June 3rd, 2013

Cop Fired After Dash Cam Video Shows him Running Over Man for Not Wearing Seat Belt 402

By Carlos Miller

 

Knowing his dash cam was recording everything, a Florida cop did not hesitate to use his patrol car to follow a man 100 feet into an open field, plowing down a fence at 60 mph, before mowing down the fleeing man, killing him instantly.

The man’s crime: he was not wearing a seatbelt.

The dash cam video, which still has not been released, was apparently so graphic that Deland Police Chief Bill Ridgway had no choice but to fire the officer.

But only time will tell whether James (J.P.) Harris will face murder charges.

According to News4Jax:

Marlon Brown was killed in the incident, which occurred on May 8 after law enforcement officers tried to pull him over for not wearing a seat belt. Investigators say Brown wouldn’t stop and a chase ensued with DeLand police joining. Brown jumped out of his car and ran away, troopers said.

As Harris arrived on scene, he drove more than 100 feet off the road through a backyard fence and  ran over and killed Brown, troopers said.  Four other passengers in Brown’s vehicle were not injured.

“Although the investigation into the death of Marlon Brown hasn’t been concluded, I am aware of certain facts surrounding the case,” Ridgeway said in a prepared statement. “Based on the totality of the circumstances and facts that I continually learned through the process of the investigation, I have now reached a threshold of knowledge where I feel compelled to take immediate action.”

The reason Brown was fleeing, it was later revealed, was because he was driving with a suspended license and did not want to go to jail. There was no contraband in the car.

The 38-year-old man was also the son of an Atlanta police officer.

While it’s never smart to flee from a cop, we can’t ignore the fact the cop drove 100 feet off the road through a backyard fence at 60 mph to mow down a man who was only suspected of not wearing a seatbelt.

One is a traffic violation. The other is outright murder.

Deland Police

J.P. Harris’ patrol car after he had driven off road into a field to mow down a man who was not wearing a seatbelt.


Send stories, tips and videos to Carlos Miller.
  • FUCKUPIG

    Another piece of shit cop kills a man in cold blood because he feels he’s going to TEACH US A LESSON !

    I can’t wait to see this video !

    • Rufus McGufus

      I wonder if it has caused to father to ponder just for even a second how the police keep getting away with this shit.

      • Proud GrandPa

        Nobody got away with it. This is the system working correctly. The cop did wrong and the system responded correctly. Next will come the arrest and trial.
        .
        I am sure the father grieves for his dear son as I would for one of my own children or grandchildren. I am also sure he is proud to be a LEO, as would I.
        .

        • Uncle Arty

          like how the system worked for Oscar Grant, cop convicted of involuntary manslaughter did 6months got out had his record esponged and is back to being a cop, that’s how the system nearly always plays out.

          • Difdi

            Exactly. The average sentence a cop typically gets when convicted of a crime is almost always less than the minimum a non-cop gets for the same act. Somehow, many prosecutors only exercise discretion when it’s a cop being accused.

            I was reading recently about a judge who got caught with heroin, cocaine, firearms, etc. A friend of his died of an overdose from drugs the judge provided to him. The prosecutor asked that bail be denied, but the judge was released on his own recognizance and the condition he attend drug addiction counseling. Why? Because he told the court all about what a bad person he was. Anyone else, it would be called a confession, but apparently not for important people.

            Bets on whether he ends up with probation instead of prison?

          • Dan Matthews

            The judges, DA and PD need eachother to survive. If any of the three makes a ruling that is detrimental to one of the other two, it is treason in the family. Unless absolutely necessary, a DA or judge will not put a LEO in any kind of jeopardy, it would be like cutting their own throats at election time. Throw in the influence of other elected “officials” and it gets worse.
            It won’t change until the fraternity is disbanded.
            In this case, they may all be willing to throw the 25 year old LEO under the bus in order to prevent unrest.

          • Rob

            Please link your source that Johannes Mehserle had his record expunged and is working as a police officer again. I’ve only seen articles stating that his appeals were rejected, and that he won’t be getting his badge back. http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Johannes-Mehserle-s-appeal-rejected-3861383.php

            BTW, he did 11 months of his 2 year sentence, not 6 months.

          • BillyBudd7

            wwo 11 months for a cold blooded pre-meditated murder…they are getting tough

          • Rob

            I agree with you, the sentence was bullshit, though calling it pre-meditated is quite a stretch. He should have been serving 25 to life in my opinion. I was just pointing out that what Uncle Arty stated wasn’t factual, and I was wondering where he got his information from.

        • Nemo

          After the arrest, if any, and the pro forma trial (assuming the media heat stays high), will come either the acquittal or the token sentence – with the POLICE UNION, full of “proud LEOs”, fighting tooth and nail to defend this murderer, and return him to uniform. Probably with a raise in pay.

          The ability to commit murder while the police rush to defend you from the consequences of your crime is something to be proud of, I guess. Cops who were really “good” wouldn’t be proud, they would be ASHAMED of their profession, after criminal acts like this. They would be ashamed of having served with criminals like this, and they would be ashamed of their unions. But they aren’t, they are PROUD.

          Speaks volumes.

          • steveo

            He probably won’t be prosecuted because this is a vehicular homicide case. The state has to prove that the leo caused the death. The suspect was running from them, so he is partially culpable, unless the audio in the dashcam has something like, “Ok, guys, I’ll get him, there he is, I’ll just run him over.” The State would have a really difficult time proving that he was totally at fault. Plus they also have to prove intent. Maybe, but he’d probably be aquitted at trial.

          • Nemo

            Correct me if I’m wrong, but what you just wrote boils down to “If you run from the police, they can slaughter you with impunity”.

            No wonder they are PROUD.

          • steveo

            well, if I was a leo I wouldn’t shoot anyone in the back, but they get away with that (even with submachine guns),http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G68UmLMO7CY I wouldn’t taser someone running away, but they get away with that too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2L85M287gk, even trying to get away, the leos can beat you until whatever. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2mwiwPb42k

            Don’t run from cops. It fing dangerous. You’re dead, they’re not.

