GUILTY FL - Charles Kinsey, autistic caregiver, North Miami, July 2016 -guilty of misdemeanor

  • #341
I still say something big is missing from this story. It doesn't make any sense. Why did they handcuff the guy they thought was the victim? And let him bleed out? And then they must have continued to ignore his explanation of what was really going on. There is something up with this cop. He has an impeccable record (almost "super cop" like) except for two incidents where he arrested (and shot) the VICTIM.

IMHO, This case stinks to high heaven, from shooting the supposed victim to cuffing and leaving him to bleed in the street. All the problems we've noticed--and the explanations sound so ridiculous.

The shots should have never been fired, of course, but I am interested in knowing policy regarding the rifle being set on a 3-second burst. Why in the world would a supposed sharp shooter do that? In every case I've seen where there was a legit hostage situation and SWAT shot to save a life, it was one very precise head shot.
 
  • #342
Latest

North Miami Police Commander Won't Face Charges in Therapist Shooting


I did not know the other cop shot a AK-15?

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/...-Charges-in-Therapist-Shooting-389233262.html

No surprise there. Once again the police investigate themselves, and find that the police did nothing wrong. The next step will be to wait a few more months and quietly announce that no charges will be filed against the cop who did the shooting. Cops in this country can and do get away with anything, no matter how cockamamie their stories are.
 
  • #343
No surprise there. Once again the police investigate themselves, and find that the police did nothing wrong. The next step will be to wait a few more months and quietly announce that no charges will be filed against the cop who did the shooting. Cops in this country can and do get away with anything, no matter how cockamamie their stories are.

IMHO, they got this one right. There was miscommunication which resulted in the one officer being charged with lying.

But, if the shooter isn't charged, I will be screaming from the rooftops.
 
  • #344
IMHO, they got this one right. There was miscommunication which resulted in the one officer being charged with lying.

But, if the shooter isn't charged, I will be screaming from the rooftops.

It’s the first step. They always clear cops of the minor charges first, then the major ones. I have seen it happen a hundred times.
 
  • #345
Always, is simply not true. There are cases where the police officers are on trial for their actions and found guilty. It's a simple Google search to show there are bad cops being held accountable for their actions.
It will not surprise me if this is one of those cases. I do know that there is time between the video, and the shooting that we don't have the evidence on so I am trying to keep an open mind, but it doesn't look good IMO.
I do think that the commander was given a fair investigation, and evidence proved he was not lieing. Miscommunication.
 
  • #346
Always, is simply not true. There are cases where the police officers are on trial for their actions and found guilty. It's a simple Google search to show there are bad cops being held accountable for their actions.
It will not surprise me if this is one of those cases. I do know that there is time between the video, and the shooting that we don't have the evidence on so I am trying to keep an open mind, but it doesn't look good IMO.
I do think that the commander was given a fair investigation, and evidence proved he was not lieing. Miscommunication.
It seems that IF they get to that point, they rarely serve much time, if at all.
 
  • #347
I cannot think of a case where a police was found guilty and not serve the same time as any other person. I have seen many cases of police officers being investigated all the way up to the DOJ and found not guilty. IMO the DOJ is not biased in favor of police officers, yet even when they are cleared all the way up to the DOJ some people still think they are guilty. Other times there are trials and police officers are found not guilty and yet some still think they are guilty.
Again I do think there is bad in every career field, what I don't agree with is that police shootings are investigated only by their own departments and let off. I cannot think of a case where that is true.
 
  • #348
Here in California an officer went to jail for 6 months for homicide, a few years ago. I'll have to find the case again.

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk
 
  • #349
Here in California an officer went to jail for 6 months for homicide, a few years ago. I'll have to find the case again.

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk
Was that the BART officer?
 
  • #350
  • #351
Yes, that's one.

There you go. A cool blooded police execution of a man, and the cop got a few months for it. Then on the other end of the spectrum, are the Cleveland cops who did a drive-by shooting on a 12 year old boy and got off scot-free. The only reason the government will prosecute cops at all, is if they think it will prevent a riot.

Sorry Officer, we are going to have to prosecute you for murder. We don't want to do it, but if we don’t the people are going to riot and burn down the city.

In this case, since nobody was killed and nobody is going to riot, the chances of the idiot cop being prosecuted are slim to none.
 
  • #352
In the Bart case the prosecutors charged him with second degree murder with lesser included charges. The jury only found him guilty of involuntary manslaughter. California law allows for a sentence of two to four years with time off for good behaviour for involuntary manslaughter. California is known for letting prisoners out early. He served eleven months. He was treated no different than any other citizen IMO.
If the Cleveland case mentioned above is the Tamir Rice case was not a drive by shooting and very misleading to call it that. This case was put in front of a grand jury and the grand jury did not find evidence to support the charges. Again regular citizens found him not guilty.
Jurors decided these cases and found the officers not guilty.
 
  • #353
I think "regular citizens" often treat officer's who shoot innocent civilians, differently than civilian on civilian crimes.

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk
 
  • #354
I think "regular citizens" often treat officer's who shoot innocent civilians, differently than civilian on civilian crimes.

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk
I do believe that it is possible for jurors to bring in their own biases into deliberations which can work for or against the officer. The point I was making is that I still do not know a case where an officer has been cleared in an officer involved shooting without it being a grand jury or trial clearing them. I cannot think of a case where their own department clears them.
 
  • #355
I think I know your point, I just don't think it's that simple.

