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

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

 

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.

About Carlos Miller

Carlos Miller is founder and publisher of Photography is Not a Crime, which began as a one-man blog in 2007 to document his trial after he was arrested for photographing police during a journalistic assignment. He is also the author of The Citizen Journalist's Photography Handbook, which can be purchased through Amazon.
  • 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.

          • Guest

            LMAO!

          • mavp

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

    • Keyan Reid

      Hey man, I’m all for this site and everything, but your bias is showing in those opening sentences. The man’s crime wasn’t just ‘not wearing a seat belt’, it was that plus a pursuit.

      Obscuring the victim’s actions that triggered this murder only makes this seem less objective and more politically narrated. And it’s unnecessary – no matter how that chase went down, this officer’s actions are no less heinous as a result.

      Don’t weaken your argument and give would-be opponents a vulnerability to prod at when the story central to this piece stands up just fine on its own.

  • Ron Grounds

    Thank God for the video camera.

    • Dan Matthews

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

  • 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://robsblog.moronika.com/ Robert 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://robsblog.moronika.com/ Robert 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.

          • Guest

            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…

          • Guest

            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.

        • Guest

          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.

          • Guest

            Defensive Chip On the Shoulder? Your conclusions on my intentions are 100% wrong! If you think I am being defensive because I am stating FACTS about this case and only this case and it in turn differs from 90% of the other opinions
            “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://robsblog.moronika.com/ Robert 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.

          • Guest

            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://robsblog.moronika.com/ Robert 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://robsblog.moronika.com/ Robert 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.

          • Guest

            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.

            LOL!

          • http://robsblog.moronika.com/ Robert 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://robsblog.moronika.com/ Robert 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 want 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://robsblog.moronika.com/ Robert 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://robsblog.moronika.com/ Robert 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.

  • Tijuana Joe

    Kids at home, pay attention: Not wearing a seat belt can get you killed.

    • steveo

      stay home, do your homework, don’t play violent video games, stay off facebook, quit thinking about girls, quit thinking about guys, practice abstinence or at least masturbation, and don’t go out after dark. Go to college.Don’t do what your parents do. Eat your wheaties.

  • steveo

    This is really not unusual for a FL cop to run over fleeing suspects. This one was at least bright enough to plant a gun on the kid he ran over. This kid was being chased for being “suspicious”.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUsdFS8-YuI

    After a two-day coroner’s inquest last February to review the incident, Escambia County Judge John Simon concluded that Steen’s death was “an unfortunate accident” and recommended that criminal charges not be filed against Ard.

    The State Attorney’s office agreed, and Ard remains a city police officer.

    But, based on the Ard dash cam and authorities believing that Ard didn’t murder the teen, the dash cam of the Brown thing must be horrific.

    • whiteaglesoaring

      He should be arrested, not just fired. He’s guilty of cold-blooded premeditated murder.

      • Guest

        And what facts do you base your conclusion on? If you were in the copy’s position, would you feel you were entitled to due process?

        • whiteaglesoaring

          What follows arrest is due process. That is not a conclusion. Running through a fence at 60 mph directly at the man is good evidence of pre-meditated murder. Do you want to plea bargain to assault with a deadly weapon?

          • Nemo

            Pre-meditation may be a bit of a stretch, but I’d say it was deliberate.

            Unless, of course, one belongs to the crowd opining that the cop “accidentally” left the road while “accidentally” going 60MPH and “accidentally” drove through a fence, at which point the victim “jumped in front” of the careening vehicle, at which point the cop “accidentally” struck him,l followed by the victim dying “possibly for some reason other than due to being hit by the cruiser”. In that case, you’d better wait until the police investigate the police, so they can produce evidence that exonerates the police.

            There is no video of two officers conspiring to frame the victim of a cop’s careless driving as the “perp” out on youtube. It clearly doesn’t exist, because cops never do things like that. Not never. They also never perjure themselves, and when caught committing perjury (which they never do), they never walk away uncharged and without consequence. They never cover for other cops when those cops are DUI cases, so any video that seems to indicate that happening is a clear fabrication. They also don’t beat down on paraplegics, not do they dump them out of their wheelchairs and laugh when the (clearly faking it) victim collapses onto the floor.

            Even if you thought you saw something, don’t speak up, because “all the facts aren’t in”. At least, they won’t be until the police tell you what the “facts” are, and the “facts” they provide are all that you need to know. Any other fact is irrelevant.

          • Guest

            But with your frame of mind, “He’s guilty of cold-blooded premeditated murder” there is no reason for Due Process!
            I’m sorry, but I can’t find that in the Constitution. Being the scholar you are, can you please direct me to it.

          • Guest

            Plea bargain? No, if there is enough evidence, I expect the DA to do what is right.

    • rick

      “Dashcam video recorded by one of the police cars that arrived on the scene showed Ard unlocking the passenger side of his cruiser and retrieving an object, then crawling under the car. He stayed there for more than a half-minute. When paramedics arrived two minutes later, they found a silver-and-black 9mm semiautomatic handguns in one of the victim’s pockets…Lab tests showed the gun had been wiped clean.”
      http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/63263.html

      • steveo

        Yeah, and what else was he doing if he wasn’t planting the gun? The IA investigator only asked him, “Did you plant a gun on the dead body?”, answer, “No” (Duh). That was it, they didn’t ask him what he was doing.

      • Phred

        Two years after driving drunk in his patrol car while on duty, an Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officer who plowed into a group of motorcyclists stopped at a light, killing one and severely injuring several others, still hasn’t faced trial, although he currently is in jail on a separate DUI charge. His cop buddies tried to cover up for him at the scene but were unable to do so successfully.

  • Melissa Kirst

    Gezzzz He should be charged with murder too.

  • BillyBudd7

    why is this murderous sub human ex police officer walking around free…this is a brutal hardened murderer

    • Guest

      Great conclusions.
      With your wisdom, we should do away with juries.

      • Guest

        Carlos, as mentioned by a number of posters, the headline for this story is misleading and most likely incorrect.
        Until the details of the radio traffic are known, if ever, no one will know what information was broadcast to the officers involved and what they based their decisions on.

        I believe you try to deal with fact and as such, the headline, no matter who it was written by, may not be fact.
        I’m not condoning what this officer did, but I think any possibly incorrect statements should not be used as headlines.

        • Dan Matthews

          Surely I can get more than two inverted chevrons on a statement like this.
          It makes perfect sense that it runs against the Lemming mentality, or are more people understanding the absurdity of this headline?

      • Difdi

        If he were not a sworn officer, he’d be in jail awaiting trial and due to the inhumanity of the alleged crime, the prosecutor would request that bail be denied.

        But he’s sworn to uphold the law (which includes not committing second degree murder), so he’s completely trustworthy, so he doesn’t need to be jailed until his trial.

        • Dan Matthews

          And your point is????

          • Difdi

            Most fourth graders could understand my point, my wording wasn’t the least bit unclear.

            Why can’t you?

          • Dan Matthews

            Caught you!
            See, you are still feeding me.

          • Difdi

            Are you admitting I was right about you being a troll?

          • Dan Matthews

            I admitted to that long ago, just couldn’t get in and add it to my name.

          • Dan Matthews

            Fourth graders, if taught about it, would probably ask, “What about due process?”

          • Difdi

            And you just keep compounding your original error. Fourth graders wouldn’t ask that, because most fourth graders would have understood what was written.

          • Dan Matthews

            I don’t agree with that, LOL! This is a debate that could go on forever as we are making assumptions about what a 4th grader would know and understand and we are not in agreement on it.
            But, if you want to go on………….
            I will admit that my response was more to get you to respond again as opposed to making a point.
            ;-)
            Was actually tired of reading when I saw your original post and just replied in a way to keep the issue going.

        • Dan Matthews

          I don’t agree with that, LOL! This is a debate that could go on forever as we are making assumptions about what a 4th grader would know and understand and we are not in agreement on it.
          But, if you want to go on………….
          I will admit that my response was more to get you to respond again as opposed to making a point, as I was tired of reading at that particular time.

          ;-)

          TROLL

          • Difdi

            Police are not death squads. They’re supposed to be making arrests, not playing judge, jury and executioner. Especially not for traffic infractions or misdemeanors. When a death occurs, it needs to be looked at. If it’s plainly an execution rather than an accident, then it needs to be treated as a murder. Because it was a murder.

          • Dan Matthews

            Let’s look at the facts:
            1- he has not been proven guilty in a court of law.
            2- the evidence has yet to be presented or judged.
            3- for whatever reason, you have made the decision that he is guilty of murder, see your comment above. How many times do I have to point out that YOU have made the statement, in so many words, that he is guilty?
            4- he has yet to be judged, except in the COPO, which, in my opinion, is no more than a lynch mob.

          • Difdi

            Ok, let’s look at the facts:

            1- He should be given the same due process a non-cop would be given until he has his day in court. He should not get special treatment.

            2- We are not a court, and we are not required to be. We do know that he was fired based on a dash cam recording of him killing a man. We know that police departments and unions like to exonerate officers. We can infer that the video does not exonerate him, because it’s being kept a deep, dark secret.

            3- For whatever reason, you have taken my repeated posts about treating him the same as any other alleged murderer to mean that he should be hanged immediately. You seem to have some sort of deep-seated need to be the champion of what’s right, and for everyone else in the world to be evil. But the fact is that we’re not, and if you’d take that telephone pole sized chip off your shoulder, you might be capable of realizing that aside from a crazy or two, WE ALL AGREED WITH YOU until you went nuttier than a fruitcake and joined the crazies.

            4- You keep waffling between insisting that he cannot be arrested or his case discussed until after he is proven guilty and insisting that he receive due process (which can’t happen if nobody can arrest him or discuss what he may or may not have done).