          • Proud GrandPa

            Please do not take that impression from what I wrote. Or were you responding to the others here?
            .
            I cannot believe anyone would believe that LEOs are free to murder in the USA. This is not a Muslim or communist nation. We respect human rights and the rule of law. Glad to set the record straight.

          • Dan Matthews

            Thumbs up from the peanut gallery!
            Great job Proud GrandPa!

          • Nemo

            Read the headers, Doug. The post of mine that you’re replying to was a reply to Steveo.

            As far as “we respect human rights” goes, how much respect for the victim’s right to due process did the cop in question here demonstrate? Or is this an “Oops, I did it again” kind of “accident”?

        • BillyBudd7

          when the cop goes to Raiford prison in Starke then the system is working correctly. The cop is a criminal violent thug end of the story….

          • Dan Matthews

            Billybudd, please tell me where you obtained your facts to back up your statement.

        • Dan Matthews

          Proud GrandPa – I hope to GOD that your children carry on your trait of common sense.
          If so, there is hope for America!

          • Proud GrandPa

            They do. And they’re raising the grandkids right as well. Thank you.

        • librtee_dot_com

          In most avenues of work, if you intentionally kill somebody, you will go to prison for 40 years.

          In police work, if you intentionally kill somebody the worst case scenario is you get fired.

    • Dan Matthews

      It’s time for your Thorazine, and we have some new coloring books that just arrived.
      I’ll blunt some crayons for you.

      • FUCKUPIG

        Thorazine, LOL I’d say it’s time for your huge dose as I’m not the one responding 87 times to a thread of another cop destroying a family because he thought he could teach someone a lesson. Let it go Dan, this thread is hindering your thought process !

        • Dan Matthews

          Let it go, No Way.
          It’s obvious how little respect you have for yourself bu the name you chose.
          As a result, no one should be surprised that you have even less respect for others.
          Here comes Nurse Ratchet with your meds.
          Sweet dreams.

  • Morgan Sheridan

    The cops are becoming more brutal year after year.

    • Nemo

      I kinda disagree that they are “becoming more brutal”. Rather, they are more and more often getting caught doing what has always been “acceptable” within cop culture.

      Mark that last, since “good” cops have always looked the other way at abuses like this. Such behavior makes the label “good” to be rather questionable in that application, IMO. Odds on, the homicidal cop was NOT arrested on the spot, despite having killed a man.

      • Difdi

        If a non-cop looks the other way on a crime but does not actually commit any direct criminal acts, conspiracy and accomplice charges follow. The person who looked the other way is considered just as much a criminal as the one they protect. And this is despite the fact that such an individual has not sworn to obey, uphold or enforce the law.

        But if a cop looks the other way, but does not actually commit any crimes directly, he is considered a good cop, a fine citizen, and the fact he has broken his sworn oath along with the law is just part of doing the job.

        The concept that the King’s Men could even commit a murder when they killed someone is a fairly recent legal development. But it’s a cornerstone of the rule of law, and it’s things like this that weaken faith in that foundation and all it supports.

        Every time a cop commits a crime and gets fired for it (and rehired the next town over) with no criminal charges, the rule of law and the people’s faith in it falters.

        When the worst sentence that most cops can get is less than the minimum a non-oathbreaker gets for the same act, the rule of law and the basis of our society quakes and trembles.

        It’s not so bad yet that we can truthfully say the rule of law is dead. But the patient is failing fast, and the end is in sight.

        • mavp

          “conspiracy and accomplice charges follow” What fantasy land do you live in? This cop will get away with a slap on the wrist, and, I predict that he’ll get his job back later.

          • Uncle Arty

            Difdi was saying if a civilian looked the other way, we get charged and we get punished, if a cop looks the other way he gets rewarded. I don’t think anyone here believes they promote whistle blowers

          • Difdi

            I don’t know about fantasy worlds, but I do know that you utterly failed your Reading Comprehension skill check.

          • The DM

            Yes, definitely a nat 1 on his reading comprehension roll. He may have fumbled, actually.

          • Dan Matthews

            LMAO!

          • mavp

            Apologies – I read it as “if a cop,” rather than “if a non-cop.”

  • Ron Grounds

    Thank God for the video camera.

    • Dan Matthews

      Agreed! The video in this case, if it is seen, will certainly provide facts.

  • Jon Quimbly

    Yeah, that’s murder. It was an intentional killing.

    • Dan Matthews

      Mr. Quimbly, please offer your services to law enforcement. Can you imagine the Millions of Dollars that can be saved by eliminating Due Process and just relying on your unfounded statement of guilt or innocence?
      It staggers the mind.

      • courtofpublicopinion

        well that is what the cop did to the guy he chased down and killed

        • Dan Matthews

          If the cop were your son and he told you “Dad, the radio call said the cops were chasing him for failure to stop and evading. Yes, I was going too fast. He fell and I ran over him, but I never meant to harm him” would you believe your son, or call him a murderer?
          He may be found guilty of numerous crimes after the facts are released, but he deserves due process.
          I’m not looking for laughs with rediculous one liners, I’m just stating fact in that all the details are not yet known, many of which might prove him guilty of crimes.
          “Just the facts Mam” – Joe Friday

          • duh

            Then I would ask my dumb ass son why he was going 60 mph to chase a man on foot.

          • Dan Matthews

            And you would be totally justified in doing so. Maybe he is just a “Chip off the old block” eh DAD!
            But you still didn’t answer the question.
            Oh wait, I just noticed your nickname.

          • Dan Matthews

            And I believe the rate of speed was from a bystander, most likely uninformed on how to judge speed.
            So the window for speed might be 40-80 mph.
            Lets see if the actual speed comes from the video in the car.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            You’re not going to convince most of these guys. A good number belong to the “he’s a cop, he’s not entitled to due process” crowd.

