Anaheim police prove to be lying murderers (no surprise there)

In late July, Anaheim police shot an unarmed suspect, Manuel Diaz in the back. Mr. Diaz was standing outside a car and talking to two men. Police started to question Mr. Diaz and he ran. Police chased him down and shot him. Witnesses present confirmed Mr. Diaz was then shot in the head. A video taken by a witness records the witness shouting that Diaz is still alive. However, police stood around and did nothing (video here).

Even though no one (not even the pigs) are yet disputing Mr. Diaz was running away when he was shot in the back, police still claim they opened fire because they were in fear of their lives (here). Oh, my. What kind of pathetic excuse of a coward perceives a person running away to be a fatal threat? Police claim they shot in self-defense, but this is because the same rules and laws do not apply to police. Anyone else who shot a fleeing human being in the back would immediately be charged with murder.

While mainstream media is quick to accuse Mr. Diaz of being an illegal immigrant, a gang member, and all other types of nonsense, these theories have been set forth only by the the people responsible for the murder (the police) and have been confirmed by no other sources.

And if we want to play that game, I’ll add this – It is unknown whether the police who shot had any prior criminal history. It is suspected the officer involved had prior disciplinary records. Others suspect the police involved had a habitual propensity for violence and excessive measures.  It is unknown whether any of the police involved have in the past been accused of rape, sexual assault, or child molestation. It is currently unknown whether the officer who shot Mr. Diaz has been accused of pedophilia.

Several days later, Anaheim police shot Joel Acevedo, claiming he fired on police. As this is the same police department that claims shooting someone in the back is an act of self-defense, only the dumbest human beings on the face of the earth should take police statements at face value.

In a third police-related shooting, Anaheim police opened fire on a burglary suspect. Surely, most people will not have much sympathy for a burglar – but most should agree the punishment for burglary should not be attempted execution on sight.

And I know many of our dear Cop Block readers are not very impressed with the Constitution or American law, but the police, the government, and the laws they claim to enforce sure pretend to be, so let’s argue on their terms.

It is not a crime to refuse to speak to police. In fact, that is a “right” under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Even the fiercest police advocates should have a hard time explaining how something can be a “right” if one can be shot and killed for exercising that “right”. It is unknown whether the police involved in the shooting of Mr. Diaz are aware of, or have ever read the United States Constitution, but it is also unconstitutional to shoot a fleeing felon in the back, for the mere act of fleeing (see Supreme Court majority opinion in Tennessee v. Garner).

Understandably, residents of Anaheim were incensed. They took to protesting, again, allegedly a First Amendment right. The police in Anaheim appear to be unfamiliar with the First Amendment, which sets forth that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Apparently, what that actually means is that Congress shall make plenty of laws, and unleash violent police officers to quash dissent. Police dogs were “accidentally” unleashed and bit people. Hundreds of people gathered to protest outside the police station. At one point, police shot rubber bullets at women and children. Police also used “less-than-lethal” rounds against a crowd of 1,000 people who protested a City Council meeting later that evening.

“I don’t have a problem with people exercising their First Amendment rights,” Police Chief John Welter said. “I do have a problem when people start throwing bottles and rocks at my officers.” No, of course not. We couldn’t have that. We can have police shooting recklessly and killing random people, but when the peons revolt, then we truly have a problem.



Georgia Sand

Georgia (George) Sand is an attorney located in sunny California. She enjoys beer, jogging, the beach, music, and chatting with her cats in her spare time.

  • t.

    @Sand: You are misusing Garner v Tenn. You also apparently don’t understand that you have the right to peaceable assemble. Watch the “protest” videos….far from “peaceable”.

    There may be / are legimate questions to be asked here. Riots in the streets aren’t going to get to the answers.If the police did something wrong, they should be held accountable. But youmconsistantly ignore and reject that non police should also be held accountable. As exhibit…the video you reference. It has already Bennett posted on this site, and exposed that it doesn’t show what it is represented to. The police secure the scene and wait for rescue personnel. As they should.

    Again, why this shooting took place I certainly don’t know yet. But you absolutely don’t know either. To accuse the police of wrong doing without knowledge is irresponsible.

  • Common Sense


    again, sands has not a clue what she’s doing. Diaz, dead in the yard, was not a crime scene. EMTs and the like will rush in, dump gloves, airway kits and all matter of equipment, for what? Show?

    Perhaps Diaz diarmed the officer and a struggle ensured. Perhaps it was a ‘waistband’ shooting. Given the weeks it will take for a corners report, Sands only object is to stir the pot, rather then wait for facts. Queen of the spin and master of the assumption, she should work for the ACLU, but she’ll have to actually get her bar card to do it and her incorrect referene to Tenn v Garner only shows her D level understand of the law.

  • Maurice Clemmons Devil Slayer

    Once again, 1 of these vermin has murdered somebody and the higher ups are going to determine what happened and make changes. Nothing’s ever going to change. These animals are going to continue murdering people more and more often as time passes until people finally get fed up with it. If somebody were to shoot 1 (or 4 in the case of Maurice Clemmons) of these rats in the back of the head as was done to Manuel Diaz, it’s fellow rats would hunt him down like a pack of rabid dogs. But when they murder somebody they get a paid vacation.

  • Common Sense

    Poor Maurice, maybe you should donate to Copblock. Maybe run for public office. You could ‘act locally’ and whatnot. Don’t give up hope..

  • Pingback: Anaheim police prove to be lying murderers (no surprise there) | OccuWorld()

  • dougo

    I don,t know ANYBODY in police/govt, service who doesn,t lie,cheat,steal,or sellout like any gangster,mobster,or cartel.

  • Jay

    i’m waiting for people to start shooting back and Anaheim seems like a good place to start. i don’t condone violence but i don’t turn the other cheek either. cops who kill deserve to die.

  • Shawn

    Perhaps Diaz diarmed the officer and a struggle ensured. Perhaps it was a ‘waistband’ shooting.


    Time and again, cops use the waistband excuse when they shoot someone and they don’t have a gun, Then woner why people don’t believe them.

    Cops should be restricted from shooting unless there is a clear threat aimed at them or an innocent. If you don’t actually see a gun come out, don’t shoot. Assumption is the mother of all fuckups.

  • jpcfourth

    @common sense

    I would really like to see a full post written by you, regarding your stance on this whole situation. Your thoughts on the actions of the police and the response from the community we trust them to protect. Submit a post please.

