars, and evading the police. It is simply unfortunate that he chose to ignore the commands from police officers, as he ran away from the scene of an accident, participated in a felony theft, and put others in serious danger as the car he helped steal and was possibly driving careened throughout the streets. If he would have stopped, turned around, and submitted to arrest, he would be alive, but in Juvenile hall, where all of these "rebels" end up.
But he chose to run, and, in these extenuating circumstances, he was shot and killed for being a cowardly criminal that turned tail and ran after endangeing people, stealing, and destroying private property. The world needs less people who act like he does. All of these issues come back to his parents. They are utter failures.

add your comments


...
by ... Friday, Nov. 21, 2003 at 8:37 AM

......
georgek.jpg6e69zb.jpg, image/jpeg, 480x364

Here's a shot of George K to peruse.

Parents: Be wary of George K, he advocates shooting 12yo boys in the back if not properly tended to. Yeah, the boy in question wasn't doing any community service immediately before his murder, but he was nonetheless an unarmed child who was shot in the back.

add your comments


HA ...come on down
by George K. Friday, Nov. 21, 2003 at 9:04 AM
dodgerambler@yahoo.com

Ha. Thanks for the promotion. I hope the criminal 12 year olds know who to stay away from now. I also advocate the extermination of Feral cats, since they are such a pestulence.
Did you also see my other picture? The one that states the futility of arguing on the internet? HA.
Is that the best you can come up with? Your best refutation of an arguement? Your response to my points?
Pretty weak.

add your comments


george k is not cool
by cooldude Monday, Nov. 24, 2003 at 2:47 AM

george is not cool like me, so i understand he is very disappointed. i imagine he has a small penis, but oh well.

add your comments


Cooldude the cross dresser
by George K. Monday, Nov. 24, 2003 at 5:05 AM
dodgerambler@yahoo.com

Cool-dud,
Another stellar example of your argumentative style. This criminal, since he did not stop after a felony and was fleeing police, got shot. It was justifiable. End of story.

add your comments


there was no need for the boy to die......................police should be held accountabl
by joe Monday, Nov. 24, 2003 at 5:36 PM

police have powers not a legal right to use absolute force. In my opinion they acted beyond their authority.

I must remmber to tell my son to stop if police ever askhim to or he will be shot ...........but then again I dont live in America .........I live in Australia were police are well trained...

add your comments


In Oz
by George K. Tuesday, Nov. 25, 2003 at 10:47 AM
dodgerambler@yahoo.com

The police in Oz are well trained? Well that is commendable for a former colony of criminals, to have come so far. I am glad that in Oz that the well trained police are not roughing up the aborigines and were very humane when isolating the boatloads of refugees last summer as well. It is somewhat difficult for you to level criticism when the country of Australia practices similar ways of isolating and eliminating active and potential criminal elements.
If the boy had proper parents, he would not have been in the situation in the first place. Just like the white kids in Columbine, Colorado. Just like Tim McVeigh, who was executed for the terrorist bombing in Oaklahoma. Just like the Cultists in Waco, Tx. None of these people would be dead, if they had respected other peoples property and did not try to escape the consequences of their actions.
Sure there are police that overstep their boundaries of authority. But weigh those incidents against those of the thousands of criminals who regularly murder and destroy. OJ was aquitted by a sympathetic jury. P. Diddy was aquitted of aggrivated assault by a sympathetic jury.
The point of these examples is that, white people are executed for crimes too. Black people are set free when plainly guilty. And the death of a petty thief who ignores police orders to cease and desist doesnt matter one bit in the course of a police officers job. Black or white, young or old, the criminal should have stopped when he was ordered too, after crashing the vehicle he had stolen, and he did not. The police had their guns drawn because this criminal COULD have been dangerous. Police deal with probabilities that require instantaneous decisions. The root cause of this death is squarely on the shoulders of this criminal and his parents.

