Skip to main content

View Diary: Mentally Ill Homeless Man Beaten to Death by Fullerton Police (266 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You still haven't answered the question. Now (0+ / 0-)

    you've been reduced to lying by false implication. Nowhere in any of our exchanges will you  find any statement by me which would permit you to suggest or state that I even have an opinion about the evidence shown to date, because no such conversation has taken place.
    You are trying to redirect third-party eyes to the non-existent shiny object, so you can get them to ignore that I've repeatedly only asked you one thing: DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT SUPPORT EQUAL CHARGING FOR CRIMES REGARDLESS OF THE PROFESSION (OR LACK THEREOF) OF THE ACCUSED INDIVIDUALS.

    Mr. President, if you've kept all your commitments to my civil rights, then you never made enough commitments in the first place.

    by davidincleveland on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 06:22:18 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Reading comprehension problem? (0+ / 0-)
      If the investigation determined that there was, indeed, an intent to kill (on the part of even one of the cops), then they could all be charged with murder - and should be.
       You continue to insist that the key question is what these guys will be charged with, when the real question - in this case and every other - is what can be proved in court sufficient to justify a conviction, and the status of the defendant - cop, gangbanger, or otherwise - does not matter.

      So to answer the question that you pose: it is irrelevant.  The status of the individuals would not matter; the only factor which would matter in charging these guys is what could be proved in court.

      I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

      by Wayward Wind on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 08:09:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I asked you whether YOU support equal charging. (0+ / 0-)

        My quesion was never framed as a query about the merits of this case, or as a discussion of what could be proved in court, or any of the other bs you've thrown up. My question was directed at how YOU feel about charging cops the same as gang members. I told you in my first comment that I would judge your credibility based on how YOU feel about charging cops the same as 'civilians' and it therefore can't be irrelevant to my purpose, which was to reveal your true character.
        You have already answered the question over and over, by refusing to honestly and directly engage it. You know very well that if you say you would charge them the same, I'm going to come back with followup questions designed to elicit proof of the truth of your first answer. And if you say you would hold cops to a lower standard, that response would be on DK's servers 'forever.'
        15 years as a defense attorney should have taught you never to respond to character attacks on the record unless you can refute and shut off the attack with actual evidence that your character is above reproach. Your smart move would have been to ignore my original comment. Once you engaged, you couldn't help but 'verify through evasion' the point I was trying to raise in the minds of the other users on the thread.
        Here is what I wanted other users to understand. When a cop or ex cop says

        Were I deciding charges, every cop who participated in the beating would be charged with manslaughter at minimum..
        ask him or her whether "manslaughter at minimum" would be the charges s/he would use against gang members in the same sort of event, because his/her response will speak to the possibility of a double standard.
        You knew this, and knew that if you said "no double standard here, I would charge EVERYONE the same," my next set of questions would have been on your actual record in charging gang members and fellow officers. Your responses would be researchable, and by making them you would have waived your right to confidentiality and privacy. You would have done so at a site filled with hundreds of crackerjack researchers, including other lawyers, hordes of paralegals, academics, and Anonymous.
        Your evasive non-answers have satisfied my suspicions, and probably didn't go unnoticed by others. Thanks for your cooperation. I won't say it's been fun. Exposing the real character of posers in an activist setting is a nasty job but a necessary one, as I found out in the '60s.

        Mr. President, if you've kept all your commitments to my civil rights, then you never made enough commitments in the first place.

        by davidincleveland on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 10:28:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site