  • AmericanThePoliceState

    That is a stupid and criminal offense. If your in fear of your life you quit running towards the threat not continue to chase an unarmed man while firing your pistol at the back of his head.

    Immediate public execution for Violent offenders including officers who commit murder upon conviction of course but Trials should be manditory not a wrist slap for officers.

    Abuse of the american justice system starts from the top down.

  • t.

    @doudo: You forgot to say “myopic”. You always say myopic.

  • heidi

    @ t. and Common Sense – the author clearly states: “And if we want to play that game, I’ll add this…” making it clear that it’s strictly speculation. Cops and media do that all the time. I personally have knowledge of the way police reports can and have been almost entire works of fiction, spun to their benefit. I don’t personally condone “fighting fire with fire.” Two wrongs don’t make a right…and there’s something to be said for taking the high road, having integrity – but the tone of the article is obviously sarcastic and likely comes from the frustration of people who are disgusted with the FACT that cops are literally getting away with murder in this country.

  • Common Sense

    Perhaps, once the facts are gathered, investigations are done and verified, statements are collected, witness(es) are interviewed and fact checked, ME results are in, maybe then I would.

    …but unlike most Copblockers, I rather prefer to wait to the facts are in before making a snap judgement.

  • t.

    @Heidi: Sand clearly is not writing as “speculation”. She is presenting speculation as fact. She is wrongly applying a very significant US Supreme Court case to try and inflame emotions. And not to be flippant, but post / link us to this reports that entirely fictional. Please keep in mind that just because a report isn’t written like you remember, doesn’t make it”fiction”. Memories are seen from only one point of view…kinda like a dash board camera. It only records one angle, straight ahead.. You saw whatever event from one point of view (an did the police). The only “edge” the I would give to the police in the accounts of things over others is that they are used to recording events. They also aren’t usually emotional invested in situations. But this article is just emotion filled, with an anti police bias. The bias is OK, but presenting things as “fact” that aren’t fact is not helpful to anyone.

  • Yankee Fan

    To agree with T and common sense, the biggest issue copblocker types have here is this deep emotional hatred of police which then clouds their judgment in postings. I think above all else, it is important to be intellectualy honest. I read stories that are so poorly written that I just dismiss it as dribble and if someone can’t respond intelligently then it is best to not respond because calling someone a stupid head seems to make you look devoid of any reasonable thought process. Like Jim Rome says “Have a take and don’t suck”.

  • certain

    “They also aren’t usually emotional invested in situations.” Oh really? Then why would they wrongfully and routinely shoot, beat, lie, falsify evidence, and cover up for other cops that do the same? Not emotionally invested, huh? So what exactly drives these actions? Seems to me that steroid induced paranoia and rage are emotions. And she did write as speculation, idiot, as she prefaced all of the statements with “And if we want to play that game….” in reference to the police predilection towards automatically labeling somebody as a “known gang member” or “drug abuser” to dehumanize them and lessen the impact of a wrongful shooting. And exactly where is she wrong, anyway? We don’t know if any of the cops involved have a secret meth habit that is clouding their judgement, or if any of them are thieves, or child molesters. So why should we assume that they are all perfect little members of society? From a non-cop point of view cops are the ones who are not to be trusted. The ones who aren’t doing things wrong cover for the ones who do, so the whole pack are not to be trusted in either word or deed.

  • t.

    @certain: Perfect proof of what I and Yankee Fan said. Thanks.

  • Jason

    @common sense

    You say people should wait for the coroners report and other evidence to come out, which could take weeks, before pushing to punish the murderous officers.

    If I were to shoot a cop and that shooting was caught on tape or Published information saying I had pulled the trigger, just like in this case; do you think I would be in jail (or beat-up/killed by the cops on the way there) or do you think the cops would wait weeks for reports to come out before deciding to arrest me?

  • Common Sense


    Well said…

  • Common Sense

    Granted reporting is incomplete, there has been to date, appriximately 156 people who had been shot and killed by the police.

    It should also be noted that a majority were not unarmed.

    So even now, with the ‘evil boot of oppression’ on the neck of the people, this still has the makings for the ‘safest’ year for the citizens from the evil police…

    Then again, I’m sure there will be a few more nutters who will ‘take one for the team’ before years end.

  • 2minutes

    “Please keep in mind that just because a report isn’t written like you remember, doesn’t make it”fiction”. Memories are seen from only one point of view…kinda like a dash board camera.’

    Wrong. Despite what you may ‘remember’, if what is written is not the truth, it is by default fiction; otherwise, any work of fiction can be called the truth just by claiming that “that was how I remember it’, thereby eliminating the entire genre of fiction itself. Truth is what actually occurred, despite absurdly poor recollection, and fiction is claiming something occurred that in reality did not, whether deliberate or as a consequence of poor recall.
    As an adjunct to this discussion, perhaps you could enlighten me as to why it is that a police officer with an imperfect memory gets a pass on his or her cognitive functioning, but a suspect, innocent or guilty, can be prosecuted for the same error in recall under the guise of lying to the police? Why is there such a double standard when it comes to applying the law to an individual employed in law-enforcement versus an individual employed in just about any other capacity?

  • 2minutes


    “Granted reporting is incomplete, there has been to date, appriximately 156 people who had been shot and killed by the police.

    It should also be noted that a majority were not unarmed.”

    In light of the facts presented below, it would appear that your statistics may be a bit skewed:

    “Want detailed information on how many people were shot by police in the United States last year?

    That’s not so easy to find.

    The nation’s leading law enforcement agency collects vast amounts of information on crime nationwide, but missing from this clearinghouse are statistics on where, how often, and under what circumstances police use deadly force. In fact, no one anywhere comprehensively tracks the most significant act police can do in the line of duty: take a life.

    “We don’t have a mandate to do that,” said William Carr, an FBI spokesman in Washington, D.C. “It would take a request from Congress for us to collect that data.”

    Congress, it seems, hasn’t asked.

    The FBI, which has the power to conduct civil rights investigations related to any questionable use of deadly force by any law enforcement agency, has produced at least one report analyzing shootings over several years by its own agents.

    In addition, the agency tracks the total annual number of “justifiable homicides,” acts it defines as “the killing of a felon by a law enforcement officer in the line of duty,” but that only covers people shot while committing a serious crime and the data aren’t broken down by agency. In 2010, that number was 387, down from 414 the year before.