add your comments


why is george k so stupid?
by cooldude Tuesday, Dec. 02, 2003 at 10:53 PM

Why is george k so stupid? What does what i wear have to do with this conversation? Why do you act like such a know it all, when you are obviously pretty ignorant of anything except your own arrogant redneck opinions? You suck, george k.Please don't post anything else ever again on any website whatsoever, george k. george k, you are disgusting. If a 12 year old gets killed, why would this guy get off so much on saying the kid deserved what happened? No kids deserve to get shot. george k, you are disgusting. It obviously pleases you very much to know that a child was murdered. You suck- don't ever show your face in public again, you demented fucker. Eat shit, bastard.

add your comments


stupid kid
by r.wertman Wednesday, Aug. 18, 2004 at 9:58 AM
wertmanrobert@yahoo.com 724-652-3387

If people learn to stop when the police are after them and do as you are told things like this wouldn't happen. This boy was just plain stupid or he would be alive today.When your a cop your life is at danger all the time.

add your comments


Voice from beyond
by Brendan Behan Wednesday, Aug. 18, 2004 at 10:09 AM

"There is no situation in human experience so dismal that a policeman can't make it worse."

add your comments


Free Choice
by iiliad spoon Saturday, Jan. 08, 2005 at 6:22 AM

Police officer CHOOSE their profession. They have the
FREE WILL of their actions and must be held accountable.
If they can't do their job without killing children who
pose no threat then they should work at some other type
of job.

add your comments


Just a kid
by another kid Tuesday, Feb. 01, 2005 at 6:53 PM

Look he was a 12 year old child I dont care if he stole a fuckin car or not he didnt deserve to get shot in the back by a pig. Did you know if someone breaks into your house kills one of your family memebers and is on your property with a weapon but is running and you shoot them in the back you will be charged with murder. But pigs can shoot 12 year old kids in the back because they cant catch up with the kid obviously if they knew the kids name couldnt they let him get away and go to his house later why do you have to shoot at someone who is running from you ecspecially a twelve yera old child. Hide behind your badges bitches.

Fuck Police!

add your comments


responce
by janele kanvick Tuesday, Mar. 08, 2005 at 6:26 AM
jewel_fun_013@hotmail.com

i agree with the person who talked about the killing spree the cops have been on. what we need to do is find a way to stop it. i hope that in the next few months we can find a way to stop them.

add your comments


cops are stupid
by bre Tuesday, Mar. 08, 2005 at 6:59 AM
daddsygurl420692006@yahoo.com 406-325-1868

i think cops ares tupid pigs and they need to start focusing on rapper and killers and back off the drug users cuz they arent killing (well sometimes) cops just need to learn whats more important get a drug dealer off the streets or someone who will rap and kill you

add your comments


.
by . Tuesday, Mar. 08, 2005 at 7:25 AM

I know how to stop the police.

Simple really.

Arm yourselves, shoot back.

add your comments


re: the law
by janele Tuesday, Mar. 08, 2005 at 7:30 AM
jewel_fun_013@hotmail.com

Hello, i have walked for at least 8 hours in a cops shoes and i still say that all you people do is what you want to do and not what needs to be done, because if you did, then you would not be so willing to stand up for stupid people. i still think that you cops have it wrong in how you handle situations. i myself have had a few-more than 15- problems with the police. if you feel that you are indeed correct than please give me a true case where the police have acualy done the correct thing for all invalved.

add your comments


stop the cops
by janele Tuesday, Mar. 08, 2005 at 9:43 AM
jewel_fun_013@hotmail.com

thank you for the way to take care of cops. so insightful. the only problem with that is the fact that if you do do something then you get into deep shit. fun but still very deep...into shit. well all we can do is take care of things at where ever we happen to be. take care and have fun. ill be back...eventually.

add your comments


.
by . Wednesday, Mar. 09, 2005 at 7:16 AM

If enough shoot back the only people in deep shit are the cops.