And dang it, I hate it when I can't edit a typo! I meant *officers ;)

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk
 
  • #356
If the Cleveland case mentioned above is the Tamir Rice case was not a drive by shooting and very misleading to call it that. This case was put in front of a grand jury and the grand jury did not find evidence to support the charges. Again regular citizens found him not guilty.
Jurors decided these cases and found the officers not guilty.

There was zero effort made to prosecute that case. They were not found not guilty, because there was no attempt made to prosecute the case. The kid was shot from a moving vehicle, that by definition is a drive by shooting. If a private citizen committed that same crime, it would be reported as a drive by shooting. People just have issues with using the same term to describe it when a cop does it.

As for there being no indictment in Cleveland, in the words of Solomon Wachtler, Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals:

“Any good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a HAM sandwich.” ―Sol Wachtler. As quoted in: N.Y. Daily News, 31 January 1985
http://izquotes.com/quote/390624

A good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich, but in America they can’t indict a cop for shooting a 12 year old boy to death from a car.
 
  • #357
I think I know your point, I just don't think it's that simple.

And dang it, I hate it when I can't edit a typo! I meant *officers ;)

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

I wish you could have gotten that to happen on my end - then I would be off the hook!!!!!


If I changed every type/spelling error, I would still be on the MAL 370 thread!!
 
  • #358
I do believe that it is possible for jurors to bring in their own biases into deliberations which can work for or against the officer. The point I was making is that I still do not know a case where an officer has been cleared in an officer involved shooting without it being a grand jury or trial clearing them. I cannot think of a case where their own department clears them.

It is so infurating.....

LE has made the whole thing worse IMO.If after Michael and Freddie they would be responsive to the public.

Lets be honest here - what we are talking in essense, here survilence video. Does LE need 6 months to investigate a 7-11 robbery surveliance video. Of course not!

All this "under investiagtaion ****%^ is just that . We are talking about an event that is usually as a quick as a robbery. Push play, watch 22 seconds, make a desision, release to media, and either arrest cop or dont. Move on.

Do they wait half a year to relase robbery footage?

What on earth is their to investigate when the event is on cameras. Employers who see employees stealing on their surveliance equitment fire them in 3 hours. Are private employers "paying" employees while the look" into "
someone stealing on video?

This stuff is actually "easier" - in most instances no one is digusied! Determing if someone turned around , or didn't, lifted an arm up, or had an arm dangling by their side, had something in their hand, or nothing, lunged toward, or away is really not difficult to ascertain on the first viewing. This truly is not rocket science, imo. It is laughable (not really) and inciting the whole thing.

Yhe event in the car, recently, (girlfriend posted on FB) we had a guy sitting in a car, a cop towering over him outside looking in. Lets say he went for a gun. Sitting down , trying to get a gun out of your pocket, raising ones arm and firing would take longer (just reflex anatamy stuff) would be longer than the cop finger on the trigger 6 inches away from the dude.

All that cop needed to do was see if a gun started to come out of a pocket 9 Which visually to me does not seem like it would be all that quick sitting down in a car)
Wallets and guns DO look different! That cops emotionial state caught on the very same tape , struck me as maybe the dude was in the wrong profession.

If we heard just the audio of him , with no background, we would conclude that whoever we are hearing is not emotionally stable.

All this "investigating" needs to IMO stop.

Those of us here, who know more about the game- wait until the story dies- it is a manipulative lie.
all moo
 
  • #359
I do believe that it is possible for jurors to bring in their own biases into deliberations which can work for or against the officer. The point I was making is that I still do not know a case where an officer has been cleared in an officer involved shooting without it being a grand jury or trial clearing them. I cannot think of a case where their own department clears them.

Channel 2 investigation found that:

  • Not a single fatal police shooting since 2010 has gone to trial.
  • Two-thirds of police shooting cases never went to a grand jury because district attorneys used their discretion not to bring charges.
  • Of 48 cases that went to a grand jury, only nine involved the presentation of a criminal indictment. In the rest, the prosecutor simply asked the grand jury to determine if the shooting was justified or unjustified.
http://investigations.myajc.com/overtheline/prosecuted/


http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2015/04/11/thousands-dead-few-prosecuted/

To charge an officer in a fatal shooting, it takes something so egregious, so over the top that it cannot be explained in any rational way,” said Philip M. Stinson, a criminologist at Bowling Green who studies arrests of police. “It also has to be a case that prosecutors are willing to hang their reputation on.”

when they are convicted or plead guilty, they’ve tended to get little time behind bars, on average four years



 
  • #360
I cannot think of a case where a police was found guilty and not serve the same time as any other person. I have seen many cases of police officers being investigated all the way up to the DOJ and found not guilty. IMO the DOJ is not biased in favor of police officers, yet even when they are cleared all the way up to the DOJ some people still think they are guilty. Other times there are trials and police officers are found not guilty and yet some still think they are guilty.
Again I do think there is bad in every career field, what I don't agree with is that police shootings are investigated only by their own departments and let off. I cannot think of a case where that is true.

/Channel 2 investigation found that:

  • Not a single fatal police shooting since 2010 has gone to trial.
  • Two-thirds of police shooting cases never went to a grand jury because district attorneys used their discretion not to bring charges.
  • Of 48 cases that went to a grand jury, only nine involved the presentation of a criminal indictment. In the rest, the prosecutor simply asked the grand jury to determine if the shooting was justified or unjustified.
http://investigations.myajc.com/overtheline/prosecuted/






Great piece gives each case briefly

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/year-police-shootings

Here Are All of the Cops Who Were Charged in 2015 for Shooting Suspects






 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
115
Guests online
2,448
Total visitors
2,563

Forum statistics

Threads
632,836
Messages
18,632,423
Members
243,309
Latest member
spotty_lover
Back
Top