    While the agency collects, reports, and analyzes murders and assaults where police are the victim, Carr said budgetary concerns would likely preclude collecting such detailed data on shootings by police.

    Everyone from the Justice Department to the International Association of Police Chiefs to local and state police agencies have guidelines or policies on use of deadly force. But seldom do they try to quantify and analyze trends.”

    So, the only statistics tracked are those relating to a serious crime, involving a felon – referred to as justifiable homicide – and incidents where the police are the victims. Nothing about innocent people gunned down by police, like, for instance, a wrong home raid that ends in the death of the occupant.

    This makes the statistics somewhat suspect, doesn’t it?

  • t.

    @2: Police reports aren’t generally written in a vaccum. They are most often a composite. They contain officers observations (and like it or not…police are trained observers. One of our primary goals is in for action gathering), witness statements. When you, or in this case Sand, interviews just one person, and gets just one view, the audience is only given 1 camera shot.

  • Common Sense


    Odd, I have the circumstances surrounding all 156.

  • 2minutes

    ‘Police reports aren’t generally written in a vacuum’ – what does that mean, exactly? Granted, we don’t live in a vacuum, so no action taken by anyone is done in a vacuum; this does not by default mean that police reports are accurate. Quite the opposite, in fact; as it appears that camera evidence seems to refute the official police report more and more often. So much for police being trained observers; which, by the way, is also more fiction than fact; so much so that the last time I was on jury duty the selectees were informed in no uncertain terms by the judge that a police officer’s word is given no additional weight in the courtroom than the average citizen. That is telling in and of itself.

    Now, a composite is something made up of several parts (like the truth and some lies perhaps..) ; I think you mean a collaboration; which is a red flag in and of itself as it suggests that the report
    is one in which everyone involved has had the time to discuss and agreed upon the statements made, then taken the time to weigh the pros and cons of each statement before deciding how they would play the incident in the best possible light for the officers involved. I repeat: a report that does not tell the truth, as evidenced by video, still photo, or even enough eye-witness testimony, is a fiction, intentional or not, and your reply suggests that the reports are a matter of committee, whereby the final report is documented via a decision-making process of mutual self-interest on the part of the report’s writers. Seems that there is a great penchant for bias to creep into the report by doing it in this fashion, doesn’t it?

  • 2minutes

    Perhaps for the ones that you have, but again, it appears that not all of these incidents are tracked, as noted in the previous post:

    ‘So, the only statistics tracked are those relating to a serious crime, involving a felon – referred to as justifiable homicide – and incidents where the police are the victims. Nothing about innocent people gunned down by police, like, for instance, a wrong home raid that ends in the death of the occupant.’

    Let’s face it, law enforcement is not interested in policing themselves and therefor has no interest in tracking its own unjustified uses of force; its easier to track statistics that show only the data that you want to support your own position.

  • t.

    @2: I love how you decided to use “collaboration” and and added lots biased, baseless statements. As I thought I explained, police reports, especially reports concerning larger incidents, are as I said, a composite. I think you just have a bias and a complete lack of police procedure…and you buy into what is sold on this site and others. Let me explain: as example – let’s use a bank robbery. Now, there will probably several officers involved, some securing the scene, some interviewing witnesses / victims, some searching for evidence, maybe some tracking suspects. Now let’s say I’m the first officer there. I’ll write the main report. Each of those other officers should write a supplemental report to mine, detailing their actions. Some will include interviews, some descriptions of evidence locations or suspect tracks…whatever. now where I work, there is an indepenant law enforcement agency that process crime scenes and collects all evidence. They will in there case write an independent report associated to mine. Now back in then day, as the many guy, I would have had go around and collect all of those hand written reports. With computers, everyone does theirs bythemselves. The result is a ccomposite of what happened. Your portrayal as a “collaboration” and then describing as officers sitting there together, talking about what happened and organizing 1 report from that, with a unified story isn’t accurate. Lots of police reports have stories that don’t neccesarily agree because officer aren’t always at the same place, seeing the exact same thing. I’ve written lots of reports that differed, sometimes dramatically, from other officers reports on the same incident. They didn’t lie and neither did I. It’s just different angles on the scene. That is why I ALWAYS call for calm and not “street justice”. In OIS or any shooting really, Cop Blockers start demanding answers immediately. But statements before all of the facts are known can be very bad for everyone. As a matter of full disclosure, I was discussing this topic with some coworkers. We all agreed that while trying any case in the press is bad and wrong, a total information black out is also bad. But all need to remember that evidence analysis isn’t an instant thing. Blood, ballistics, DNA, fiber analysis, whatever…can take quite awhile. Resources are limited and there are other things going on too.

    My use of the camera example apparently passed you. But since you brought it back up, it is an excellent example. That stationary camera doesn’t show all of the or often even most of what happens. Just was watch NFL football. They use multiple cameras and angles to review plays. Your statement that a police report is alive if it includes something that isn’t in the video…I say see the NFL example.

  • Anti Cop

    Common Sense said in part on August 1, 2012 at 9:14 am…

    “Granted reporting is incomplete, there has been to date, appriximately 156 people who had been shot and killed by the police. It should also be noted that a majority were not unarmed.”


    How many of those 156 killings (being done under the color of law) were really murders by the cops while being covered up in some way, shape or form?

    It’s easy enough (as we have seen) to shoot someone in the back and easily cover it up under the guise of “Officer Safety”! Years ago just about every cop who walked a beat carried some type of “throw down” that could be used in a unarmed victim shooting.

    Anti Cop

  • Common Sense


    Well, in your mind, all of them were murders so its a moot point.

    Take some time, and research them. Some were/look questionable (Bronx, Culpepper), others are clearly justified.

  • Common Sense


    Again, you have to know where to look. Just looking at FBI stats is but one source.

    If you actually look, police shootings (fatal and non) are not only news worthy, but are reported, recorded and reviewed in several areas.

  • Pingback: Stop Being a Passive, Brainwashed, Obedient Sheeple! (and other news…) » Scott Lazarowitz's Blog()

  • Maurice Clemmons Devil Slayer

    4 people who witnessed this said these vermin tried to buy their celular phones from them. Now why would they do that? To supress evidence? The next time that 1 of these animals tries to rape a woman I hope she blows it’s fucking brains out. And the next time 1 of them molests a child I hope the childs parents blow it’s brains out.

  • t.