add your comments


Shoot Back???????
by Bri Tuesday, Jun. 21, 2005 at 9:28 PM

Shoot back????????? Really insightful stuff! That's a sure fire way to be target practice for some brave guy or girl wearing a badge. Bet your parents would be real proud of the gem that they raised. I have an good idea. How bout all you anti-police anarchist, conspiracy theorists, hippies do the following.... 1)Take a shower (deoderant works nice too) 2) Get a real job (and/or life) 3) Stop with the police bashing. This will free more flag burning time for all you Communists. After all, it's not the police you truly hate, is it? It's this whole country. I, as the voice for many decent people, say (please) "get the fuck out of our country"! Cops make mistakes, doctors make mistakes (where people also die), we all make mistakes. I will not condone any shooting simply because it is by a cop. But, just as importantly, I will also not make inflammatory, uninformed statements regarding a shooting because it is by a cop. Every case has different circumstances and should be judged individually. In closing, I have some bad news for you anti police (aka anti-establishment, aka anti-American) folks out there. All things happen for a reason and I guarentee you this..... Most on this here site who are bashing the cops will need them for something (whether you like it or not). Cops dont just shoot people for a living.... They put people in jail who molest your kids, they hook up your grandmother to an Automatic Defribrillator and get her heart started again when the medics are fifteen minutes away, and (most importantly) they merely exist so that idiots dont run rampant. Do you think, for an f'ing moment, that the mere existance of police has no effect on the amount of crime. Put simply, most people dont commit crime because there are consequences brought forth by the police. That mother of four raising a kid on welfare would be in your house everyday stealing your TV when you left for work to put food on her kid's tables. The tough guy looking for a thrill wouldnt hesitate to knock you the hell out as you leave Starbucks with your mocha. The examples go on and on.

add your comments


Bad cop
by me Sunday, Oct. 23, 2005 at 9:19 AM

So many bad cops out there, wish they were DEAD!
http://www.policecrimes.com

add your comments


"a known cop hater"
by huh? Sunday, Oct. 23, 2005 at 2:15 PM

You say that like it's a bad thing.

add your comments


the hypocrisy test
by thank you Sunday, Oct. 23, 2005 at 8:33 PM

I hate queers.

"You say that like it's a bad thing."

I hate blacks.

"You say that like it's a bad thing."

I hate hippies.

"You say that like it's a bad thing."

I hate feminist wackos.

"You say that like it's a bad thing."

I hate Muslims.

"You say that like it's a bad thing."

I hate Appeasers.

"You say that like it's a bad thing."

I hate the United Nations.

"You say that like it's a bad thing."

I hate wetbacks.

"You say that like it's a bad thing."

I hate America hating sacks of shit.

"You say that like it's a bad thing."

add your comments


that's not what I said
by idiot bastard detector Monday, Oct. 24, 2005 at 11:50 AM

I said to post what you claim to be the original with bold italics to denote what you're claiming has been "subtly altered". And you will post it here, where you have no control over editing, and can't afterwards in order to use Google cache's as a defense.

If you can't or won't do it, then the logical and rational conclusion is that you have lied all along, or a spineless worm who hasn't the ability to truly defend himself.

add your comments


The logical and rational conclusion is that
by since you asked . . . Monday, Oct. 24, 2005 at 9:53 PM

the original can be seen at its link.

(2.) Only a completely obsessed, utter mad man would go to such extremes to smear an individual by attempting to convince people he had once made a typo and then (oh, the horror) actually *fixed* it. How many thousands and thousands of keystrokes have been devoted to this madness? And why? Inquiring minds *demand* an answer. Answer the question, Smashy, or we'll all be forced to conclude that you're out of your mind.