          • Dan Matthews

            I’m surprised the statements in the last post came from you, or maybe not. Let me try and state my facts, AGAIN
            1- I agree with you, but you seem to have paid no attention to my statement that there is a “Legal” difference between his pursuit and that of a civilian doing the same thing. This means that his pursuit may have been justified whereas the same pursuit by a civilian would be illegal from the start. None of this takes into account the results, nor should it at this point. Can’t be clearer than that and if you don’t agree, I guess I am not surprised.

          • Difdi

            The pursuit was justified. Killing the suspect with a deadly weapon was not justified, nor was endangering the man by driving “near” him at high speed.

            In some places, a citizen making a citizen’s arrest has greater use-of-force authority than a police officer, since the citizen doesn’t have to obey police department regulations, only the actual laws. But even in those places, running someone over with a car for not wearing their seat belt is not justifiable. For anyone.

            Running someone over because he has a gun and is shooting at you? Sure. That’s justifiable. Running someone over because they’re about to shoot someone else? Justifiable. Running a serial killer over to prevent his escape? Borderline justifiable. Running someone over because they ran away instead of signing a $75 traffic ticket? That’s not a lawful act.

            The authority to pursue the suspects of a crime is not absolute. It certainly does not include the authority to act as judge, jury and executioner on top of acting as a police officer. Sure, police officers have the right of self-defense we all have, but it’s not self-defense if you run down a fleeing person who poses no threat to you or anyone else.

          • Dan Matthews

            “The pursuit was justified…….” Alright, you are taking baby steps now that you have admitted this.
            Maybe the effect of all that methane gas you have been breathing is wearing off……maybe.
            Wait, it can’t be, you still have RCI. Sorry, tried to offer you some hope, but it isn’t possible.

          • Difdi

            Of course, since I knew the pursuit was justified before you freaked out and started attacking me, it’s not my baby step we need to be proud of. It’s yours.

          • Dan Matthews

            If I had more time to work with you, you would progress even more.
            My suggestion is that you get help for your RCI and go from there.

          • Difdi

            At this point, I’d be tempted to vote to lynch the officer if it would shut you up. Your bad personality and worse arguing style brings out negative progression in even the most reasonable of people.

          • Dan Matthews

            2- I agree with 95% of what you say here. I would use the term “took the life of” instead of “him killing a man” only because it is less likely to imply “murder” just my thoughts.

            It is harder to convict a LEO than a civilian in most cases because LEOs, right or wrong, have broader “authority to act” as covered by whatever “get out of jail free” protection they have in performing their jobs.

            3-“alleged murderer to mean that he should be handed immediately” I’m not sure what you mean with this sentence, can you clarify; I don’t see how the word “handed” fits in.

            Again, I would refer you to my previous statements about the difference between a “civilian” having been the pursuer and the LEO being the pursuer. I hope you can see the difference between the two. I believe my statements to be correct and as such, when a LEO is the pursuer, more time has to be put into the investigation to understand what is and what is not justified.
            4- You are way off the mark on this. The only thing I am insisting on is that he should get due process to understand the facts about the pursuit, before any charges are brought against him. The terrible results of the pursuit can only be defined (murder, assault with a deadly weapon, etc) after due process. Please see my download about the 6th(?) amendment. Unless a complete investigation of all the facts are done, it is not possible to define all that charges, if any, he may be facing. This is not stating that I think he has to be proven “guilty” first, it is just saying that the system has to cross all its T’s and dot all of its I’s before they can really determine what laws he broke and in turn level the charges against him; Due Process.

            Let me summarize the points that I have been making and have not swayed from since the beginning.
            1- He “took the life of a man fleeing a legal pursuit.”
            2- Depending on what the radio traffic recordings show, he may or may not have know the suspect was being pursued by the other officers for a seat belt violation.
            3- His vehicle was the cause of death, at least from the known facts.
            4- No one civilian knows for sure if he was verbalizing in his car that he wanted to kill this guy, something that probably showed up on the dash cam tape and probably heard by the COP.
            5- I am saying (insisting) that he receive Due Process prior to being arrested for any possible crimes, which can not take place until all the evidence is taken into account once analyzed.
            6- Referring once again to the civilian/LEO comparison of the pursuit, yes, a LEO would be treated differently because the law allows them certain exemptions from prosecution while performing their duties.

            As far as the chief firing the guy, maybe the dash cam video picked up a bunch of expletives where the LEO was using the “N” word and the chief used that alone as the reason for firing.

            AT THIS POINT, WE JUST DON’T KNOW ALL THE FACTS!

            Thats all.

          • Difdi

            2- Would you use the “took the life of” phrasing if the roles were reversed, and a random road rager pursed an officer into a field and ran him over with a car?

            3- In all of that, you pick on my one typographical error? I typed handed when I meant hanged. The context shows the word is a typo, but you just took it as written and ran with it. So much for a “more justifiable” reading of things, eh?

            4- Your definition of due process does not match the one found in the dictionary. It also does not match the one used by the courts. Or the police. When someone takes a life, in circumstances that seem to indicate a deliberate act, they are arrested rather than ignored; They sit in a cell while evidence is gathered unless they post bail (and with very violent crimes like this one seems to be, the judge typically denies bail). None of this violates the right to due process for non-police, so why would it violate the due process rights of a police officer?

            If due process dictated that a murder could not be called a murder until after a conviction, how on Earth would a prosecutor ever file a charge so the court can try the case? Your definition of due process does not match the definition used by anyone else on the planet.

            If I see a man walk across a road in the middle of the block, he is a jaywalker. I don’t need to wait until an officer comes along to cite him to know he jaywalked. I don’t need to wait until he has his day in court to know he jaywalked. I don’t need to wait until he is convicted by a judge and sentenced to pay a $100 fine to know he jaywalked. Due process does not require anything like that.

            Put another way: You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

            1- The circumstances where a peace officer may lawfully take a life are well established in the law. Someone fleeing from a seat belt citation are not among them.

            2- A police officer must act or not act on what he knows at the time, much like a military officer. In order to act lawfully, a police officer must know that a crime has been committed (by witnessing it) or have sworn testimony (in person or from a warrant). Without such knowledge, the officer cannot lawfully act against someone. Without knowing what the pursuit was for, the officer cannot assume that killing the fleeing suspect is justified, and therefore is not lawfully justified in taking that life unless his own (or another person’s) life is threatened by the suspect. A man fleeing into a field does not pose such a threat unless he is carrying a rocket launcher or is an escaped serial killer or rapist.

            3- Police officers have vehicles that cause deaths and guns that unexpectedly “go off” in tense situations. Non-police run people over with their cars and open fire with their guns. Would you use the same passive voice descriptions if a road rager had pursued an officer into that field and ran him over? Due process is about fair treatment, and using different language with a much lower emotional load to describe police than you use to describe everyone else undermines fairness.

            4- No we don’t. But police agencies LOVE to give official press releases about how a wrongfully accused officer has been exonerated by their meticulous investigation. Even officers who are later proven to be guilty as sin tend to be given paid leave during an investigation. For the police department to keep the onboard recording a secret and FIRE the officer tells us that recording is almost certainly not exculpatory.

            5- The due process prior to arrest that a non-cop receives amounts to Miranda rights and handcuffs after far less evidence of wrongdoing than the police department has already acted on (the police union contracts make it difficult to fire officers who are actually convicted of crimes, let alone ones merely accused). A non-cop is given the due process of being held in a jail cell until a judge lets them out and typically this involves a ruinously high bail payment. According to the system, this does not violate a citizen’s rights to due process. So why is it that you think it would violate a police officer’s right to due process to be treated the same way?

            6- Police departments are not death squads. They’re supposed to be filling cells not filling body bags. They’re peace officers, not street judges. This is real life, not Judge Dredd. While you’re correct that they get greater leeway in the line of duty than a private citizen does, that leeway comes with additional rules that must be followed as well.

            Among those rules is one that says flight from pursuit by itself does not justify a killing. Fleeing from a traffic citation does not justify running that person over with a car. The line of duty exemption does not stretch that far. Nor should it.

          • Dan Matthews

            Sorry about the choppy response. I try to use my ipad as much as possible and it seems that at 25 after the hour and 5 before the hour, the site sends out some kind of signal that resets and disconnects the ipad, causing me to lose my incomplete message. Now on my desk top.

            BTW, your comments are not all fact as in your opening line, “Ok, let’s look at the facts” as not all you are stating is fact.

            I know, picking the flyshit out of the pepper, but one must agree, I am correct. Or maybe one must not agree.

          • Difdi

            Your definition of fact is decidedly screwy, and completely out of line with the meaning of the word as used by the rest of the world besides you.

            There are two possible definitions you seem to be using:

            A) something is not a fact until someone with official authority declares it to be a fact.

            B) Only things you personally witness are facts, all else is not.

            Either of these creates absurdities. Option A would mean that it would be impossible to accuse an authority figure of any wrongdoing, since their oral denial would have greater fact content than even the most detailed written records or video evidence. Option B would mean that even evidence presented in court could not be fact, even after a conviction, unless you personally witnessed the entire crime.

            I will agree that we don’t have all the facts, but what we do have doesn’t look very good for the cop. But I’m curious, which of the things I said that you just replied to are not facts?

            Is it non-factual that someone accused of homicide should receive fair treatment and due process? If you consider this to not be a factual statement, then your entire basis of argument falls down into a puddle of stinking hypocrisy.

            Is it non-factual to compare observable facts about motives and evidence from past behavior to observable facts about motives and evidence from current behavior? If you don’t do this, then every single person and group you interact with is treated as someone who you’ve never met before, even if you’ve met them every day of your life? Really? If assuming that habitual behavior will continue, especially when the available facts indicate that it is continuing, is not acceptable, then what is?