            Of course, they are the same ones screaming if their due process rights are infringed.

          • Dan Matthews

            EcCop, thanks so much for chiming in. I enjoy your level headed comments and though I do not always agree with you, facts seem to be behind your statements. I agree, there are few open minds commenting here.
            I hope few, if any, have been issued CCW permits.
            Catch you around the zoo!

          • Bob

            Another bind guy!

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            So is Lady Justice.

            I guess I’m in good company, plus she’s better looking than the lynch mob.

          • Dan Matthews

            Stop confusing things with fact. Besides, I think Ol Bob was taking a shot at me.
            But I appreciate you having my back.
            I’ll do the same for you.

          • Dan Matthews

            “None are so BLIND as those who will not see.”
            Eh Bob

          • Nemo

            How much “due process” did the victim deserve and get? Did he benefit from the same pro-police bias that exists in most courts? Did the victim benefit from “qualified immunity” and a union to pay for his lawyer? Will the victim be the beneficiary of a police fundraiser to help bring his killer to justice? Will the victim be spoken of in glowing terms by respected members of the media? The police routinely get benefits like that, after all, often even after they killed someone.

            There was a local detective around here who conspired to frame the man whose wife he was having an affair with, who walked away scot-free from his crime, and last I heard holds a police job in another city, having married the woman he committed the crime with. How did “due process” work for that victim, now that his life’s been ruined?

            Oh, wait, “All the facts are not in” on that case, too, I guess. Oh, well, once the police are finished investigating the police, the police will tell us that the police are innocent. Again. But I’ll be patient, it takes time for whitewash to dry.

            Now hand over your cell phone, I read on the intarwebz that it could be a gun!

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Obviously a strawman argument.

          • steveo

            I’m in the “It’s a little early for the rope crowd”. Time to take a few deep breaths.

          • Dan Matthews

            OMG Steveo, I won’t call you a convert to supporting “Due Process” but I will say you are taking a Common Sense view of this.
            You’re screwed!

          • Nemo

            I’m not one calling for a rope, Steveo, but I’m in the “investigate and prosecute this guy as vigorously as they would a gang member (without a record) who killed a cop” corner. If the tables had been turned, and the vicim had instead left the road plowed through a fence, and crushed the cop’s torso, killing him, the web and the media would be blazing with the “get a rope” people, cops and ex-cops included. Zimmerman has a better case for a justified killing than this creep, but he got crucified in the media. This guy’s barely a blip on the radar. Is it because he was a cop? Hard to prove, but I think so.

            Equal prosecution for equal crimes, no special status for killer cops.

          • Nemo

            Incorrect, pointing out that the victim was denied the due process that some are trumpeting for regarding the suspect cop is not a “straw man”, especially if the perp walks uncharged, or with a year’s probation, or a similar wrist slap.

            That was also an attack on the whole system, courts, cops, and press. Nothing straw about it, as those are all things that benefit police, observable in real life.

            The local detective aspect was a true story, another shining example of how unreliable the “system” can be. What do you expect, when the police investigate the police, with the police paying for lawyers to defend the police? The “detective committed a number of crimes, was never charged, and is still working in law enforcement. Life is good when you can use the system to commit a perfect crime.

            It’s not just this, Ex. There are plenty of other problems, such as when cops use repeated tasings to gain compliance, and no one calls it what it is: torture. In some cases, cops even use tasers to torture when they already have compliance, and sometimes they use it to torture victims that are already restrained. Where are the charges and jail sentences in those cases?

            As for whether repeatedly tasing someone is torture: If getting tased didn’t hurt, then they wouldn’t be using it to gain compliance. If it does hurt, then tasing someone to force them to obey orders (or for personal reasons) is indeed torture. Take a team, go down to Gitmo, and start tasing the prisoners there, and watch the media light up with reports of torture. Do it to a nameless suspect on the streets, and it’s just good, clean fun. Is it any wonder, given all the evidence, that people are pissed off?

            Bah. The real strawman here is “you cannot express an opinion, because all the facts are not in”, because /all/ the facts will /never/ be known. A more honest way of putting it would be to say “wait until enough of the facts are in that will support a conclusion that I agree with”. Fact: an unarmed man is dead. Fact: a cop killed him. Fact: calls for patience come off to many here as defending the killer cop, because the most likely “evidence” to be released to the public will be the mitigating PR stuff, not the damning stuff.

            I know you trust the system, Ex. How not, when you are /part/ of the system? Your career choices boldly declare your belief, but that doesn’t mean that the problems that those of us with less trust don’t exist. The “justice” system is rife with injustice,from the streets to the SCOTUS. Not so long ago, the Omaha Police Auditor reported that the OPD had serious problems. Omaha’s solution? Fire the auditor. That’s the System. Chicago? Don’t get me started, but the list of similar cities is long. Those cities’ courts and PDs are part of the System. If those cities have problems, then the System has problems.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Do you need me to do an article on “due process”? I ask merely because you don’t understand what it is, and the fact that it doesn’t kick in until you are in the court system.

          • Dan Matthews

            EC, lets change our names to Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid.
            Kind of reminds me of the last scene in the movie, two guys against the Mexican army.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            LOL, what I find funny is that everyone of this lynch mob would be screaming bloody murder if a civilian was to be treated the way that they want to treat the officer.

            Many of them would have been right at home at the Salem Witch Trials.

            Or at this link – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU – where some are the monks and some are the mob. I’ll leave it to you to determine who from here belongs in which group.

          • Dan Matthews

            BWAHAAAAAA! That was good and so representative of the crowd.
            The duck must have been full of golden eggs, that threw me off.
            Thanks!

          • Doug

            I haven’t seen anyone in this thread advocate curtailing this cop’s right to a trial and due process. I’ve seen people bemoan that it will be a mickey mouse trial with a severe pro-cop bias if he is charged at all, but so far no one has said he should be denied due process.