    @Slayer: Not to be insulting but read what you wrote and think about it. If the officers blatantly murdered someone, why do think they would “buy” the phones instead of just seizing them? Keeping that in mind, why do you think I should believe someone who says that? I shouldn’t.

  • 2minutes

    I understand what you mean when you use the term composite, but you disregard the term collaboration as applied to police reports, calling it inaccurate. you also claim that I am biased, and lack understanding of police procedure; instead I am simply buying into what is sold on this site. Allow me to enlighten you on this subject:

    Most of my family, and many of my friends, are in law enforcement in some capacity. For a long time I was fully supportive of the career path, but over time I have begun to see how insidious it really is, ; that being said, I have had many discussions about procedures and arrests and various other aspects of the job with them; and I have a pretty good working knowledge of the basics, and a very good reference source if I need clarification on an issue. I know how reports are written, clarified, altered, and otherwise manipulated, and the things to keep in mind when writing them; as well as what not to write and why. I maintain that at least some are in fact written by committee, and composite reports only keep the facts that support a certain point of view , and frequently omit certain other facts that might shine a light of a different hue on the proceedings.

    I never said a police report is a lie if it includes something not in the video, I said it is a lie if the video shows something that contradicts the report, since the camera is an impassionate observer recording exactly what it sees and the report is, in your terms, a ‘different angle on the scene’, and one that would be, at best, incorrect due to human vagarities.

    Now, I do not purport to know you, and you may well be a model police officer, doing everything perfectly with the best interests of all firmly in mind. I do not mean to suggest otherwise. But, you have to accept the fact that the more and more people are becoming uneasy with the police in general, as there are so many abuses perpetrated by police (look to injustice everywhere, now at the Cato Institute under the name for daily updates of police malfeasance), and as a result, individuals such as myself are beginning to question much of what we accepted as standard operating procedure as regards to law enforcement. When a police officer can kill with impunity (again, wrong home raids, the infamous “reached for the waistband” excuse, especially when no weapon is involved, et al), arrest without cause, entrap citizens, lie to non-law enforcement as a matter of course (yet arrest anyone who would dare lie to them), break traffic rules without consequence, interpret the law as they see fit, and generally act as if the law does not apply to them, all while holding the rest of us up to a standard that they abandoned, then the police as a whole are no better, and in fact worse (after all, they are supposed to be held to a higher standard, yet are held to none at all it seems) than the criminals they are supposed to protect us from. There is a definite PR problem here that makes trusting the police very difficult; perhaps if an officer were treated like anyone else when they commit a wrong, we might be able to trust police again, but instead excuses are made, information is hidden, and punishments are barely a slap on the wrist, if meted out at all. It seems that there is little incentive for an officer to act as a bastion of law, since, even when wrong, he will be protected via qualified immunity, and the aggrieved party usually has to file a lawsuit for any relief at all, which is paid by the taxpayers while the officer receives a nice paid vacation while it is all sorted out (administrative leave with pay). It seems the system itself is set up to encourage abuse, doesn’t it?

    P.S. why is it that when it is an officer’s word, its ‘poor memory’ and ‘different angles on a scene’, but if it is a suspect that is in error, then its a lie? Also, while we’re on the subject, why is it that these ‘trained observers’ make so many mistakes? After all, much of what people are charged with are based on these ‘trained’ observations, yet you mentioned above that you have “written lots of reports that differed, sometimes dramatically, from other officers reports on the same incident” – how many people were fined or jailed on these disparate trained observations?

  • t.

    @2: I have commented many times on this site, and will again now, how I find it funny that the police are portrayed as both sloth creatures suckling at the taxpayer tit, and in the same breath that we somehow sit around and plan on harassing people, falsifying evidence, murder,and now collaboration reports. Dude, I have over 16 years in this business. I’ve worked for a smaller suburban department around 70 officers and a large urban department of over a thousand. I done everything from street patrol, training officer, special operations, SWAT, drug investigations and worked as a police supervisor.I’ve been the lead on murder investigations, federal drug and weapons cases, and darn near everything else. Other than clarifying a strange or odd sounding statement, I have NEVER been asked, or ever asked anyone, to change a report. The “collaboration” you speak of is a myth at best. When these events happen, the rest of the city doesn’t just stop…those cals keep coming and many of the same officers at these incidents have to go to those calls to. This patrol room report by committee just doesn’t happen. There simply aren’t enough of us to allow time for it.

    The video statement passed by you again. Try this experiment I guess. Set up your camera in a stationary placedo something on, and then something off camera. I know that sounds overly simplistic…but that’s what it is. Video and audio don’t neccesarlily tell the whole story.Other things occur. Police dash cameras for example, only sho what is dirctdirectly ahead of the car. When I can I bring everyone directly in front of the car to get as much as I can on tape. But even then, the camera may miss subtle things. Body movement / language, eye movement on dwi’s, small movements. The camera is an excellent tool, but it Nevers tells the whole story. Now I will absolutely agree with you that when the are big differences between the officers / witness stories and the video, there could be a problem.

    As for the trusting police thing. All I can really say about that is that in over 16 years of being “the police” the only people that I’ve dealt with the didn’t trust the police, or feared the police, needed to be afraid. They needed to be looking over their shoulder all the time. The greatest professional tribute I was ever paid is the knowledge that the thugs went in when they knew I was working, and the good people won. This everyone hates and fears the police is as stupid as saying OWS represents anyone other than the goofballs involved in that movement. I’ve commented before….where I work the citizens contact the city council asking to have their taxes increased to hire more police officers. They want more of me because they want less of the drug users, the robbers, the thieves, the murders.

    As for police misconduct. Sure, it happens. Nobody wants that. But your understanding of what happens after that is obviously limited, very Cop Blocker like. Officers who do it wrong get punished all the time, it is the fallacy of this site. Just a simple, cursory search of the site shows officer’s being held accountable all the time. For some dumb ass reason, Cop Blockers want to demand instant access to all information and immediate “justice”. A perfectexample would be the OIS in Culpepper VA. The D.A. in that case didn’t try that case in the press, which was right. He waited until all of the evidence was back and then he moved fforward, again as he should have. Does that mean the officer did something wrong? Not neccesarily. But after just a few months, the case moved forward. As for other police discipline…just because you don’t know about it, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. And just because it isn’t what you think should have happened, doesn’t mean something didn’t happen. Most states have open records laws, you can get the information if you ask. But a blanket statement that the police “kill with impunity”, or for that matter do anything with impunity, is uneducated at best.