            Is it not factual that the people on this forum that you argue with most bitterly and tirelessly are the people who share your opinions on facts and due process? You need only scroll back without the chip on your shoulder to see that yes, you are attacking your natural allies.

            You keep insisting on a double standard here. You insist we MUST apply a standard of evidence to this accused cop that NO ONE can meet, under which standard almost everyone ever convicted by a court was falsely convicted — And then you turn around and apply a standard of evidence to your claims and accusations about us that is so flimsy, no investigator in the country would bother listening to it.

          • Dan Matthews

            Again, another example of rectal-cranial inversion on your part, once again leaving you in the dark.

          • Difdi

            Are you able to communicate without spewing filth? From the available evidence, the answer would seem to be no.

          • Dan Matthews

            I don’t agree with that, LOL! This is a debate that could go on forever as we are making assumptions about what a 4th grader would know and understand and we are not in agreement on it.
            But, if you want to go on………….
            I will admit that my response was more to get you to respond again as opposed to making a point, as I was tired of reading at that particular time.

            ;-)

            TROLL

          • Difdi

            Responding for that reason makes you a troll, not me.

          • Dan Matthews

            Okay, back in the corner, no cookie for you.

          • Dan Matthews

            Quite a debate!
            I will tell you that I look at facts and statements as being very black and white, right or wrong, backed by FACT and act accordingly.
            I also put some thought into the responses I receive to see if they alter my decisions in the points I am trying to make. In this case, most do not as they can only be backed by decisions reached without being able to be justified.
            I would ask you, do you honestly read my responses and try and determine if they might be correct, or do you read them with the mindset that you are only looking to find something you can respond to with an opposing opinion?
            Human nature supports both of those mindsets I guess.

            TROLL

          • Difdi

            Most of the people here share your mindset on the facts. But your black seems to be our white and vice-versa.

            Our black and white — If you do things that are unlawful you are a criminal.

            I read your responses, but you seem to care little or nothing for the facts we have, and care everything for attacking us as persons rather than discussing things reasonably, as if you have decided (before your first post) that we are probably evil, and at best we’re a lynch mob you NEED to talk down (and talk down to). But you have no facts backing up this odd view of us you’ve got, even as you try to argue against the existence of what facts we do have.

            I’ve been giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assuming you have a bizarre and unsupported view on the discussion. The other possible conclusion to draw is what you just accused me of — Reading with the sole intent of finding something, anything to argue with regardless of what was actually said:

            TROLL.

          • Dan Matthews

            After all this discussion you still have rectal-cranial inversion and you remain in the dark.

  • Ian Battles

    Murder with a deadly weapon.

    • Dan Matthews

      Not a given, Ian, but it sure is a possibility if it can be proven.

  • John C Carleton

    You must wear your seat belt because it can save your life, and if you don’t, we will kill you.

  • Jimmy

    Yup!… For sure you yanks are goanna get it up the proverbial..

  • $19866595

    There’s no due process in the Florida court system. It’s a game with the judges of “how much money can I get for my lawyer buddies and my bail-bond buddies” and “how can I abuse people to get the point across about what a bad-ass I am”. As far as this cop, he was probably just too lazy to get out and run. It will be interesting to see if it goes anywhere in Florida, the semi-flaccid appendage of taint and front runner in the U.S .police-state mentality.

  • Ron Grounds

    Not Wearing a seat belt maybe a ticket ,not murder.

  • Fedup

    Wow. Now THIS is something Sharpton and Jackson should get behind. Screw the Zimmerman circus. While I have no way of knowing whether this is racial or not, I’d love to see the cops go on the defensive like they’re making Zimmerman do in his trial. Anyone know when the video will be released?

  • bacchys

    I wouldn’t say he was justified, but it wasn’t over a seat belt violation. He was fleeing. That makes reasonable to think he’s more than just a traffic citation.

  • $22798478

    Another piece of shit cop kills a man in cold blood because he feels he’s going to TEACH US A LESSON ! If it was going to be someones Son, I’m so happy it was a cops Son ! YAY

    I can’t wait to see this video !

  • http://robsblog.moronika.com/ Robert Davidson

    Why the hell is this “cop” not sitting in jail right now? The rest of us would certainly be arrested and held if we had done anything remotely like that. How is this NOT a double-standard?

  • Jon Quimbly

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

  • 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.

  • Guest

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

  • 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.

  • Jason Rohrer

    The widow seems to be taking it well.

  • Nico

    Maniac Cop.

    The Australian Alpha Lodge has confirmed they hired psychopaths in the police force in 2000, and it proved such a “success” to them – their motto is Ordo Ab Chao, after all – that they exported the concept to their brothers of the dark krafts in the USA.. Which kind of explains a lot of what the f… is going on today. Recource: Henrymakow dot com.

  • Seth Levy

    What a bullshit misleading title Carlos. It is pretty much a lie. More importantly, this has very little to do with photographer’s rights. There’s plenty to write about that is much more relevant.

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

    Actually, I found the headline very accurate and truthful. I’m also glad that he posted on it.

  • Difdi

    Bullshit…how exactly? If the video exonerated the cop, it would already have been on YouTube by the time Carlos wrote the article.

    But the police are keeping a public record secret. I wonder why?

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

    The cop is not sitting in jail right now for the same reason a citizen would not be in jail right now.

    They’ll wait for an indictment, most likely, before arresting him. Tends to avoid civil liability for false arrest in case he gets no billed by the grand jury.

    It happens all the time, for citizens as well as officers. I used to call a suspect’s lawyer when we would get an indictment and let the lawyer make arrangements for the suspect to turn himself in.

  • Proud GrandPa

    There are plenty of reasons why not. Let others explain to you. Maybe the video shows the cop was not trying to hit the victim but the victim ran into the path. The Bible says you don’t jump to conclusions, but hear both sides. That is wisdom.
    .
    My personal opinion is probably similar to yours, but neither of us knows all the facts or has viewed the video. Patience…

  • steveo

    Public won’t see the dashcam until the SA is finished with the investigation and charges the leo, then it can be obtained when the leo’s attorney files for discovery or the SA finishes the investigation and concludes that no criminal charges will be filed. I always wonder why these “investigations” take so long when the SA has a video of the whole thing. State Police take at least 90 days to process a traffic fatality investigation, this happened on May 8, 2013. The FHP said they are waiting for the medical examiner’s report. Maybe the ME will say Brown died of a heart attack before the car hit him.

    We still don’t really know how that terrorist guy died in Boston. The leos said they jumped out of the way of the SUV and the brother ran him over, apparently the ME couldn’t tell whether it was the bullet wounds or the traffic crash.

  • steveo

    He’s not sitting in jail for a few reasons. 1st, he hasn’t been charged with any crime, yet. 2) even if he was he has the same right to reasonable bail, like anyone else and because this might be vehicular homicide, the guy is well-established in the community, and he has no sheet, his bond would be no more than about 10 grand and all he would need for that is $1000. 3) Since he is a leo, they would tell him that he had been indicted and let him and his attorney come to the jail, get the bond pre-arranged, do the the booking and walk out.

  • AnotherConstitutionalScholar

    He probably will be. I’m not defending him, because I think he should go to prison. But, it wasn’t like he found an bystander on the road and decided to run him over. The guy ran. That made him a potential threat. We haven’t seen the video, so we don’t know exactly how it happened. The guy could have stopped and dropped to the ground, or tripped, or any number of things. We don’t know. This kind of procedure happens all of the time, where charges are later filed. George Zimmerman comes to mind. It doesn’t make him any more or less guilty. It’s an attempt to ensure that his right to due process remains intact, which is more infinitely more important than retribution.

    With that said, they need to hurry up and decide, then take swift action. It’s a different thing to just let him chill for a month.

  • Guest

    Hey Rob, I bet you were with Trayvon’s family as well when they wanted his killer arrested and locked up even though the police thought otherwise.
    Might it be that the police were correct, but now the state of Florida has to foot the cost of a trial.

  • 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.
    .

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

    ROTFLMAO. The “resource” is an “Illuminati” conspiracy whackjob.

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

    Oh, and they may not have the authority under the law to arrest without a warrant, since it is not within their presence and view (the offense was days ago), so until they get an indictment (and therefore firm PC), they’ll wait.

  • Burgers Allday

    I don’t think this is correct. If this were a private citizen I think they would most certainly have an arrest warrant by now (unless the citizen was the mayor or spouse of a police officer, etc.) An indictment does not act to “firm up” PC in a later civil suit. An arrest warrant does “firm up” PC in a sense, but, with the video, PC for felony arrest is not going to be an issue in any later civil suit. Even so, waiting for the arrest warrant makes sense, but the point is that they should have obtained that warrant long before you ever heard about this story. In fact, maybe they did obtain the warrant and are sitting on it. But, again, that is just one more form of inexcusable behavior. We don’t know exactly how the trout got into the milk here, but the trout is definitely sitting there every minute this police officer remains not yet in custody.

  • steveo

    Actually, in FL anyway, whenever there is a fatality in a traffic accident the FHP does the investigation and sometimes I’ve seen even in high BAC cases that they don’t make an arrest for up to 8 months later for vehicular homicide. The FHP has pretty much total control over these traffic fatalities.
    Even if the driver is impaired, the State has to prove that the driver is “at fault”. For instance, a driver is .14 BAC, but the guy he hit and ran over walked out in front of him on a busy street, not in the crosswalk. A key element of Florida DUI manslaughter law is whether a person who was drunk caused or contributed to the death of someone else.