            Someone proclaiming that he is guilty in their opinion is not the same as someone advocating he be declared guilty by a court based on their word. It looks to me like he’s guilty as sin but me saying I think he’s guilty of murder doesn’t mean I don’t think he should get a trial.

          • Dan Matthews

            Shame on me for trying to point out the obvious, er, obvious to people who are interested in the truth.

          • Nemo

            What you are shilling isn’t the “truth”, Dan. It’s a point of view, and one that doesn’t include all the facts, not to mention the amount of spin and personal attack you’ve stirred into the mix.

            When you devolve into your obvious personal attacks and fact-ignoring, you cannot with any credibility declare that you are advocating for “the truth”. Nor can you forward yourself and those who you agree with as the sole source of “reason” and “common sense” in this page’s comments. HTH, BIDTIW.

          • Dan Matthews

            Nemo, thanks once again for showing you ignorance to the public. But hey, we are all ignorant about something.
            Never said I was stating “Truth” except to refer to perhaps some other’s unfounded claims, opinion or otherwise. AGAIN, SHEESH, only looking for the “TRUTH” as defined by the facts, not via crowd mentality.
            Personal attacks, only in retaliation.
            “If you are going to fight a war, fight to win.” When challenged, I fight. YEP!

            Reason and common sense say that this LEO deserves Due Process, as does the law, for without it, this LEO, guilty or not, walks scott free.
            Did that thought ever enter into your mind?

            It amazes me how my quest for the facts that back up statements made by others as well as my quest for Due Process have irked so many with the mob mentality.

          • Dan Matthews

            BTW Nemo, can you please tell me who it is that you feel I am “Shilling” for?

          • Dan Matthews

            Didn’t think you could.

          • Dan Matthews

            Perhaps you should reread some of the “OPINIONS!”

          • Difdi

            So far, I have not seen anyone saying he should be executed without trial. But apparently he has not even been arrested, even though his actions far exceed the degree of evidence of wrongdoing that would cause a non-cop to be arrested, denied bail, and remain in lockup until trial.

          • Dan Matthews

            Honestly, that is incorrect from the standpoint that we are not sure what the evidence is and who has seen it.
            If he is charged with First Degree murder, they may not be able to prove that and after a trial, might go scott free. If the evidence can prove Manslaughter, that might be the charge.
            The DA will want to win and as such will be charging him with the toughest charge they feel they can win.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Not necessarily. I can think of a number of cases where the PD waited until there was an indictment.

          • Dan Matthews

            “even though his actions far exceed the degree of evidence of wrongdoing”

            Can you please list that FACTUAL evidence that proves him guilty in your mind?

          • Difdi

            Guilty? Stop putting words in my mouth (fingers?). I suggested anyone who would hunt someone down for not wearing a seatbelt and kill them should be held without bail until their trial.

            If making an arrest required that someone actually be proven guilty first, no one could ever be arrested unless they confessed.

          • Dan Matthews

            “even though his actions far exceed the evidence of wrong doing…”. Aren’t you saying he is GUILTY with this statement?
            And to be fair to him, no one other than perhaps a few people know enough detail/fact about his actions to even come close to knowing what happened?

          • Difdi

            I’m saying (as I have been from the start) that he ought to be arrested and held until trial. Like anyone else who was caught in the same act. Especially like his victim would be, if the roles had been reversed.

            Why do you keep insisting that due process requires that guilt be proven absolutely before an arrest can be made?

          • Dan Matthews

            I’m saying (as I have been from the start) that he ought to be given Due Process, not just judged guilty in the COPO.

            Due Process has nothing to do with proving him guilty before he can be arrested. I’m just advocating that Due Process be applied and the appropriate outcome reached, guilty or not.

          • Dan Matthews

            If a civilian did this-
            There is no lawful reason for one citizen to be pursuing another citizen in this manner. As such, if apprehended, that civilian driver should be arrested upon capture as he was breaking the law as soon as the pursit began.

            If a LEO did this-
            This is a case where the LEO was performing his duties in pursuing this individual in his capacity as a LEO. The tragedy resulted. The officer is entitled to Due Process in order to determine if he acted outside his capacity as a LEO.
            An arrest MAY follow, depending on the result of evaluating the evidence.

            Very easy to understand the difference between the two.

          • Dan Matthews

            Well EC, according to my measurement criteria, your 8 inverted chevrons from the Lemmings tell me that you got your point across.

          • Doc Holiday

            Excuse me sir but you seem to have misspelled ridiculous.
            Your welcome

          • Dan Matthews

            Well, Doc, if that is all you can find wrong with my typing, I think I am doing rather well.
            Now, do you have anything worthwhile to contribute that is based on fact, my spelling aside?

          • Doug

            None of us, to include Mr. Quimbly, require due process before forming an opinion. Mr Quimbly didn’t say he was guilty and should be executed, or found guilty without a trial, just that Mr. Quimbly thinks it was a murder.

            I tend to agree.

            When I declare the cop guilty, I’m not declaring him guilty in a court of law, I’m not convicting him, I’m not even advocating his conviction based on my word. I’m just stating that I think he’s guilty after reading a blog post on the internet. It should be clear this does not mean I think a court should take my word and skip straight to the sentencing.

          • Dan Matthews

            Hmmm, one might think about looking at the facts, even when forming an opinion, but that’s just my opinion.
            Without them, one could look very foolish, but what would a foolish man care.

          • Nemo

            If you’re so big on “the facts”, Dan, why do you keep ignoring the fact that the victim was killed without the due process you claim to cherish? What do /you/ call it, when someone is killed by a cop, without the benefit of due process?

            Don’t know about anyone else, but I sure as hell wouldn’t call it “justice”. Rather the opposite, in fact.