Of course, anybody who's paying attention can already tell that. Who else would write something like this:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/01/1562636.php

(snip)

The "peace movement" is a fraud. The Grateful Dead, the Merry Pranksters, and many (most) others in the entertainment industry are freemason satanists. The "peace movement" of the 60s was a totally orchestrated mind control operation of freemason change agents. There is very little doubt in my mind that indymedia is also a product of spoiled brats of very wealthy freemason families. SMASH THE LEFT. SMASH FREEMASONRY. THE GRATEFUL DEAD ARE FREEMASON SATANISTS, JUST LIKE STEWART BRAND AND THE MERRY PRANKSTERS KEN KESEY AND KEN BABBS.

(snip)

add your comments


that's not what I said, idiot bastard
by idiot bastard detector Monday, Oct. 24, 2005 at 10:08 PM

I said to post it here, where you can't edit it in any fashion. How many times are you going to ignore that?

(2.) Only a completely obsessed, utter mad man would go to such extremes to smear an individual by attempting to convince people he had once made a typo and then (oh, the horror) actually *fixed* it.

But you said it had been subtly altered, you idiot bastard. Isn't that correct, idiot bastard? By the way, idiot bastard, how many thousands of keystrokes have you wasted over the years chasing one troll around like a love starved puppy, you fucking idiot bastard?

Are you that fucking stupid?

At least everyone understands that I'm a troll!

add your comments


"I'm beginning to think you're . . . in love with me."
by Freud Tuesday, Oct. 25, 2005 at 12:21 PM

There's a name for this. It's called "projection":

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=projection

(snip)

# Psychology.

1. The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or suppositions to others: “Even trained anthropologists have been guilty of unconscious projectionof clothing the subjects of their research in theories brought with them into the field” (Alex Shoumatoff).
2. The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety or guilt.

(snip)

add your comments


PAY BACK IS A BITCH
by 2FKNBAD Thursday, Dec. 15, 2005 at 6:15 AM
fucku@police.creamed

Samuel Nassan is a nothing less then a cunt with a gun.
he is now on the pittsburgh troop, he gets his rocks off, getting dui's and patting himself on the back. while he ruins other peoples lives.

do unto others...... dont worry we are in the process of finding his residence, other family members and friends to give them a nice little present from all the victums he has caused problems too.

i'll update you on this in a few... for now any one with any information about him or any of his family please post here or i'll be uploading a email address to send it too shortly.

thanks for all your help and dont worry Samuel along with a few other of his co-workers will get it... if its the last thing i do on this earth it will be to destroy him one way or another. if i cant get to him, i'll get his kids, mother or closest reletive.

thanks,
2fknbad from pgh pa he he he

add your comments


Shoot first, live free
by Kramer's Neighbor Wednesday, Dec. 21, 2005 at 7:40 AM

George Kramer, shouldn't you be busy defending christmas?

add your comments


Don't Have to....
by George K. Friday, Dec. 23, 2005 at 4:20 AM
dodgerambler@comcast.net

...I can sit back and listen to Fred Honsburger defend Christmas.

The backlash against the socialist, politically-correct nerds is in full-swing. Merry Christmas! Can't wait to see you at Easter!

I am sure you guys held a party when Pokorny was shot. From your twisted viewpoint, I imagine that the incidents of the above-discussed shooting and state policeman shooting are equal.

add your comments


Happy Birthday, Easter Zombie
by Officer Down Saturday, Dec. 24, 2005 at 5:58 PM

No, this was murder, wheras Pokorny was self defense.

add your comments


Happy Birthday, Easter Zombie
by Officer Down Saturday, Dec. 24, 2005 at 6:01 PM

No, Mollet apparently took the 'hero' Pokorny's sidearm, looked him and the eye and got lucky, since the legally sanctioned drug gang called "the police" carry the dainty, no-stopping power 9mm.
The child was shot in the back from a distance. Heroes indeed.

add your comments


© 2001-2009 Pittsburgh Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not endorsed by the Pittsburgh Independent Media Center.
Disclaimer | Privacy