    Lots of stuff could have happened in this Deland case, like the throttle stuck or the brakes failed, probably not since the chief fired the guy, but the FHP is really expert at this stuff, they can tell how fast a car was going within a couple miles per hour, don’t ask me how, but they do. The leo could even have been high on something or even drunk, who knows, too early to tell.

    But like we tell everybody else on this site and it also applies to Mr. leo, When they’re asking you a bunch of questions about a crime and you are the subject of the criminal investigation, what do you do? I need a lawyer and shut up.

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

    I’m basing that on my experience and how we did business when I was an officer, and we did it that way for both citizens and officers.

    On a 1983 suit for false arrest, probable cause is a complete defense, so it is better to have a grand jury indict before the arrest. That also gives the officers and department a good faith defense since the arrest is based on a finding of PC by both the grand jury and a judge.

  • Burgers Allday

    Accidental death is a different thing. Here there is PC for murder one and that matters a lot as far as how police would react if this was a regcit driver. Your comparison is inapt.

  • dagobarbz

    “Traffic accident?”

    REALLY? 0_O

  • benanov

    All vehicles sold with airbags, iirc, have a “black box” similar to what planes have that records the last 5 seconds of what was going on – speed, which pedals were depressed, etc. It’s always recording, but it takes an airbag deployment event to permanently write the data.

    If the airbag went off, the cops could have the box dumped. That’s probably how the FHP gets their information.

  • dagobarbz

    the bible says a lot of stuff. Don’t be bringing some dumbass 2000 year old superstition into it.

    “Maybe the video shows…” Hey dumbass. Quit playing “let’s pretend” as your ilk is so fond of doing, and look at the reality of a man who drives through a fence and out into a field to run down another human being.

    This is why I have no respect for bible thumpers. You’re all idiots.

  • Dan Matthews

    You are a very wise man GrandPa! It is unfortunate that the voice of reason is drowned out in the sea of uninformed opinion’ often offered up as fact.
    Your offspring offer a glimmer of hope for our country.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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

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

  • Sasha

    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.

  • Anthony

    Does Fl have the death penalty?

  • steveo

    yeah, she’s already spent all the money. It would probably help her case, if she appeared a little more “damaged”. Do you wonder why lawyers tell people to stay off the TV?

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • Difdi

    Wisdom is where you find it. Rejecting wisdom because it’s from a religious source makes you a fool, plain and simple.

  • ReadAbook

    The Bible contains some of the most valid and developed philosophies in human history. Jesus basically invented civil disobedience and nonviolence. You can not be a Christian all you want, and you can dismiss the superstitious side of things as even I do. But don’t be ignorant. Whether you’re Christian or not, the man called Jesus did way more for the world than your disrespectful ass will do in a lifetime.

  • Proud GrandPa

    Oh are you going to censor speech you disagree with? Not on my watch you won’t. I am free to share my values and beliefs. This is America where our founding fathers acknowledged God-given freedom of religion and freedom of speech in the Constitution.

    .
    I celebrate and revel in my freedom. You cannot stop a free man or woman. This is America.

  • Difdi

    Even conspiracy nuts are occasionally right. Sure, their claims are baseless most of the time, but if you reject a claim without investigating, you end up looking pretty stupid the one time in a million they turn out to have been right all along.

  • Dan Matthews

    BWAAHAAAAAAA!
    EC, you crack me up.

  • dagobarbz

    Yeah…because EVERYONE GOT IT WRONG except a tribe of goat herds 2000 years ago. LOL…

  • 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.

    It is surprising to me though that he didn’t resign, rather than be terminated. If he resigned, he could still probably go work somewhere else, if everything sifted out over time, but maybe his lawyer thinks he has a good chance of getting his job back on appeal and he can still remain silent through the whole thing. I think that if they take the 5th in an IA investigation, that’s grounds for termination. And the public wouldn’t know about that because that’s a personnel matter exempted from the public records laws.

    Then, of course, if he can’t get his job back here, there’s always Opa-Locka. http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20111204/article/111139979
    or if he’s really self-destructive Belle Glade http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zvgQdN4nHlc

  • Jeff

    That’s a cop for you, all killer thugs, none of them have common sense. If you do have common sense they don’t hire you. Time to put all these thugs in jail and toss away the keys.

  • Difdi

    So if you’re wrong about one thing or even most things, you’re wrong about everything? Why are you bothering to post, when you’re provably wrong about at least one thing, and by your own apparent logic that means you’re wrong about everything?

  • Rob

    Yes

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

    It won’t apply here. The elements needed for the death penalty aren’t met.

  • steveo

    Every homicide investigation starts out the same way. There’s a dead body and we have to determine how he/she died. That’s why Casey Anthony was acquitted, the ME couldn’t determine the cause of death, he couldn’t say that it was murder. He said that it was possible that the little girl died of natural causes.

    We’re assuming that the police car killed him, but what if it didn’t and because the homicide is probably caused by a vehicle, the FHP gets the case. They could determine, it’s 1st degree murder, but likelyhood is pretty low, more like here, involuntary manslaughter, or vehicular manslaughter at the worst. But I’m just speculating and if I had to wager on Intrade what’s going to happen with the limited info we have, I’d say it’s ruled “accidental”. Plus the witnesses that were in the car with him aren’t giving any statements to the FHP. There’s no witnesses other than the video.

    The leo got fired probably because of remaining silent during the IA and FHP questioning after he was informed of the choices he had by his attorney.

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

    There may not be PC for murder. It may be manslaughter, dependent on what the video shows. It may be vehicular homicide. Without seeing the video, there is no way anyone can say what the officer should be charged with. Steveo is correct on what he is saying.

  • John

    What does this have to do with photography not being a crime?

  • Nemo

    There’s an old saw about grand juries and ham sandwiches, though, and I think you’ve heard of it.

  • Burgers Allday

    No. Your police department was wrong. Proceedings leading to an indictment are closed, secret, so they can’t support a probable cause finding in a later civil suit. An arrest warrant, on the other hand, can be made unsecret, and can therefore bolster a case for PC so long as the police officer was sufficiently honest and sufficiently non-misleading in applying for the warrant.

    As far as there not being PC for murder, that is a joke. There was an unlawful killing with malice aforethought. If the killer were not a policeman there is no way you would be saying that there was not PC for murder. I mean, it is vanishly unlikely, but theoretically possible, that the accelerator pedal got stuck or popo had a diabetic coma, but that isn’t going to defeat PC on the elements of the crime.

    You are arguing for superior, not equal, rights for police officers here whether you have the self-awareness to recognize that or not.

    Because a murder charge is clearly possible, and the perp knows it, the perp is a flight risk and the delay unexcuseable.

  • Dan Matthews

    ExCop, what evidence can be presented to a judge for him/her to determine a PC incident?
    Would he/she be shown the video tape in a case like this?
    Would it be similar with a GJ?

  • 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

    What it has to do with is that many of us would like to see legislation requiring law enforcement to 1)video/audio record everything. 2) make sure the data recorded by the devices can not be altered or manipulated by the individual leo 3) have the IT people who have control over the recording devices,memory, and servers independent of the authority of the individual jurisdiction.

    Carlos just shows cases where it is vitally important to the public, the defendant, the police, the States Attorney, and the courts, the importance of documenting police encounters with video/audio. It’s beneficial for everyone. I’m of the opinion that if citizens had had handheld recorders during Hitler’s time, there never would have been a Holocaust.

    And if you don’t think recording police encounters is important, watch some videos of people trying to record stuff that happens over the border of North Korea and when the North Korean soldiers see the photographer they shoot at them, even though the photographer is in another country.

    We’re just trying to help make sure we don’t become like North Korea or Syria or Cuba.

  • 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.

  • http://robsblog.moronika.com/ Robert Davidson

    Do you seriously think you or I can run someone over and kill them, and NOT get taken to jail immediately? The cop should have been arrested on the spot, but that certainly doesn’t seem to have been the case here.

    And your third point proves my argument: there is a double-standard for the “police.” There shouldn’t be.

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

    I think that.

    I’ve seen it, with both sworn officers and civilians.

    In some cases it is better to do an investigation and present it to the grand jury before arresting, as I noted elsewhere on this thread.

  • steveo

    Many drivers who run over pedestrians walk away from the accident with no charges because it wasn’t their fault. I’m not saying that that was the case here, I’m just saying that the leo’s probably not a flight risk, he didn’t flee from the scene and the investigators can go get him whenever they put together a case. They don’t have one yet. 90% of people arrested, get arrested for what comes out of their own mouths. That isn’t going to be the case with a leo, they know better.

    And it’s not necessarily a double standard because most defense attorneys make it part of their job to get to know the prosecutors and they find out real fast who is handling their client’s cases and ask to at least be informed if there are any charges pending. That’s proper if the client has no sheet and is not a flight risk. Plus they know the bail bondsmen and find out fast what kind of funds the client has available, just standard for defense lawyers.

    Just remember the old defense lawyer’s saying, “There’s nothing to worry about until there’s something to worry about.”

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

    Yup, but it depends on the process in each state. I’m not as familiar with Florida GJs as I am with Texas GJs.

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

    Gee, I must have missed out. I did over 20 years without killing anyone.

    Don’t be a moron.

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

    OK, but the Illuminati conspiracy buffs are still whackjobs.

  • Guest

    “if you reject a claim without investigating, you end up looking pretty stupid” Tell me, is that similar to rejecting a claim of possible innocence without investigating?

    Innocent until proven guilty comes to mind………for some reason.

    You seem to contradict yourself.

  • Jeff

    Open your eyes Moron! Another stupid thug cop. Can’t stand NONE of you, you are a parasite on society and we’re going to deal with you all soon. Enjoy your retirement while it last.