          • Dan Matthews

            Nemo, need to empty the water from your head to read this? Okay!
            I am big on “the facts” as you pointed out. Due Process is a legal process “after” a crime has been committed, not before, or while implementing a judicial process. There is no Due Process with respect to this individual. You are inferring that this young man’s death was intentional, maybe it was, but the facts to prove it are not yet known.
            What do I call it? A tragedy that needs to be investigated and if the facts justify it, criminal charges being filed.
            You seem to be blind to the fact that without Due Process this LEO can not be charged.
            Next foolish question?

          • Nemo

            Dan, before I “empty the water from my head”, why don’t you shovel the bullshit out of yours, first?

            Since you lead off with a personal attack, nothing else you wrote ther is worthy of consideration.

            *insert next insult below*

          • Dan Matthews

            Oh, please!
            Come up with something that is more appropriate for my name, as I did with yours.

          • Dan Matthews

            “No matter how much it hurts, the only thing that matters is the truth.”
            Dana Scully

          • Logic

            It’s called summary execution which is incontrovertibly what happened in this case regardless of what Dan the statist apologist wants to red herring the thread into.

          • Dan Matthews

            Is that right?
            Get out into the world and learn something.

          • Dan Matthews

            “summary execution which is INCONTROVERTIBLY what happened here.”
            Just one question, what is your proof? If you think it is INCONTROVERTIBLE, you must have evidence, I would hope, as I’m sure you would not make a statement like this without it.
            What is the evidence besides the opinion of the Lemming mentality?

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Just as a pedestrian being struck by a civilian driver is denied due process.

            Until you are in the court system, there is no due process.

            Geez, do I need to do an article on basic law for y’all?

          • Dan Matthews

            Hey EC, it’s the TROLL checking in.

            You never told me it would be such fun taking the heat off you, I’ve got enough inverted chevrons to start my own army!
            II isn’t bad being ignored by the lemmings of uninformed opinion
            .
            Cant wait to see how this incident plays out.
            If they decide the kid is not guilty of First Degree murder, I guess there will be hell to pay. :-)

            BTW, how did you do in your exams? Are you about to become a Licensed Prveyor of Juris Prudence?

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            I did OK, and no, I still have a ways to go.

          • mavp

            From a cop? No, thanks.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            I’m not a cop anymore. You’re welcome.

          • UncommonStats™

            You’re getting destroyed on these comment votes Dann-o. If there were an NBC presidential debate you’d be losing, quite badly. Thankfully, it’s a blog on a crappy site. Where you still happen… yes… to be losing. #YouSuck

          • UncommonStats™

            Let me guess “Guest”. You’re a cop. You’re using officer logic.

          • courtofpublicopinion

            so the guy he chased down with a 4000 lb loaded weapon did not deserve due process? he was guilty and should be hunted down and killed, come on fool that was no accident and if it was wow they better send all of their recruits to drivers ed and in my area enough of the facts have been released my lying eyes told me that much from the pics of the scene the day it happened

      • Bob

        You’re blind, aren’t you?

        • Dan Matthews

          Gee, Bob, how did you come to that conclusion? Because I am basing my comments on fact, which there are few of in this case.
          Please tell me about the videos that I have failed to view, please!
          Bob, I think you have been blinded by the fact less comments you have been reading here.
          You might be suffering from that common affliction of rectal-cranial inversion.
          You might want to seek help for that.

          • Jeff

            Dan, you’re nothing but a cop shill that runs around to the thousands of police brutality videos and sticks up for the dirty cops. You pal, make me sick. Can’t hide it anymore, the citizens are awakening and starting their own patrols all across this Nation and I back them all. We are starting to hear about them finally getting fired and tried. It’s only the beginning now.

          • Dan Matthews

            Jeff, you are so far off base with your “opinion” that you have proven just how ignorant you are about the subject.
            No where, in any of my comments have I stood behind the police in this particular case – FACT! Please feel free to PROVE me wrong!
            A”cop shill” no Jeff, afraid not, I have very little if any fath in any

          • Dan Matthews

            Jeff, I contribute financially to this site because I believe in what Carlos is trying to accomplish, though I do not always agree with him or his conclusions. – FACT!

            How about you Jeff, are you supporting Carlos with money to show how committed you are?

            I’m not advocating anything that is pro COP!
            All I am advocating is due process, which is done with fact, not opinion.

            My Dad had a saying that is appropriate for comment – “Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, some people are opinions.”

          • Dan Matthews

            Trust me Jeff, I wouldn’t be your “Pal” even if I was paid for it.

      • Jon Quimbly

        Yeah, that’s something we here in the United States call an “opinion.” If you one day come visit us here from whatever fuckin’ commie hell-hole you live in, you’ll be able to enjoy that right to free expression.

        If, on the other hand, you prefer that people not have opinions, go back to China or whereverdafuk. Idiot.

        • Dan Matthews

          Jon, so nasty. Next you’ll be telling me you are a Marine who fought in some God forsaken war that you didn’t believe in, but followed your country’s call.

          It’s great that you have an opinion.
          Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, some people are opinions.

          The sad thing is that there are people like yourself who put forth opinions that are not based on fact.

          It shows the measure of the man.

        • Dan Matthews

          WHOA! Just realized how foolish you actually made yourself look in this post, Jon.
          I bet you have tattoos as well, that is normal for someone with your vocabulary and mindset.

          • Jon Quimbly

            Appreciate you pointing that out, Dan, my mind must have wandered.

            The chief terminated the cop because he killed a traffic stop subject. Note that the chief isn’t defending him, he isn’t playing neutral -he fired the guy. While not evidence or proof, it’s a pretty damning action.

          • Dan Matthews

            Jon, I couldn’t agree with you more. As I have stated, if the facts prove that the LEO should be charged with a crime, so be it, as long as it is Due Process.
            The chief is privy to information that few others have seen and he made his decision accordingly.
            One thing we can not lose track of is how much damage control this chief might be doing. The civil unrest in Florida is simmering over George Z., etc, this is one of the best actions the chief could take to help suppress any civil problems, which i believe he would have taken into consideration.
            I too have an opinion on this, but I am trying very hard to keep it to myself until all the facts are known. I doubt the facts will change my opinion, but I want to see them so I can reach an “Informed opinion” for lack of better words.
            If this cop does not get Due Process, the system is not working and appropriate action should be taken.
            However, no action in this case should be based on “opinion” or supposition, for if it were, a “probably” guilty cop would walk free.
            I don’t believe he committed premeditated murder, but perhaps the video from his car picked up audio that is detrimental to the PD.
            None of this will be known until the facts are brought out.