    And as for the differences in the reports. Guy, listen…I’ll go slow. If I see something different at the back of the house than another officer saw at the front of the house, doesn’t mean either of us lied. Even on something smaller like a vehicle stop. The officer dealing directly with the driver may not see the passenger shove a gun under the seat. I may see it while I’m helping him. That would be to very different reports…neither one containing any lies. You are again looking for some kind of conspiracy that doesn’t exist. And I don’t see many mistakes on reports. About the only thing that happens is “choppy” statements. And what I mean by that is officers who are involved in whatever incident know what happened. So when they write the report, it can sometime be kind of “choppy” when I read it because they know what happened and their brains are filling in the blanks that they might not have actually written out. And YES, I will send those reports back to them to clarify those statements, so that they make since, not so that everything “agrees”.

    You seem like a pretty bright person, don’t be lead down this path of “big brother” is organizedagainst you. That isn’t the case. Most people never come into any contact with thepolice. Most of those that do come into contact with the police is due to some sort of traffic stop. Those that have more intimate contact….have that contact for very good reason. I (we) just don’t have the time nor the care to sit around thinking up ways to frame people for no reason. It just doesn’t happen like that.

  • Common Sense

    “buy” their cellphones?

  • Shawn

    I would love to know if there is any documentation on the buy cell phones thing.

    “Just a simple, cursory search of the site shows officer’s being held accountable all the time. ”

    Yes, and also shows that outright felonies often don’t get prosecuted as such. The officers area punished administratively, where loosining their job is a big deal.
    Look at the cops who thought a high speed chase would be fun. Only one lost his job, and no charges filed.
    Look at the cop who stole a laptop from the evidence room and was simply allowed to quit, keeping his employment record clear.

    Look at officer harless of canton ohio and his illegal behavior. He should have been charged for what he did, not simply fired.

    There is a double standard, and you know it.

  • t.

    @Shawn: There is misconduct in e very walk of life. Form doctors and lawyer to Taco Bell workers and the unemployed. (Btw…if you want to zee real corruption that goes unpunished, look at doctors and lawyers…their malpractice settlements and misconduct is truly frightening).

    What you are missing / not aware of this there is a tremendous amount of discipline on police officers. The standards that we are held to is so ridiculously high as to be nealy unobtainable.A guy I work with just got written up for not using the correct spacing on an internal memo. The tag line of Cop Block”, the Badges don’t grant extra rights deal, is right on target…just not for the reason it was intended. We have nearly no defense or recourse against the frivolous and basless complaints that get lodged against us all the time. I have been lucky enough that on 2 very serious complaints of excessive force that where filed against me that there was video of both incidents, from independent sources (not poll e dash can as in neither case would it have been on) that not only clearly me, but also allowed me to sue the complainants successfully I highly recommend to any officer that they demand complaints be filed in writing or recorded and then follow up and aggressively sue those who file this false complaints (pocketed 5 brand off of one guy and he had to sell damn near everything he had to pay…served him right).

    But to sum…the “double standard” that you speak of is largely fictional. There certainly are instances, but they are very few when viewed in totality.

  • Pingback: theCL Report: Extremism normalized()

  • 2minutes

    On collaboration: I give you the Kelly Thomas murder –

    “On July 5, 2011, six police officers in Fullerton savagely beat to death Kelly Thomas, a slim 34-year-old man whom acquaintances described as a “passive and gentle person.” This event has generated angry public protests in Fullerton in addition to widespread shock and revulsion internationally.

    In the immediate aftermath of the killing, the six officers involved were permitted to watch a video of the beating before preparing their official reports. Nothing could more clearly expose the open collaboration of city officials with the police department to cover up the killing and protect the officers involved.

    Police officers in the US are traditionally not permitted to view videotapes before preparing their reports in situations where lethal force was used; this prevents the officers from concocting a story that “conforms” to the evidence.

    At the same time, the city contemptuously refused a request from the Los Angeles Times for a copy of the video, and even refused to publicly name the officers involved on the grounds that the officers’ “safety” would be jeopardized.

    City authorities subsequently announced that an internal investigation would take place, but immediately after he was appointed, the chief investigator announced that he would put his investigation on hold until after the completion of state and federal investigations—in other words, indefinitely.”

    So, it appears that it does happen after all. Or do you think that they watched the video in silence, never discussing the situation with each other at all? Here we have a clear case of collaboration,
    a word specifically mentioned in the report, yet you claim that it just doesn’t happen?

    Also, I understand your point with the video, but you keep misunderstanding mine I think. Again, if a video contradicts a report, the video cannot be lying, as it is a simple recording showing exactly what did happen within its view. I did not mention what may have happened off camera, or what an officer thinks might happen, I am concerned with what did happen. The camera shows exactly that, and only that. When a report is contradicted by a camera, the report is most likely containing falsehoods, or , as more commonly referred to, lies. A post on this site confirms this:

    “Rochester, NY Police Chief James Sheppard Refuses to Take Any Disciplinary Action Against officers Rob Osipovitch and Ryan Hartley, Despite their Committing Perjury in Front of a Grand Jury”

    Regardless of the reason, a camera clearly showed officers lying about a traffic stop, causing a judge to rule it as an unreasonable stop and dismiss all charges. Now, a camera may not show everything, but then you argue that officers misremember things or have a different point of view on things anyway, and you find that acceptable, so I don’t see how what a camera might miss is significantly less objectionable than a poor memory or varied points of view. Given the nature of human memory, I would trust the camera over the observer.

    On trusting the police : I did not say that “everyone hates and fears the police” I said that more and more people are becoming uneasy with the police in general; there’s a big difference in the two statements. I would point to the OWS crowd, as well as the protests in the various police killings and brutality cases, as well as the DOJ opening more probes into police departments nationwide as evidence of this. Many people don’t just take a police officer at his word anymore, as the corruption just continues to spread. This is not to say that all police are corrupt, far from it, but then, not all citizens are terrorists, either, yet we spend 8 billion a year on the TSA to weed out a terrorist, so why are we not spending the same to weed out the corrupt cops?