  • Guest

    EC, you can’t change the stripes on a zebra!

  • steveo

    Especially when they are dealing with someone without a criminal record and they are investigating a felony and the suspect is represented by a known local defense attorney. They told Bob Shapiro to bring OJ in and look what happened with that mess, but that is the protocol unless they want to get some kind of perp walk or something, only in a slam dunk case.

  • Dan Matthews

    EC, another GJ question for you.
    If the evidence is presented to a GJ and they choose not do indict, can charges still be brought against an individual?
    And, how many times can the evidence be presented to a GJ about the same individual/incident?

  • BillyBudd7

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

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

    Oooh.

    Threats.

    I’m scared.

    LOL.

    Moron.

  • Dan Matthews

    Stepped in the old “Doo Doo” on that one, eh Jeff!

  • Burgers Allday
  • Guest

    Some of you people should be locked up!
    I do not condone what this 25 year old cop did, but many of you are posting with a vigilante/mob mentality.
    The headline is most likely INCORRECT, this kid probably got the radio call as “Officers in pursuit of…….” with no mention of the fact that it started out as a seatbelt violation. The original officers involved were seeking assistance because the subject was racing away from their attempt to stop him. What was in their radio message for assistance? Did it contain the observed violation of the seatbelt infraction or not? Did it provide additional criminal history about the subject that came up as a result of running the vehicle tag?
    I doubt much detail was provided, but we don’t know YET.

    Did he over react? Most likely, but compared to what? How much experience/training did he have, etc?
    Could it have been handled differently, of course it could have.

    I’m not a LEO and if anything, hold them in contempt.
    However, any action against ANYONE by the judicial system should be via due process, which many of you don’t condone.
    If this cop were your son, would you want him to receive due process, or have him tried by the vigilantes posting on this site who have no idea what all the details are and just reacting from a news headline which is most likely INCORRECT?

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

    Check your case law. See Shine v. Mars, 459 F. Appx. 449 (5th Cir. 2012) (Deputy made arrest after obtaining a warrant from a judicial officer and after arrestee was indicted by a grand jury, and arrestee failed to identify any falsehood in deputy’s probable cause affidavit or to identify any false information that was presented to the grand jury. False arrest claim must be dismissed); Hale v. Clayton, 198 F.3d 241 (5th Cir. 1999) (Indictment by grand jury showed probable cause for arrest, claims of false arrest must be dismissed.); Smith v. Buttry, 111 Fed. Appx. 372 (6th Cir. 2005) (Indictment by grand jury found probable cause existed and collaterally estopped a claim of false arrest and imprisonment.); Gray v. 26th Judicial Dist. Task Force, 1997 WL 379141 (Tenn. App. 1997) (Individual must prove lack of probable cause for his arrest. Given the grand jury indictment showed probable cause, reasonable minds cannot differ on whether probable cause existed. Since he cannot establish lack of probable cause, his claims must be dismissed.)

    You don’t have to know what was said inside the grand jury, the issuance of a true bill is a statement by the grand jury that they found probable cause existed.

    Additionally, this is a common police and prosecutorial practice. I will stick with that practice over your opinion on how it “should” be done.

  • Ptah

    I guess its true if you run you die TIREd Lawls

  • Difdi

    Locked up…for exercising a protected right to free speech on a public forum? What do you think this is, North Korea?

    I direct your attention to Title 18, Chapter 13, Section 242 of the U.S. Code, which would make what you just advocated a federal crime if someone with authority to lawfully lock people up actually did so for this. Perhaps you are the one who needs to be locked up?

  • Guest

    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.

  • UncommonStats™

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

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

    Do you understand the word “may”?

  • 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.

  • Capital_7

    Why would they not try him for murder? That was what he intended.

  • courtofpublicopinion

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

  • Bob

    You’re blind, aren’t you?

  • 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.

  • John

    I agree that there is much to gain by increasing the use of video when it comes to law enforcement. It’s better for police and citizens alike, and I generally agree with Carlos’s efforts on this front.

    But much like your fear that the US is surely on a slippery slope to becoming the next North Korea, Syria, or Nazi Germany, posting every video of the bad apples of law enforcement strikes me as a sure path to a blog that is less about support of one’s First Amendment rights and more about an extremist anti-police agenda.

    The latter would be far, far less useful than the former, and I for one would hate to see an extremist viewpoint dilute the simple message that photography is not a suspicious activity.

  • Proud GrandPa

    Steveo,

    I believe you will be pleased to learn of a college police department that requires all LEOs to use a video microphone. This is by police initiative.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqRu29Aa71s

    Ironically the BCPD previously had to disable the audio due to Illinois’ anti-wire tap law, since overturned. This appeared on You-Tube in late 2008.

  • Guest

    Steveo, you missed one key item. The audio/video signal from each LEA vehicle should be transmitted, real time, to at least 2, if not 3 different secure ground locations so there is NEVER a chance of recorded information being lost.
    Thats what I have for the three cameras in my truck and though they have yet to pay for themselves, I believe they will one day.

  • Guest

    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

  • Burgers Allday

    I understand that they do have the authority to arrest without a warrant. I understand that should have gotten a warrant. I understand that getting the warrant firms up their PC as firm as it needs to be. I understand that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, they have PC for the Florida felony of vehicular homicide (section 782.071) (at the very least). I understand that you are trying to justify the delay because you have a pro-police bias that you cannot admit, or even perceive.

  • duh

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

  • 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.

  • Doc Holiday

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

  • 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.

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Burgers Allday

    In the interest of brevity, I’ll just address your first one: Shine v. Mars said that the arrest warrant was sufficient to insulate the police officers from liability for false arrest. I am not suggesting that it is incorrect for the Florida officers to wait for an arrest warrant. Waiting for the grand jury is unnecessary because the arrest warrant accomplishes everything the indictment would accomplish.

    The warrant is actually better for insulating the police because then there are not fact issues about what was said to the neutral arbiter who determines probable cause.

    Waiting for the indictment is a clever excuse that does not wash with people who understand the law in this area.

    The fact of the matter is that the police do not want to arrest their fellow police officer here. they are not motivated by what you say they are motivated by. It is a lie.

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

    OK, what’s the probable cause?

    Do you know where the victim was in relation to the car? Was there anything wrong with the car? Were the brakes working? What information did he have as regards for the pursuit? Was the victim hidden by the fence? Did the officer lose control of the vehicle? What’s the video show?

    Look, if there is PC (which neither you or anyone else outside of the investigation knows at this point), I’ll be the first to say that he needs to be prosecuted. I won’t add my name to those that are conducting a witch hunt without the relevant facts.

    As for a pro-police bias?

    ROTFLMAO

    Take a look at my blog nimrod.

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

    Because they may not be able to prove all of the elements of murder, while being able to prove manslaughter or vehicular homicide.

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

    The warrant was issued based on the indictment. Again, a common practice. When there is a grand jury indictment, there is a finding of probable cause, which causes the judge that impanels the grand jury to issue the warrant.

    Again, this is a common practice all over the U.S.

  • Dan Matthews

    Agreed! She had no feelings for this man. Some lawyer who has signed her up is telling her how much $$ she can get out of this.

  • 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!

  • 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!

  • 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.

  • 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

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

  • Guest

    This is one of your opinions where I disagree with you!

  • Seth Levy

    Really? For an ex-cop I would think you’d see through the title. The guy was run over because he fled police, not for the seatbelt violation. And regardless it has zero to do with photographer’s rights.

  • 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 less than factual 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.

  • andy

    he’ll get hired by dhs

  • 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?

    Even I gave you a thumbs up on that one.

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

    Generally, any evidence may be presented and made part of the PC affidavit filed with the judge in support of the warrant.

    Normally, the video will not be made part of that, but the affiant will state that he watched the video and observed A, B, and C.

    The same thing applies in a GJ. In Texas, the DA will present and normally an officer will go over what his investigation has uncovered. Videos may be played for the GJ, but it is not normal.

    The advantage to a GJ is that it is an outside body of citizens making the determination, not the police department.

    Let say that the evidence only supports a charge of vehicular homicide instead of murder. If the police file for a vehicular homicide warrant, they are immediately accused of a cover up, whereas if a GJ files a true bill for that charge, it is more acceptable to the general public.

  • Guest

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

  • 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

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

  • Dan Matthews

    Thanks very much. I can see why an indictment by a GJ can be more powerful and perhaps more easily understood.

  • Burgers Allday

    I have your entire blog. Did so before this thread got started. I have been getting email notifications of new posts since 20 May 2013. I have kept up assiduously.

    And watch the fucking namecalling, pissant. Like many policemen, you have a selective pro-police bias that comes out in certain cases. Followers of this blog have seen it in other cases, many times.

    There is such a thing as a case that should go to the grand jury (read: retired police officer(s) who deliberate in secret) before an arrest. This is not one of those cases. PC is manifest and undeniable.

    Did you ever make a felony arrest of an unindicted person? Did that happen twice? Three times? Etc.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Jeff

    This is what happens to the few good cops left, watch and just maybe you will get a different perspective on what’s really going on in this country and the few idiot cops below leaving comments to make it seem okay, that cops can stomp on the rights of the people and stomp on their heads too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdcuFVCKUW8

  • Guest

    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 faith in any LEA in the U.S.

  • Dan Matthews

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

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

    I’ve made countless felony arrests, from on-view felonies to with a warrant to following GJ indictment. Most were on-view, as I spent a majority of my time in patrol. I supervised CID for about 3-1/2 years, and there it was about 40 percent after indictment, vs. 60 percent on warrants we obtained.

  • Nemo

    You miss the point, Ex. Save in extremis, the GJ is almost certainly going to return the result the prosecutor wants them to, especially if the prosecutor doesn’t want a trial.