          • Dan Matthews

            Jon, just a note to say I attempted to remove the “questionable” messages I sent you after this last exchange, but in doing so I’ve only managed to go from “Dan” to “Guest” not sure why, but Carlos is looking into it.
            I appreciate you taking the time to send me your last message.
            Be well.
            Dan

    • UncommonStats™

      If you ran over a cop you’d have 9 bullets in your head. No double standard here. Not at all……(sarcasm)

  • Rusty Carr

    “But only time will tell whether James (J.P.) Harris will face murder charges.”
    WHY IN HELL does it take SO LONG to decide to charge a police officer when any of the rest of us would’ve thrown in the slammer ASAP and a high bail set?

    • Difdi

      Police officers have rights, among them the right to privacy. Their employer cannot violate that privacy without breaking the law.

      This leads to absurdities like this, where police can hold press conferences talking about one suspect or another being guilty as sin (despite not being convicted yet) but they can’t talk about disciplining one of their employees without giving him a grievance he can go to the state over.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dunrobin-Macdhai/100002749406695 Rob Davidson

        Cops on duty should have NO “right to privacy,” especially when they commit a criminal act like this. The so-called “police” are completely out of control, and are an army of occupation, not the “peace officers” they were supposed to be.

        • afuddyduddy

          Some states supreme courts (IL specifically, after they tried to say it was a felony to record an officer) has already determined that a police officers on duty has no reasonable right to privacy. Hence the ruling that recording officers is not against any privacy laws. Unfortunately, officers don’t care, as it’s easier to get forgiveness than permission. Especially when THEY break the law.

        • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

          Police have the same rights as any other citizen. Anyone who does not believe that they are due the same protection as everyone else is not a friend of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

          • AnotherConstitutionalScholar

            Depends what you mean by rights. Most citizens aren’t hired by all of the other citizens perform a task which requires such accountability. Equating the two is irresponsible. Of course they inherently have the rights as other citizens – the catch is that they voluntarily waive the right to privacy as a condition of their employment when they clock into work. I have the right to privacy too, but my employer can still drug test me because I agreed to it as a condition for my employment. If they don’t want to be filmed, they shouldn’t go into the business of filming others. By your argument, dashboard cams are a violation of the right to privacy.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            They don’t have to waive their “right” to privacy.

            No one, police or civilian, has an expectation of privacy in public. They don’t have to waive their other rights of privacy, as Rob suggests.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dunrobin-Macdhai/100002749406695 Rob Davidson

            In their private lives, definitely. But they are allegedly “public servants” – they should have NO expectation of privacy when on duty whatsoever. If they don’t like that, well no one is forcing them to become a legalized goon. If they don’t like being watched and held accountable for what they do, then they should get a real job.

          • 7LibertyForAll

            Except that the reverse is never true; citizens NEVER have the same rights as the thug cops.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Incorrect.

            Everyone has the same rights.

          • Jessica

            If citizens had the same “rights” as police, we’d get away with murder too.

          • Dan Matthews

            If you have enough money, you can.

          • Jon Quimbly

            But you already know that cops don’t have “the same protection as everyone else” – they have more, special privileges the rest of us don’t.

            As for people forming opinions in advance of all evidence – welcome to Earth! This is what we humans do! We anticipate, extrapolate and triangulate. Sure, our biases weigh in, that’s what people do in a forum like this. If you don’t like that, then you’re not gonna have much fun here…

          • Dan Matthews

            Not true, Jon. I, personally enjoy very much the fact that I am able to gain control of your emotions and cause you to make yourself look foolish.
            Oh, sorry, it’s my opinion.

        • Dan Matthews

          Rob, please tell me what country you would rather live in after renouncing your American citizenship, and I’ll see if I can help you get a ticket.

          • whiteaglesoaring

            My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right. Trying to set it right is not an abrogation of citizenship, Dan; it’s the duty of citizenship. Put your jingoism back in your pocket. Our fore fathers didn’t take your attitude, fortunately, if ever Tories suggested they leave the English colonies.

          • Dan Matthews

            Please state in one sentence what I am advocating in my comments. I’ll give you a hint, it was what our founding fathers wanted.

          • whiteaglesoaring

            Rob expressed a need to change from the mindless brutality so often seen in the news. Like many others, we, the principals, demand better decision making from our Agents. Your comments to Rob were paramount to love it or leave it…not what the fore fathers wanted. That’s why my reply to you.
            In a comment to me you demanded “due process”, and that IS something on which the founding fathers insisted. But you assumed or implied that I was foregoing due process; that was in error, which I explained in my reply to you.
            The defensive chip on the shoulder is noted here and throughout the comments by you. That defensiveness is unnecessary if you are committed to “protect and serve” as a legitimate motto for our Agents. For Agents to choose to forget their role in our communities and decide to become the judge, jury and executioner is unacceptable to We the Principals.

          • Dan Matthews

            Defensive Chip On the Shoulder? Cool your jets!
            “Nothing units people more than a common enemy” if I am that common enemy, so be it.

          • whiteaglesoaring

            That was a GREAT non-response reply, Dan. You can cool your own jets, but that’s not what you get paid for, is it?! You are working hard at distraction, and that’s all you are.

          • Dan Matthews

            Non response. Don’t think so. I must admit, being the first 24 hours of me typing on this site, many of the short cuts are still foreign to me.
            Some of the typos can’t be corrected by me.
            Distraction? Hmmm, just trying to state facts and if the facts in this case are distracting to you, well, I guess I am not surprised.