    As for police misconduct – when a police officer makes a wrong door raid, and in the ensuing chaos kills an innocent occupant for whatever reason, he has killed with impunity. This has happened
    (check the Cato institute’s raidmap) more than once. In these cases, a lawsuit usually is filed and settled, but the officer’s involved face little to no punishment. I know you claim that they face consequences that the general public are unaware of (perhaps that is also a problem, maybe a little transparency would work wonders..), but as long as those officers are still alive, breathing, and employed, the punishment is light indeed. After all, their victim is not.

    Next – open records? really? Perhaps you should check with Virginia, or Oregon, where courts have had to order the police to release records, and still the police departments refused. This is becoming more and more common, too. The stated reasons range from “police record exemptions” to “police privacy laws” to simply “no” and any permutation between that the police department thinks it can get away with.

    Finally, this statement: ” Those that have more intimate contact….have that contact for very good reason.” Seriously? Is that why states are spending millions settling lawsuits involving the police? Let me give you a true story as an example: A few years back, I hired a contractor to do some renovations on my home. this contractor had recently moved here from out of state in order to help his sister, who was at that time recently diagnosed with cancer.
    He drove her vehicle as she had a SUV that he used to haul both equipment in and her and her kids to her various appointments. Now, he did have a penchant for driving fast, and I did warn him about that. Long story short, he ended up being pulled over for speeding; in the course of the encounter, the officer asked to search the vehicle. He agreed, later telling me that he had nothing to hide. The officer found his sister’s cancer drugs in the glove box, and arrested him for possession. He tried to explain the situation, going as far as to contact the sister, who explained that the vehicle and drugs were hers, and legal, but the officer wasn’t interested. What followed was a nightmare; more than a month in jail,
    rejecting multiple plea deals, and most importantly, my kitchen needing finishing (I know, I’m a bit self-centered). In the end, he managed to bond out, hire a lawyer, get the charges dropped, and win a nice bit of cash in a settlement over this. Oh, and still came and finished my kitchen – nice work, too.
    So tell me again how those who have more intimate contact with the police have a very good reason. Or maybe you should explain it to him.

    Contrary to what it appears, I am not looking for a fight here, and I do not subscribe to the notion that “big brother is out to get you” or that “all cops are bad”. Far from it. There are, however, some serious issues with police accountability in effect in this nation, and its just dishonest to pretend that they don’t exist.
    They do.

  • t.

    I’ll try to get back to the rest of your comment but right out of the gate you are either lying for effect or grossly misinformed. Not only are officer ALLOWED to view the tapes, we are ENCOURAGED to view the tapes. Your information source is a bad one.

  • 2minutes

    Perhaps misinformed, perhaps not. However, it does seem that there was a definite collaboration both in the reports written and the subsequent cover-up attempt in the aftermath of this tragedy. A collaboration that supposedly never occurs.

  • t.

    Your AH HA moment about that case isn’t right either. OUTSIDE agencies, INDEPENDANT OUTSIDE AGENCIES, were investigating, as they should in any officer involved death or OIS. Not only isn’t that wrong…it’s proper. And not releasing video isn’t HIDING, it’s preserving the case…especially if the officers are found to be wrong and then charged and tried. You don’t see the police relaeing video in other case either, it’s not a conspiracy. And it is still in no way a report by committee. Nothing of what you are presenting is even close to what you are suggesting.

    And back to the video. OK, I understand what you are trying to say, and in a way, at times, you maybe right. But what I’m telling you is that other things happen, things other than what is frequently shown on video. If I write down what I saw, heard, smelled, whatever, and it differs from what is apparent on a video, doesn’t necessarily mean I lied. I am seldom standing where the camera is, heck even the personal camera I wear doesn’t always catch what I see (maybe I should get a camera like on the Police POV show). Now I’m not talking about big things. It’s the subtle things that happen, that lead up to the big things.

    I don’t want to demean you, but your thoughts about the mis-trusting of the police just isn’t accurate. The movement in the judiciary of the country is to demand more. The juries demand more. Where in the past officer testimony was good enough, now it’s not. That’s not due to the officers. In great part it is due to media, the internet, t.v. and movies. People have started expecting DNA analysis on graffitti case. They want laser spectrographs or some such crap on everything. And that just isn’t practical. There isn’t anywhere near enough time or money to do that. I will readily admit that is has become much more difficult to do this job, and win convixtions. It’s not people doubting the police, it’s a push for more and more, especially in the technology.

    About the search warrant thing. I have written thousands. I breach the door hundreds of times while on the SWAT team. I never failed to find what I said would be there. Mistakes do happen. But CATO’s tracking doesn’t relate the HUGE number of warrants that are served. And while I certainly can’t provide you the stats either, but with the huge number of warrants served verses the ones that are served at the wrong place, it can’t even be as high as 1%. It’s probably just a fraction of that 1%. Do mistakes happen? Yes. Do they end in tragedy? Yes. But to suggest that it is anything other than just an anomally when it occurs, just isn’t true.

    Open records. There are leg image reasons to say no sometimes. We can’t jeopardizes on going investigations just because “you want too know”. And there is a lot of personal information in police reports, people who should have that information exposed…just because”you want to know.” . Where I work, all my re ordx are public property. You request it, you get it. Remember that states have their own constitutions to. Those don’t just get thrown out.

    As for your arrest story. As you described it…the officer did nothing wrong. Maybe there is more to that story. A month in jail… it then he was able to bond out? What was his record like to have a bond set so high? For a first offense, he would have a pretty low bond even on felony drug possession. Must be a lot more to that part. What did he win a settlement for? What is his past record? Ain’t no way it’s clean with a bond so high he couldn’t get out for a month.

    Again, I will say to you what I have tried to explain to many others here. I have never said thatthere isn’t ppolice misconduct or corruption. I do say that nearly every example posted on this and other sites, with some glaring exceptions of course, don’t show any misconduct of any kind. I’m all for personal freedom. Have that tattooed on me. But people who demand accountability from the police and government, and then never want to be held accountable themselves or demand it of their friends, are foolish. They get mad at me for holding them accountable for the free will choices that they made. And at the end of the day, I can live with them being mad at me when I do the right thing.

  • 2minutes

    my AH HA moment, as you call it, is simply an example, nothing more. It does serve to illustrate the point I am trying to make, however. The police did try to cover up the Kelly Thomas murder, initially going so far as to suggest that he was the aggressor, and that officers involved had broken bones from his assault. Turns out that that wasn’t true, and it took a lot of pressure from the local citizenry before the truth was brought to the light of day.