    Or do you deny that prosecutors work hand-in-glove with the police, with getting as high a “civilian” conviction rate as they can being the ultimate goal?

    “Come see the violence inherent in the system” may still be a joke, but it’s a very black form of humor, these days.

  • Nemo

    A “voice of reason”? Only when it complies with your opinion, I expect. “Uninformed opinion” only applies, for you, when anyone dares to suggest that a cop has broken the law – or so I strongly suspect. Can you provide a long track record of where you spoke up in defense of accused non-cops?

    It is not unreasonable to view a profession that kills citizens, quite often with impunity, with great suspicion. Not to mention the other crimes they commit “in the line of duty”, or while on duty. And let’s not forget their off-duty behavior, doing things to citizens that, if the citizens did unto them would earn those citizens a trip out back where they will “fall down. A LOT” (Didn’t see that happen, but I saw the guy before they took him out, and when he was returned. Funny how falling down can leave someone that battered, and strange that he didn’t fall down again, while I was around, seeing how prone to “falling” he was…).

  • bj

    I understand there is concerted movement by some to reinvigorate the GJ process in California and NY. Presumably this is to give the public increased potential to indite those who are afforded special protection. I’ve only just read about it so I’m not sure of the facts/details.

  • bj

    ‘The Bible says…’ many things but claiming the bible to be on one’s side of an argument does not one’s argument correct or factually accurate. (And it’s irritating to non-Christians). I think that was the point @dagobarz was (partly) trying to make.

    We should be respectful of people’s choices, whether that is to be religious or not to follow a religion. Go easy people!

  • dagobarbz

    Yeah…2000 years of religious based war and misery. Oh, and a whole movement of people who give lip service to your teachings, while fooling themselves into thinking they’re actually following your words. Yep, a most impressive Curricula vitae there. Now let’s see if we do better without the bible and the sword, m’kay?

  • bj

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

  • steveo

    I got the same impression like she was super surprised that she was even married to the guy. And I did miss the “we’ll now hear from the EX-wife, the mother of Brown’s children.” She’s already figuring out how to be the ‘trustee’.

  • 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*

  • Guest

    Harsh? Not from what I saw in the family picture or from what I’ve been able to ascertain on line.
    However, that is my impression.

  • 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.”

  • Guest

    I myself am ignorant to the details about this.
    I do believe grand jury action can end up saving a great deal of money for the government as well as financial burden for innocent people.
    If a GJ can be used to bring any criminal, including LEO’s to accountability, I am all for it.

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

    I’ll trust the system.

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

    Obviously a strawman argument.

  • Dan Matthews

    Well, bj, I’ll start by saying I am not a supporter of Proud GrandPa other than for the fact that common sense prevails in his thinking. Debate it all you want, make any analogies you want, the man is not making unfounded statements as if they were fact, but he is advocating due process.

    As for police officer’s actions in general, they have nothing to do with this case.
    Other than the fact that a man was killed and it looks as if his death was caused by a police vehicle driven by the mentioned LEO, there are few, if any FACTS that are known.

  • Guest

    I will admit that if someone agrees with me that all people deserve Due Process, then I guess you are correct.
    Other than that being applied to this particular case, I haven’t made any other statements.
    No other actions of ANY LEA apply here.

  • Guest

    “Can you provide a long track record of where you spoke up in defense of accused non-cops?”

    Well, Nemo, I am not speaking up in support of any cops, just the judicial system itself.
    As for the defense of accused non-cops, my financial support to this site says it all.
    How about you?

  • steveo

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Guest

    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.

  • Guest

    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.

  • steveo

    I read the airbag didn’t go off.

  • steveo

    I’ve been reading and commenting on this blog for five years or so, and I’ve never believed that this is an anti-cop site. It’s an anti-LYING cop site. I can’t speak for everybody, but I just can’t abide LYING cops. This is the most infuriating situation for me and I just think that video/audio is the answer.

  • Difdi

    Aside from a few zealots who come and go, this site is very much pro-cop…but we’re also strongly anti-criminal and anti-oathbreaker.

  • Nemo

    I don’t know how long it’s been, Steveo, but I’ve been following Carlos since well before his foray to the second site (the one that I hope was paying him), and back here again. I agree regarding about the anti-lying part, but I think there’s a strong anti-criminal-in-uniform element here, as well. Cops lying is just an aspect of criminal cop behavior.

  • Difdi

    Very likely true. And I will admit that if one of them told me the sky was blue I’d look out the window. But that doesn’t mean that I should assume the sky is green without needing to look.

  • Dan Matthews

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

  • Dan Matthews

    Perhaps you should reread some of the “OPINIONS!”

  • Difdi

    Even someone who “merely” committed vehicular homicide or manslaughter tends to be arrested and jailed until trial. Hunting a man down as he flees to run him over is sufficiently heinous that most prosecutors will ask the court to deny bail.

    Unless the accused is a coworker. Then they get treated a lot more gently.

  • Difdi

    A death occurred as the result of a deliberate assault with a deadly weapon, with the killing caught on camera. It’s hard to imagine a case where the elements needed for the death penalty would be more fully met.

  • 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.

  • 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

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

  • 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.

  • Dan Matthews

    A number of people have mentioned the LEO was traveling at 60 mph, other than the mention in the above write up, where did it come from?
    Was he clocked or is it an estimate or a figment of someone’s imagination?

  • Dan Matthews

    Not worthy of a reply.

    How about locked up for stupidity?
    Yes, lock me up too, idiot.

  • Guest

    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.

  • Guest

    Where was it that the 60 mph claim came from? I see it in the print above, but see no other reference.

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

    That’s fine, but it doesn’t meet the requirements of F.S.A. § 782.04.

    You can’t make up the law as you go. It’s not a death penalty case.

  • Dan Matthews

    “A death occurred as the result of a deliberate assault with a deadly weapon…”

    I thought you said you were not a mind reader?
    Does it come and go?

  • $22798478

    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 !

  • Proud GrandPa

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

  • Proud GrandPa

    Jeff,

    Thanks for sharing this wonderful story of a brave man who had the personal courage and strength of character to stand alone for what is right and win. He clearly attributes his actions and strength to his faith in God through Christ. I have been in a similar situation and know what it is to stand up for right. In my case I prevailed too.

    .

    Trooper Hopson, one honest cop, eventually left the force and wrote a book to encourage others in similar situations. This should be “must reading” for every law enforcement officer on a purely voluntary basis. Trooper Hopson shares his faith in the book and I would not require that in context of employment. I do highly recommend the book and his reasons for having the courage to stand alone. We need many more good LEOs like him.

    See his website: http://www.breakingthebluewall.com/index.html

  • Guest

    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.

  • JdL

    I’ll trust the system.

    Then I’d say you haven’t been paying attention. Just about every column Carlos posts demonstrates graphically that the system is completely broken.

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

    And there are plenty of more examples that show that it is working properly. The reason that the posts that Carlos makes are news is because they are the exception, not the rule.

  • Dan Matthews

    What about all the times the system does work and it is, obviously, never posted?
    If Carlos was posting ALL the activity, you might have a leg to stand on, but since the postings are intended to prove the system is not working, what would you expect to see here?
    You probably should try to get your information from more than one source.

  • 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”?

  • Nemo

    Incorrect, since this is a system fault, ALL parts of the system apply. ALL lethal incidents regarding cops killing citizens without due process, and walking away clean apply.

    When will you bemoan the fact that the victim here was executed without due process, Dan? Where are your cries for HIS rights?

    Oh, that’s right, when a cop kills someone, only the cop deserves due process, in Dan-world. The victims of killer cops do not deserve due process, in that universe. Only the cops who kill deserve it.

    Bah.

  • Nemo

    You’re correct, Doug. This is America, where we have free speech. Just don’t forget that free speech includes Dag’s freedom to ridicule and criticize your cherished beliefs. That is no more censorship that your unsupported claim of “censorship” in an attempt to shut Dag up is censorship.

    Your belief in freedom of speech extends only as far as your support of it for those you disagree with goes. HTH.

  • Nemo

    GIYF. Witness estimate, so maybe he was only doing 40, or then again, maybe he was doing 80. Either way, the rookie cop was going fast enough to kill. As for “cause of death”, it’s also been reported that the victim’s torso was crushed, so maybe he died of “heart failure”, instead of the impact of the cruiser.

  • Dan Matthews

    This great! I get an inverted chevron because I’m asking the source of a damning statement.
    Pathetic for sure.

  • 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.

  • 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

  • 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, 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?

  • 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.

  • 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?

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

    That’s a disingenuous argument.

    First, the victim wasn’t “executed.” Second, the victim was not yet under arrest. Everyone accused of a crime is entitled to due process.

  • Guest

    Okay, first, I have no comments on the death of the individual except to say it needs to be investigated and appropriate actions taken.
    To bring up Due Process in his death is not even relevant. If it is determined that his death was an intentional act, then he was deprived of Due Process, but that is yet to be proven.
    My only comment now, as it always has been, is that the LEO is entitled to Due Process. Did he “murder” this young man? Lets see what the facts show. Don’t jump to conclusions like Jon Quimbly did, “It was an intentional killing!”

    “I believe only 1/2 of what I see and none of what I read” Mark Twain.

    The rest of your comments are useless and of no consequence in a court of law and have about that same amount of weight in the court of public opinion, but thats just my opinion.

    Your last comment, “Bah” proves that I have also gained control of your emotions.
    Thanks so much for surrendering them.

  • Nemo

    If you want to argue semantics, go right ahead. I chose “executed” for emotional impact, and because “murdered” has been overused a bit. You prefer “regrettably and accidentally brought to a terminal situation where he tragically died, but the car had nothing to do with it”?