          • Dan Matthews

            BTW WES, are you going to respond to my request, or is it out of reach?

          • Difdi

            Dan, you know your own motives. But we are limited in discerning your motives to the same degree you are in discerning ours. None of us are telepaths (obviously) and so we can only go by the meanings of the words chosen.

            You are constantly picking fights with people you seem to agree with wholeheartedly, apparently because you’re so suspicious of their motives that you take everything they say as enemy action. Back off, remove that telephone pole sized chip from your shoulder and relax. Stop assuming that anyone who says anything in your presence is your bitter enemy until they actually prove that they are. As it is, you’re making enemies of your natural allies.

          • Dan Matthews

            Oh GOD, you remind me of my third ex-wife.
            My motives? Just to press the fact that “Due Process” for EVERYONE should be respected.
            Picking fights? No, but I do voice my disagreements to statements that are not backed up by facts, which are derogatory towards this LEO; to the best of my knowledge I have not referenced any other LEO or their actions, though I could.
            “Chip on my shoulder” don’t confuse that with my passion for the truth.
            My people have been dragged through the gutter for many more years than you have been alive, I know, better than you, I believe, how brutal LEO’s can be and I don’t trust any of them.
            But once again, I believe they are entitled to Due Process and it amazes me how closed minded so many of the posters are here.

            You are certainly entitled to your opinion of me or anyone else and I appreciate your post.
            Until you have been judged and physically abused by the “Court of Public Opinion” you will not know where I am coming from.
            But, again, I appreciate your post and will state again, my only objective is to promote Due Process for the LEO, no matter the outcome and that’s all I have ever done!

          • Difdi

            Oh GOD, I had hoped an appeal to your sense of reason and fairness might get through to you, but apparently you lack those qualities.

            Grow up.

          • Dan Matthews

            You had hoped to appeal to my sense of fairness with that message? Looks like I am one of the very few here who seeks fairness for this LEO and YOU talk about fairness?
            Contact me before you take your next hit of your medical marijuana, you might be thinking clearer.
            Grow Up? Because someone does not agree with you they are immature?
            I think the last time I used that comment was in grade school.

          • Difdi

            I consider you immature because you act immature. Any dissenting opinion is a personal attack to you. Any attempt to reason with you results in nearly mindless hostility in return.

            If accusing me of being a drug addict is the best you can come up with as an excuse not to think about what I said, you’d already failed.

            Grow up.

          • Dan Matthews

            Hmmm, don’t see where I accused you of being a drug addict, but those are your words, not mine, and incorrect at that.

            Grow up! – You too are a hoot! BWAAAAAHA!

            You are so far off the mark with the point I am making with DP, you are no longer worthy of responses from me.

          • Difdi

            You’re plainly just a pathetic little troll. Nobody actually freaks out like you do in reality.

            I’m done with feeding you, troll.

          • Dan Matthews

            LOL! Now THAT is funny!
            Now, let’s stop the name calling or we will have to put you back in the corner.
            You haven’t even realized yet that we know each other.
            Now THAT is funny too!

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Legally, you are not principals, and officers are not your agents. As a matter of fact, they are nowhere close to being agents, nor subject to the law of agency.

            Unless, of course you are saying that you would be happy with them signing contracts on your behalf, which you would then be liable for performing.

            They are public servants or employees. Nothing more or less.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dunrobin-Macdhai/100002749406695 Rob Davidson

            Do they actually teach LAW at this “law school” you attend? In a Republic, Mr. “Law-Student”, the citizens are the sovereign authority and the government is their agent. An agent working for a principal does not just have the power to do anything he wants in the principal’s name, but only has such authority as is specifically delegated.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Rob, try looking at the law of agency. They are not agents.

            You also omitted the fact that a principal can be bound by the agent, even if the agent was acting outside of his express authority. See generally Grazer v. Jones, 289 P.3d 437 (Utah 2012); Ping v. Beverly Enterprises, Inc., 376 S.W.3d 581 (Ky. 2012).

            If you are the principal, you are also subject to liability for torts resulting from reliance or other conduct within agent’s apparent authority. Primeaux v. United States, 102 F.3d 1458 (8th Cir. 1996).

            Police are employees. Not agents as in a principal-agent relationship.

            If you don’t understand that, I will try to break it down into words of one syllable so you can comprehend it better.

          • Dan Matthews

            EC, with regards to the statement “the citizens are the sovereign authority” from above, I believe it to be incorrect in that “the majority of the citizens elect individuals to represent them…”. If all citizens do not vote for the individual elected, then “sovereign authority” does not mean ALL citizens. Correct? And in reality, the citizens have NO authority, as they have turned that over to the officials they have elected.
            This is a fly shit and pepper issue, but curious just the same.

          • Dan Matthews

            BWAAHAHAHAHA! You are a hoot there bird with white feathers.

            “Love it or leave it”. No, I never said that, but now that you mention it, I do believe in it. However, if you are going to love it, do something constructive to make it better, what our Founding Fathers wanted.
            Demanded “Due Process” I must have forgotten that statement, please take the time to point out to me where I put that as well.
            “Chip on my shoulder” come up with something original, will you, that is so lame.

            I’m impressed that you are putting so much effort into finding fault with me when all I am after is equality under the law, due process.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dunrobin-Macdhai/100002749406695 Rob Davidson

            You said, and I quote: “Rob, please tell me what country you would rather live in after renouncing your American citizenship, and I’ll see if I can help you get a ticket.”

            That sure sounds like “Love it or leave it” to me. Are you always this delusional?

          • Dan Matthews

            Call it what you will, officer, those are your words, not mine.
            But those words I will stand behind.
            If you are going to love it, do something to make it better; eliminating someone’s rights to Due Process is not making it better.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            They are not agents and you (and others) are not principals.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dunrobin-Macdhai/100002749406695 Rob Davidson

            You are 100% wrong. Where are you getting this absurd idea? Do you think that the government is simply the master and we are mere peons subject to their whims?