    Open records – preserving the case is a nice excuse, but it doesn’t apply to the examples I mentioned (and what, exactly, will happen to the case if records are released? The case cannot be prosecuted because someone saw the video? But then, the police have, and can view, the video, so does that make them biased?). In those cases (and the Vegas case on release of car camera video), the request was for old video and/or records to use in building a case showing a culture or pattern of improper conduct. there was no case to preserve. the police refused to release the records. The courts became involved; and the courts ordered the police to release the records. The police still refused to release the records. So, yes, states do have their own constitutions, and no, they don’t just get thrown out, they do just get ignored, however.

    On the video, I fully grasp that little things happen that do not become obvious on video. Its the big things that are a problem. now if I read you correctly, you claim that the police are not only allowed to view the tapes, but encouraged to do so, correct? Yet, still, reports get written that are vary widely from what is shown on the video, so much so that it is sometimes hard to believe that the video and report are concerning the same incident. How, then, does that happen?

    On doubting the police – yes, courts, juries, DA’s, defendants want more, as they should. you claim that officer testimony isn’t enough any more, but its not the officer’s fault. To some degree it is. It seems that, at least in some states, there is a list that the DA’s office utilizes to track officers whose testimony cannot be trusted in court. An example is/was Sgt. Randy Sundquist, Dallas county, Texas, who had 2 letters issued by the DA’s office saying that his testimony cannot be trusted, once in 1994 and again in 2009. Now, this doesn’t mean that all officers can’t be trusted, but it does mean that some definitely cannot be, and therefor the public wants more verification that the officers involved are not those like Sgt Sundquist, who seem more than willing to falsify records to further their own agenda, and damn the costs to others. Think of it like this: a request for records is simply the public attempting to verify that the officer is not lying, since it is a established fact that some officers do lie, and is in fact much the same as a DUI checkpoint, whereby an officer is attempting to verify that an individual is not drinking and driving, since some individuals do drink and drive. If one is OK, then the other must, by default, be OK too, since the goals are the same – uncovering the truth.
    Perhaps if the police were more willing to police themselves, then we wouldn’t be where we are today -I mean, if someone like Sgt. Sundquist, who lie so blatantly that the DA wrote a letter in 1994 stating that he cannot be trusted to testify, is still on the force
    15 years later and necessitating a second letter from the DA’s office regarding his eligibility to testify, then there is something seriously wrong in how the police handle these situations, and there is no way the public can trust the police to do the right thing.

    Search Warrant – So you’ve done thousands of warrants, broken hundreds of doors, written uncountable reports, and always done them
    correctly. Great, congratulations on your perfectionism. Now, if only more officers were like you. I know, that seems snarky, but you keep holding yourself up as an example, and as I said, I do not know you. You may be absolutely correct and have a perfect record; if so, I salute you. I mean that, no snark. The problem is the many officers that do not have such a pedigree, and grievous errors are made, some accidental, some intentional. With the stakes as high as they are, there is no room for those errors. At all. Period.
    The thing that bothers me about the search warrant thing is this: your statement that the Cato Institute doesn’t track the huge number of warrants served. I don’t care about the number served, I do care about the innocents whose lives are ruined by the mistakes. Calling an innocent death just an anomaly is treating is far too casually. It appears that, since it only occurs less than 1% of the time, it is OK with you. Do apply the same logic to the people you arrest?
    For example: “Well, since you only killed one person, which is less than 1% of the population, I’m gonna let you go? you might face a lawsuit, we’ll see if we can raise taxes to pay for your anomaly?” I doubt it.

    The arrest story: I will admit, I do not know all the details. But I do know that he couldn’t bond out because they had no money, most of it went to her cancer treatment, so much so that she lost her home. There just was not any money to pay for the bond at any level. It was part of the reason I hired him to do my renovations, I was trying to help them out. Now, as for the officer not doing anything wrong; perhaps technically, but he knew that the vehicle did not belong to him, the drugs were clearly marked as prescriptions for the registered owner of the vehicle, and the vehicle was not stolen. He was given the information that the property all belonged to his sister, and according to both, actually allowed him to call her from the scene. She verified that they belonged to her. He was still arrested. Now, I know, he could have called anyone, but when she showed up to the jail with copies of her prescriptions from her doctor, on the request of law enforcement, they still would not let him out. It made no sense. A lawyer agreed, and the taxpayers paid the cost yet again. Caveat; I do not know the actual terms of the settlement, I know a false arrest/imprisonment were mentioned, but cannot verify exactly what the terms were. After all, generally settlements come with a gag clause to prevent that type of information from being disclosed. Wonder why that is?

    I have always said that there is, indeed, police misconduct and corruption, and you don’t deny it, so we are on the same page there. I think the difference is one of degree. police in general don’t think anything of breaking the small laws, like speeding or fine fixing (see New York police Ticket Fixing controversy); in fact, many officers claim it a a perk of the job (again, New York). But, let a non-officer get caught doing the same thing and he will get the full treatment; the attitude, the ticket, maybe even jail. you claim that “they get mad at you for holding them responsible for free will choices that they made”, but at the same time, officers make the free will choice to flaunt the law and call it a perk, and no one holds them responsible as far as the public can see. perhaps you guys should simply start holding yourselves accountable in the same manner as you hold the public accountable, that would go a long way. but then, its apparently a ‘perk’ of the job to break the law with impunity – I wonder if the same holds true across professions? can a pharmacist, as a ‘perk’ of the job, sell narcotics on the street corner without being arrested? I didn’t think so. It is this imbalance in the administration of the law that causes the public to be so demanding accountability on the part of the police, since the police are not going to demand it of themselves. To paraphrase: Police who want to hold everyone else accountable, but hold themselves above accountability, are foolish. They are getting mad at the public for wanting to hold them accountable for the free will choices that they are making.

  • t.

    Dude on some of it we’ll just have to disagree. You’ll always see green when it’s red. And that’s OK.

    On the reports…all I can tell you is I ha e never heard about anyone trying to get the reports to all say the same things. They shouldn’t. And as for the open records…all I can guess is that a case is either still open or pending, or there is a source that the poll e are trying to protect (I had several sources who’s names only appeared in confidential files, be er in reports to protect them). But laws vary from place to place. If the law says that the policy e don’t have to release them, they don’t. Even if a judge orders it, it may be under appeal. Where I work, laws have changed , ask for and you get it for the most part.