    In my view, when an officer o the law or the court in the course of his duties deliberately ends a life, when there is no danger to himself and/or others, that’s an execution. With or without due process. If you can prove to me that this cop’s accelerator stuck, brakes failed, and steering froze, you can convince me otherwise in this case.

    I was no more disingenuous than someone arguing that “the heart condition killed him, not the taser that was used on him. Three times.” or “I had to kill him, because he took a bladed stance and I was in fear for my life” or “I read on the internet that a cell phone can be made into a gun”.

  • Dan Matthews

    Well Nemo, I indicated it was my impression from what I saw and if you read this you will see that I am not the only one with that impression.
    My impression is at least based on viewing the subject being discussed in an actual video of her actions, not from what others have written or assumptions, like so many of the other opinions here, yours included.
    Made a fool out of you on that one too!

  • 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*

  • Larry the Truth uy

    Douche move, definitely murder of some degree (intentional) and certainly unreal. But he didn’t run him over for not wearing a seat belt. He pursued him for running from the cops. Regardless, this guy should spend the rest of his life in jail for what he did. I just hate the “Globe” and “Enquirer” level subject lines you use, Carlos, which take credibility away from your blog.

    What the officer did is egregious enough without your added excitement being thrown in.

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • Difdi

    Depends on the definition of premeditation.

    A guy gets enraged, pulls out a weapon, uses it…and someone dies. That would be second degree, which would not be a death penalty offense.

    But hunting someone down might qualify as premeditated. There was a pursuit, then deliberate killing as a result of that pursuit. How long a time gap must there be between the decision to kill and the killing to create premeditation?

  • 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

  • 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

  • Guest

    Probably indicates there was no front end impact or the vehicle was traveling at a low rate of speed.

  • Dan Matthews

    That does bring up an interesting point, the chief’s actions aside.
    Perhaps the young man was never hit by the front end of the squad car, which could possibly indicate he was on the ground, hiding?
    Certainly not a proven fact, but a possibility.

  • Guest

    OMG, Nemo, I am compelled to tell you, I agree with you, because I do.
    But only on this post.

  • Dan Matthews

    Okay, so it was someone’s guesstimate.
    I thought it might have been taken from the video tape, which probably has the speed recorded on it.
    I assume you are referring to the beating death in Fresno(?).
    Dare I say it is not FACT then?

  • 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?

  • Guest

    The Sixth Amendment, which is applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, see In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 273-74 (1948), guarantees a criminal defendant a fundamental right to be clearly informed of the nature and cause of the charges against him. In order to determine whether a defendant has received constitutionally adequate notice, the court looks first to the information. James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 24 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 333 (1994). ‘The principal purpose of the information is to provide the defendant with a description of the charges against him in sufficient detail to enable him to prepare his defense.’ Id.

    This is only posted with regards to the LEO in question.
    There is no intent to speak about what happened to the young man who was killed about his due process, as it does not apply in that case.

  • John Galt

    All public officials need to be implanted with biometric sensors and wear cameras so we can figure out which are adrenaline junkies and throw their asses in prison for drug abuse.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

    Not normally.

    Usually just once.

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

    I’ll go for that. Right after we implant all civilians with wireless cameras and GPS sensors.

    Geez, what an idiot.

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

    Check the Florida case law. It’s not premeditation.

  • Dan Matthews

    How many definitions are there for premeditation?

  • John Galt

    Nobody applies to be a civilian. I’m just saying that adrenaline explains a lot of aberrant behavior and those who seek positions of power should at least be screened to see if they are adrenaline junkies.

    I know how powerful adrenaline addiction is from my time campaigning a motorcycle at the dragstrip. As soon as I realized what was motivating me I quit. We don’t need junkies like me wearing a badge. We need people in LE who aren’t sabotaged by their own adrenal glands.

    Based on your site, you seem to be genuinely interested in constructive solutions. Please give some thought to the issue of motivation by adrenaline.

  • Guest

    Are you hanging out here?

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

    It has been held over and over that a police officer does not forfeit his rights by applying for the job.

  • 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!

  • Dan Matthews

    Thank you!

  • John Galt

    Of course such measures would have to be grandfathered in, and then any new applicants would have the right to not apply. Everything that public officials do should be open to scrutiny.

    We should have a tiny government and about 10% of the laws we have now. LEOs should be properly screened, trained and compensated for the important and essential function they perform.

  • Catherine Todd

    This is outright terrifying. Thank God I don’t live in the United States anymore. How can this cop not be immediately charged with MURDER?

  • Dan Matthews

    I especially like the passage that says divorced women should be stoned to death.

  • 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.

  • Difdi

    No, I only read written words. But that’s enough.

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

    Dan, he also believes that it is armed robbery if police seize property from a person without a warrant and it is later adjudged to be improper.

    If the accused is a cop, Difdi will come up with all sorts of imaginative charges.

    He’s basically a good guy, but that’s one area you won’t convince him on. I know, he and I have debated that area quite a bit. I would just agree to disagree and move on.

  • Difdi

    I don’t know why you have such a hard on to “prove” me wrong on everything I say. The quality of your arguments, which were never all that solid to begin with, are getting really thin the way you are stretching them to “prove” how evil I am.

    You deserve a gold medal for your mental gymnastics to reach the conclusions you’re reaching though.

  • Dan Matthews

    So you are saying you have proof that he did this deliberately?

  • Dan Matthews

    PLEASE! Tell me you do not believe EVERYTHING you read!

  • Dan Matthews

    I had the same impression about him, until I got the message that was supposed to appeal to my fairness and reason.
    That blew him out of the water for me.
    But I will go with you on this.
    I guess he is a 4th grade teacher or drill instructor or something.

  • Dan Matthews

    Because it hasn’t been proven that he committed a murder yet?

  • Michelle Stevens

    Because in the not so great country of the United States, cops aren’t treated the same way normal folks are. They are free to murder citizens or attempt to murder citizens and before any “charges” are file, they do their little good ol’ boy investigation.

    This cop won’t be charged with murder and eventually once the press goes away he’ll get his job back and it’ll be all happy dandy.

  • Guest

    Sundance, I don’t know about you, but I’m rather proud of these inverted chevrons I am accumulating.
    Do you think I can put them on my dress greens and get away with it?

    Butch

  • Guest

    Quit your bitching and do something about it!
    You can start by sending Carlos $50 to support this site.

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

    Are you even aware of the hiring, background, and vetting process?

    What you propose is over the top and unconstitutional.

  • Dan Matthews

    Never solid! All I ever did was say the guy should get DP.
    My conclusions? Just that the guy deserves DP.

    As far as my appendages go, if you are offering a service, I’ll provide you my number.

    Any foolishness about you, you brought on yourself, I’m just happy to point them out for you.

  • Dan Matthews

    Maybe they are waiting for all the facts before they jump to an unwarranted conclusion.

  • Seth Levy

    Bullshit because the police officer didn’t run over the guy because of the stay belt infraction

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

    LOL. I gave up counting at about 100 or so.

  • Difdi

    Well, if someone goes out to his car, gets a gun, goes into a building and shoots someone, did he think about it before doing so?

    What if he has to go into another room and unlock a safe within the same building?

    Does a paired sunset and sunrise have to happen between the moment he decided to kill and the moment he does? A full 24 hours? A week?

    Can you premeditate in a few seconds? A few minutes? A few hours? At what point does a murder go from heat of the moment with intent to harm/kill (second degree) to premeditated (first degree)?

    Would a more thoughtful man premeditate more quickly than a hothead?

    There’s lots of variables there and quite a few of them are subjective.

  • Difdi

    It’s kinda hard to accidentally hunt someone down and fatally attack them with a dangerous weapon.

  • 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?

  • mavp

    From a cop? No, thanks.

  • Dan Matthews

    Sounds like those are all actions that could indicate premeditation, the only thing different being the time involved.
    They all seem to indicate some type of planned action, except for maybe something happening split second, but that still doesn’t mean it wasn’t planned ahead of time.

  • 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?

  • Difdi

    Driving through a field across rough terrain, crashing through a fence and steering to intercept someone to run them over would seem to require at least as much planned action as about half of my examples.

    It would certainly require intent to kill, since there can be no other result from running someone over with a car at 60 mph.

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

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

  • 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

    Isn’t that just the same as saying/implying, as most people do on this site, that as long as one cop is bad, they all are?

  • Dan Matthews

    The interesting conclusion I have drawn, perhaps for both of us, is that the inverted chevrons indicate we are getting our point across and it is correct, because it is opposed to the MOB mentality so prevalent here.

    I’ll explain.
    We both, I think, share the opinion that the majority of the statements being made, lets just say for this issue, are of a mob mentality, wanting to avoid Due Process.
    By getting the inverted chevrons we are in fact getting our point across that our comments are being judged in a negative manner by those with a “MOB” mentality, which is in fact what we want, as we do not believe in the unfounded MOB mentality.
    So, please, bring on those inverted chevrons or at least non at all.
    And those that give us an “up” chevron are at least showing us that they are perhaps taking a second look at how the MOB mentality runs.

    I believe Abraham Lincoln and the Founding Fathers would be proud of us for standing up to the MOB.

    Amen!

  • Dan Matthews

    Look at it in this light.
    If this was done by a civilian, it would be black and white, as there is no lawful/justifiable reason for a civilian to pursue another civilian in this manner, NONE! Conclusion, SOME FORM OF MURDER(?) HAS BEEN COMMITTED, LOCK HIM UP, INVESTIGATE ACCORDINGLY, because his actions were clearly illegal.