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Nope. But I understand the law of principal and agent, whereas you don’t.

            The fact that you (and others) are not principals and that they are not agents does not support the insane notion that the police are masters and the people peons.

            There is an entire part of the law that deals with agency, and the Restatement (Third) of Agency has been released recently, although many courts still use the Restatement (Second). It does not include public servants.

          • Dan Matthews

            When was the last time, if ever, that you read and discussed the U.S. Constitution or the Declaration of Independence?
            If you had, you would know just how ludicrous your analogy truly is.

          • whiteaglesoaring

            Taught it every year for 26 years. Studied it for double that.
            See? There’s that chip on the shoulder attitude you’ve never been without that we recall. lol

          • Dan Matthews

            26 years and you still don’t understand it. That’s a prime example of seniority not making sense.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dunrobin-Macdhai/100002749406695 Rob Davidson

            That’s funny coming from you, Dan, since you are apparently clueless as to what the document actually says.

          • Dan Matthews

            WELL I guess you caught me there Rob. Both documents have nothing to do with Due Process and the rights of U.S. citizens.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dunrobin-Macdhai/100002749406695 Rob Davidson

            I’m not the one turning this country into a totalitarian police state. As my ancestors fought and died in the American Revolution to found this country as a free Republic, maybe you and your boot-licking compatriots should get the fuck out instead. There are plenty of police states already – move to one of them.

          • Dan Matthews

            What we have established with your last message:
            1- Your ancestor’s took this land from the Indians.
            2- I am a boot licker because I eanthony Due Process for a U.S. citizen
            3- I should leave the country because I want that Due Process
            4- Your language tells me I have control of your emotions.

            Can’t wait for your next message.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            So you’re the guy that is from the family that stole my family’s land.

            My family was here for 10K years.

            Maybe you and your illegal immigrant buddies should go back to Europe, where you came from.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dunrobin-Macdhai/100002749406695 Rob Davidson

            Actually, if you are really a “Native” American, then you should know that the eastern Nations understood the concept of property rights and freely dealt with the original settlers like my ancestors.

            Indians certainly did get screwed repeatedly in the centuries afterwards, but it wasn’t my ancestors who did it. Of course, individual responsibility probably doesn’t sit well with a collectivist mentality.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            If you are in Wisconsin or Michigan, then you are benefiting from those that took my ancestors’ land. If you believe that the Indians in the east were treated fairly, then you are sadly mistaken. The Anglo-Europeans didn’t even follow their own laws or rulings by their own courts.

            It has nothing to do with collectivisim – it has to do with the fact that you cannot pass title to stolen property. A man in Philadelphia had his car stolen in 1970 – and recovered it in 2012 from a dealer who had paid $27,000 for it. The dealer suffered the loss even though he had done no wrong, because he couldn’t obtain legal title to stolen property.

            I also note that you didn’t address the immigration issue.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dunrobin-Macdhai/100002749406695 Rob Davidson

            You cannot “steal” something that you bought in a free transaction. If you think the Indians of New England got “cheated” out of their lands by nefarious “illegal immigrants” then you are sadly delusional and know nothing of actual history.

            Of course, absolutely none of this has anything to do with the actual issue at hand – my assertion that cops have absolutely to “expectation of privacy” when they are on duty.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            What parts of Wisconsin and Michigan are in New England?

            And a thief still cannot pass title to stolen property. It can still be addressed. The U.S. government owes the Dakota and Lakota over $1.3 billion in damages for stealing their land according to SCOTUS. The tribes won’t accept it, they want their land back.

            There is a difference between “expectation of privacy” and “right to privacy”, which is the term you used earlier.

            There is no expectation of privacy in a public place.

            Police officers have an absolute right to privacy that is equal to that every citizen possesses.

          • Dan Matthews

            “You can not ‘Steal’ something you bought in a free transaction.”
            Probably referring to the purchase of Manhattan.
            I think the going price paid to the Indians was $24 in junk jewelry if I recall correctly.

          • Guest

            No, my comment was in reference to the land that my ancestors purchased from the New England Indian tribes, which should have been pretty obvious if you read my post.

            Regarding the story about the Dutch purchasing Manhattan, you want think you know is largely myth:

            http://mentalfloss.com/article/12657/was-manhattan-really-bought-24

            It also has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, does it? Why do you and Ex-Cop keep trying to change the subject?

          • Dan Matthews

            Why do you always insist that ExCop and I are trying to change the subject? Challenging you is no where near changing the subject. We were talking about the death of an individual at the hands of a LEO, you were the one that brought your immigrant ancestors into the discussion.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Dan, I don’t think that Ron understands my point. His profile shows he is in Michigan. If so, the likelihood is that the land he resides on was not purchased from the tribes, but stolen. What happened in New England is not relevant to the title of the land he is currently on.

            Of course, since anarchists don’t have to follow the rule of law (according to most anarchists), that probably doesn’t matter to him.

  • nrgins

    I find it interesting that the guy killed was the son of a cop. I wonder if the killer would’ve gotten fired if that wasn’t the case? On the one hand, there’s the tendency to cover up for the killer cop. On the other hand, there’s the desire to provide justice to the cop who’s son was killed. So they went with the latter. But if he was just an average Joe without a cop dad, would the killer cop still have been fired? I don’t know.

  • bj

    It appears this is a pretty clear cut case. It will really test the (in)justice system. I admire his wife; she was so calm and articulate during the interview. The cops messed with the wrong woman.

    • Dan Matthews

      She was a strong woman because she had no feelings for the man is my impression.
      I believe she sees dollar signs only.

      • bj

        That’s harsh. Do you know more about her than we do?

        • Nemo

          Danny is allowed to post unfounded opinions, it’s other people doing the same that sets him off. no double standard, Dan is simply right, and not-Dans are wrong. *WEG*

          • Dan