    On search warrants. I wasn’t trying to hold myself up as any example. Just relaying experiences. There are probably lay several thousand warrants served every day in every state. Thousand upon thousands. With no issues. Does the occasional one go wrong? Yep. Is that good? Nope. Honestly, when I hear about one the goes wrong, I’m truly lost as to why. Warrants should have not only detailed directions to the target, but detailed descriptions of the exterior and usually there at photos. I’ve never figured out how anyone gets it wrong.

    As for that officer lying. There are some one won’t trust either. The D.A. should never prosecute his cases then. Hell, I had one swear out a warrant in my name once…that got real ugly when it was found that someone got arrest, I got subpoenaed to court, and I told everyone that I didn’t have PC to arrest her when my name was on it. Ugly. Now, his intentions were good, reviewing my report and thinking that there was PC (there clearly wasn’ton the street), but he steps were wrong. The police aren’t perfect, don’t claim to be. TThat’s why I always state on this site (and others) that they should be calm and not street justice. The court system should catch it if there was something done wrong. Not shooting it out in the street.

    As for that arrest, i ‘d really like to know more. From everything you described, the officer’s arrest was lawful and spot on. People claim things all the time that aren’t true. Her showing up and saying don’t arrest my husband, the pills are mine, doesn’t necessarily mean that she should be believed, or that he shouldn’t be arrested.

    An as for the double standard / impunity thing. Maybe…way back in the day. But certainly not now. I have friends call me all the time about helping them with tickets. I tell the truthfully that I can’t even get me out of a ticket. Why? Because it doesn’t work that way. Andyeah there is ccorruption / mid conduct. Sometimes it goes undiscovered for periods of time. Most officers aren’t stupid. We work around criminals all the time. We see what works and what doesn’t. When an officer goes down the wrong road, he usually knows the turns and can avoid being caught. The misconception you are under is that it is somehow wide spread. It isn’t. Not by a long shot. BTW, if you are wondering why officers whom do get arrested don’t have high bonds or see jail time, it’s mainly because they don’t have any criminal records. First time offenders. You’d get the same thing your first time.

  • 2minutes

    I agree that on some things we will just have to disagree, that’s human nature, as well as the way intelligent discourse is conducted; so, no problems there. I don’t agree that I always see green when its red, however, it doesn’t matter – all you need for the truth is black and white.

    On the reports – in Virginia, it is the state supreme court ordering the records released, so even if state laws vary, the court overrules them. Yet the police resist.

    On search warrants – I know you are replying from your experiences, I am just trying to point out that there are such things going on out there, far more often than they should; and when they are found out, the punishments are often little to none. A number of times in our discourse you have made statements to the fact that such things do not happen, ever (a paraphrase of the actual comment), and I am trying to show that they do, indeed happen. Even though they shouldn’t.

    On the arrest – I do not have any more details, but the fact that the drugs involved were prescription, labeled with his sister’s name, in his sister’s vehicle, borrowed with her permission, and verified by the aforementioned sister, should have made a reasonable person think twice before initiating an arrest.

    On the double standard/impunity – not so way back in the day; the New Your ticket fixing issue was October 2011, not yet a year ago.
    Now, on officers not getting high bond or jail time, it is not because of not having a criminal record and are first time offenders. I give you Ken Ergle. Former sheriff from Florida, made a name for himself as being ‘tough on crime’. One of the women arrested under his watch went to prison for somewhere in the vicinity of 5 years for embezzling approx. $5.000.00; yet Sheriff Ergle, it turns out embezzled about $170,000.00. Guess what he got as a punishment? Probation. No prison, just probation. Because he was a sheriff. This is not an opinion, but stated at the time.


    Imagine all the gang bangers getting together (Bloods and Crips) and them agreeing to stop killing each other, and instead taking out the cops or family members of the bad cops that are guilty of abusing their power. Hmmm,….sounds like a movie or a great book idea.

  • George

    @T – please explain how I have misused Tennessee v. Garner.

    This is the very first paragraph of the majority opinion –

    “This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon. We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”

    I fail to see how someone poses a significant threat of death or serious injury when they are RUNNING AWAY.

    And if you want to compare fact patterns, this was the fact pattern in TN v. Garner –

    Upon arriving at the scene they [the police] saw a woman standing on her porch and gesturing toward the adjacent house.[1] She told them she had heard glass breaking and that “they” or “someone” was breaking in next door. While Wright radioed the dispatcher to say that they were on the scene, Hymon went behind the house. He heard a door slam and saw someone run across the backyard. The fleeing suspect, who was appellee-respondent’s decedent, Edward Garner, stopped at a 6-feet-high chain link fence at the edge of the yard. With the aid of a flashlight, Hymon was able to see Garner’s face and hands. He saw no sign of a weapon, and, though not certain, was “reasonably sure” and “figured” that Garner was unarmed. App. 41, 56; Record 219. He thought Garner was 17 or 18 years old and 4*4 about 5′ 5″ or 5′ 7″ tall.[2] While Garner was crouched at the base of the fence, Hymon called out “police, halt” and took a few steps toward him. Garner then began to climb over the fence. Convinced that if Garner made it over the fence he would elude capture,[3] Hymon shot him. The bullet hit Garner in the back of the head. Garner was taken by ambulance to a hospital, where he died on the operating table. Ten dollars and a purse taken from the house were found on his body.[4]

    OK? So explain to me how this is different from Manuel Diaz, who was also unarmed, running from the police. It’s the fucking same thing. Did you even read the case?

  • George

    My poor understanding of the law? Are you people fucking insane? I’ve read a whole lot of circuitous, bullshit, verbose SCOTUS opinions, but this is not fucking one of them.


    Are you fucking people goddamn brain dead? I could tell you 2+2 = 4, and you would argue that it wasn’t, if you thought that that was somehow an insult to police.

  • George

    Here, you want some more passages?

    “Without in any way disparaging the importance of these goals, we are not convinced that the use of deadly force is a sufficiently productive means of accomplishing them to justify the killing of nonviolent suspects. …The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects…..Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. THUS, IF THE SUSPECT THREATENS THE OFFICER WITH A WEAPON or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where 12*12 feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.”

    But don’t take my word for it. Here’s the link to the full opinion.,5

  • Pingback: Tennessee v. Garner | Cop Block()

  • Pingback: Leaked Anaheim PD Report Gives "Civil Unrest Protocols" | Cop Block()

  • Pingback: How’s that medicine taste, buddy? - Unofficial Network()