    But as it happened, there was a justifiable reason for this officer to be PURSUING the suspect. The results are unfortunate at the least.
    However, we will only know how justifiable (if at all) his actions were with an appropriate investigation and DUE PROCESS!
    So yes, like it or not a civilian would be treated differently than a LEO in this situation.

  • John Galt

    Forcing citizens to submit to pre-employment drug testing in order to work for companies with Federal Gov. contracts is no less “over the top” or unconstitutional.

    I think I touched a nerve with you on the adrenaline junkie issue. I believe its responsible for the majority of aberrant behavior from LEO’s. Addressing that single issue might make the biggest positive change for photographers at large.

    I really don’t get the distinction between “press” and an average citizen. People have a production studio/broadcasting station on their person now.

    Thank you guest, a donation to Carlos is in order. He has earned it.

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

    Police officers, at least in Texas and I presume in most states, submit to pre-employment drug screening, as well as psychological testing. If you don’t pass both, in addition to the other pre-employment tests and checks, you don’t get hired.

  • Difdi

    Given how laws on what makes you an accomplice or a conspirator work, there literally aren’t any good cops. Just cops who are less bad than others.

  • Dan Matthews

    Didn’t think you could.

  • Dan Matthews

    You mean like any human or profession.

  • Difdi

    Did you just call yourself a liar? =P

  • Dan Matthews

    Hmmmm, how did you come to that conclusion? I have to admit that I read the comments here with a different mindset, so I obviously draw different, more justifiable conclusions.

    The stage is yours!

  • Dan Matthews

    Hmmm. Not that I can see.

  • Dan Matthews

    Your comments which are not fact based:
    “Steering to intercept” nothing proved on that.
    “To run them over” sounds like an intentional act on his part which has not been proven.
    “Require at least as much planned………..” no proof what so ever that he made any plans to do this ahead of time.
    “…intent to kill” no proof yet that he intended to kill anyone.
    “..with a car at 60 mph..” again, no proof that the vehicle was going 60 mph, as the speed was an estimate from an unqualified individual.
    Again, you are indicating that you BELIEVE what you have read even though there is no fact to back it up.

    Now, if you want to object to what I have written here, please do, but also, please back your statements up with FACT.

    I have no doubt that an investigation COULD prove some of your conclusions correct, I always have, but until the FACTS are known, I will only refer to your statements are no more than unfounded opinion and should be viewed as such.

  • Difdi

    Do you apply the same standards to accusations against non-cops?

    By your standards of facts, personally witnessing an event would produce a fact, but nothing else, not even sworn testimony in court would qualify as a fact, nor would anything written in a book.

    You seem to have reduced reality to two extremes — directly witnessed facts and hearsay non-facts. If you truly believe that, you must feel like you’re surrounded by liars all the time, as they tell you about things they’ve seen as if they were facts, when in (your) reality, they’re blathering on about things that cannot be facts because YOU didn’t see them.

    It’s an odd way to live, but would tend to produce true facts more often than not. But do you actually live that way, or do you only apply that standard of factuality to accusations against police? Were the situation reversed, and police had issued statements about how they had strong evidence against a non-cop (as they often do when talking to reporters), would you be just as vehement in his defense?

  • Difdi

    I came to that conclusion from reading the words you chose to use and understanding the meanings of those words. After all, you wrote words and I read them — should I assume they are not true?

    Words have well-understood meanings, widely accepted in our society. If you read them while sharing that understanding, you share our understanding of meaning. But if you read them with a drastically different mindset, you will derive very different understanding because of your very different definitions.

    But are your conclusions more justifiable? That’s a hard claim to back up. If you’re misinterpreting words due to a drastically different mindset, then your understanding of what we are saying is delusional at best. You’re ‘hearing’ things in our speech that only exist in your mind, they don’t exist in our intent. Far from being more justifiable, your conclusions are less justifiable, since you are inserting meanings that were not there until you did so, then responding to things you only want us to have said.

    If that’s the case, then I’m not surprised if you’re reading things we didn’t write. It would explain why you seem to have a chip on your shoulder the size of a telephone pole to most of us, and why you spend most of your time arguing bitterly (and trollishly) with anyone who agrees with your position as if we were your deadly enemies.

  • Dan Matthews

    Your slipping again, trying very hard to put me down at your level, but I won’t go.

    I will say that if someones freedom or life is at stake, yes I feel the decision should be based on fact.
    At no time these days do my conversations with friends or acquaintances come close to those kinds of consequences.

    As far as how I live my life, I live it free and easy with no encomberances, real or implied.
    I’ve accomplished a great deal and have very well educated friends.

    And I know that the two goals I am embracing here, DP and FACT, are very legitimate goals.

    Unlike you, I work with facts in a situation like this and not on rumor or hearsay as you have already admitted to.

    NU’FF said.

  • Difdi

    How am I slipping? I’m describing your arguments using the meanings of the words you chose to string together. I am not trying to pull you down to my level, I’m trying to pull you up to it.

    What consequences does a photographer’s rights discussion forum pose for an accused police officer hundreds or thousands of miles away from the forum commenters? You’re arguing with photographers, not jurors or judges. You’re certainly not arguing with a vigilante army, except possibly in your own deluded mind.

    Your definition of due process does not match the definition of it in use by the legal system.

    Your definition of fact means that were I to apply it to you, I could not factually state that I am replying to you here.

    And then there’s the way you spout off nonsense, refuse to listen to reason, refuse to accept that you might be wrong on anything…and then declare the conversation over.

    Well, I can declare you wrong too. You’re wrong, END OF DISCUSSION. Hmm, seems reality doesn’t agree with me the same way it doesn’t agree with you. Stop declaring arguments over just because you declared them to be with no actual facts to back up your claims.

  • Dan Matthews

    LOL! You must be believing your own propaganda.
    I’m not arguing with anyone, especially not you.
    My statements are clear and concise to anyone with an open mind and it appears obvious to me that it lets you out.

    Sorry I could not put it into a format that a 4th grader could understand, but it seems obvious you have a learning disability I can’t get through to.

  • Difdi

    Pot, meet kettle? My statements are also clear and concise to anyone with an open mind. Before you complain of the mote in my eye, remove the beam from yours. You can remove the telephone pole-sized chip from your shoulder at the same time and we’ll all benefit.

    Everything you have accused me of now, and in this stupidly long argument is something you have done first, with less cause. You don’t read, you don’t comprehend, you assume malice where there is none, then react in a way that is justifiable only if that malice actually exists…which it doesn’t. When your errors are pointed out to you, you insist you cannot possibly make mistakes, that any mistakes must be on the part of everyone else in the world if not reality itself.

    I submit to you that if your statements are so clear and concise, why is it that you are the only person in this forum that understands you? Either everyone here has a closed mind without exception (and you are therefore wasting your time here) or you are not as clear and concise as you think you are.

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

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

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

    The initial violation was a seat belt. Pursuits, whether vehicular or foot, are evaluated based on the initial reason for contact in almost all departments.

  • Seth Levy

    So based on that logic it would be a good bet to just drive off if getting pulled over for a minor infraction? If I ever get caught texting while driving I will keep that in mind.

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

    It depends on the department. Many will still chase minor violations. Most restrict it in some way. My old department wouldn’t pursue unless it was a violent felony.

    Besides, if the officer does it right, he’ll already have your license plate before he lights you up. I’ve made several arrests by breaking off the pursuit and going to the owner’s house to wait for him to drive up.

    Larger cities may have you followed by an air unit until you stop, then the ground units will come in.

    Do you think that it is worth risking a felony evasion charge to get out of a ticket?

  • Epi

    Were I a jurist in this case, I would consider that anyone deciding to drive off-road in a non-off-road vehicle has made a decision. To drive off-road at excessive speed is also a choice. There is also a difference between driving behind and off to one side of a man on foot, and driving 40-80mph (as someone suggested the range was) directly behind the man on foot so as to make it more likely the man would be run over. You can get a ticket for not figuring out how to stop before the white line of a crosswalk in time. I think if a cop is chasing a man on foot in a vehicle traveling at freeway speeds, so close as to cause instant death were the cop unable to stop in time…he made that decision. Someone pointed out that bystanders aren’t trained to know vehicle speeds…fine, you can’t have it both ways…so the cop knew how fast he was going, and how fast the guy on foot was going and deliberately decided to maintain speed and direction.

    If I decide, as a cop, to fire a warning shot at someone and fire into the air and hit nothing, that’s one thing.. but if I decide to fire directly at the person I am chasing and the bullet hits and kills that person, I have just committed murder, no matter how much I want to justify my actions and pretend that I really and truly didn’t mean to kill the guy…he just got in the way of my bullet.

    And I am one of the many who firmly believe that this cop will get off scot free. I am pretty sure had the other cops gone back to the car the man fled from and shot dead every one of the passengers, it would just be chalked up to a horrible set of unforeseen circumstances and every cop would walk. Not a doubt in my mind.

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

    “If I decide, as a cop, to fire a warning shot at someone and fire into the air and hit nothing, that’s one thing”

    Except get fired at just about every department in the nation. No one allows warning shots, except in the movies.

  • Arizona

    AT ONE TIME in america,this would never happen,BUT THAT WAS 50 years ago,THE POLICE GANGS cover their ass and americans are being KILLED everyday,BY THE POLICE GANGS,worse,THE CHILDREN are now victims more and more now days,AND AMERICANS keep right on sucking like its no big deal,cowards,americans are cowards and girlymen,how far has america fallen,and now your DADDY OBAMA THE ANTI-CHRIST,is going to destroy you,WELL YOU HAVE THAT COMING COWARDS……………………..

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

    Gee, I’m glad you told us that he’s the anti-christ.

    Here’s your sign.

PINAC

PINAC Logo cutout copy
Be the Media