@Edinmiami:
Better to go in fast and dirty, and settle the issue, than to pussyfoot around, and risk extra casualties. It’s not an absolute, but it’s valid. Or, as Patrick Swazey put it: “Be nice, until it’s time to not be nice”, and then “We take out the trash”. This guy could (perhaps) have been “talked down”, but is that really reasonable? How long does the Police spend on it? Really? Practicality counts.

In this case, I don’t find fault with the LEO – this didn’t appear to be more than an “up against the wall”, with unforseen add-ons. Dial up some /real/ corruption, please. Not someone who “coulda done better, in a perfect world”.

As for the additional charges, keep in mind the nature of the beast. Since the legal system involves negotiation, they ask for more than they want, expecting the other side to do the same. “Truth” and “justice” are secondary players in an adversarial system. Could be better – in a perfect world. Dial me up real, practical improvements first, though, before you demand perfection.

People are fighting back, it’s just that the antique system of government we inherited provides limited tools. Civil lawsuits, filing complaints, and pressing charges are the most we got. Because the second and third can be overruled by corrupt DA, judge, or police, filing suits is the one way to fight back that gets response.

Unfortunately, most people settle their cases for cash money. When that happens, the case is closed, no witnesses get called, no sunlight shines on the moldy undergrowth of law enforcement. And no precedent gets set.

For a broad look at people across the country who are fighting back against the old-skool cop society of Amerikkka, check out the Injustice Everywhere project.

Also, you wanna learn about the USA taking a giant step backward, read up on Police Officers Bill of Rights. Some states already got em, and most cops in most places have got much better rights than you or me. That’s just wrong.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/11/24/BA9U1AQ2VA.DTL#ixzz0Xr4hpqtP

I just found your site the other day while digging around for information on that pussy Greenbaum. Unfortunately, I do not have things like money (or material possessions for that matter) to aid in your legal fight. But for what it is worth, you have found a new avid fan. What you are doing, in addition to being deeply fascinating, is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to the operation of a free society. Society needs watchdogs who are willing to fight the good fight, even if it comes at a great personal expense. My initial impression based on the several posts I have read is that you are somewhat like the former ambassador Joseph Wilson. Some people crave power. Some people crave truth. Those few of you who crave truth often must make great personal sacrifice as it appears you have done. As a fellow American, I thank you for that.

With that being said, this video, while it appears bad, is not as bad as it appears. It really doesnt look as if the cop hit him all that hard, or that he intended to put him through a window. The fact that the window shattered as it did makes me think it was not safety glass, or plexiglass, or anything of the sort. The man probably needed to be removed from the train, and it appears he was drunk and had mental issues. You dont want to put him on the ground near the train for obvious reasons. The shove into the wall/window did not appear too extreme. With weak glass, perhaps the guy just led with his watch or his bottle or something. Sometimes it doesnt take much to break a window.

On another note, it is good to see that this BART cop didnt shoot him in the head once he had him handcuffed. Having read the posts on the BART cop shooter, has there been anything beyond that one picture that you posted in the update to prove that the cop did not have a Taser?

Love your site.

…

Behavioral Descriptors of Officers Killed and Assaulted

In an attempt to better understand both the circumstances in which officers are killed and assaulted, as well as the officers themselves, FBI researchers examined some behavioral descriptors used by peers, supervisors, offenders, and, in some cases, the researchers to characterize these officers. They discovered that most victim officers appeared–

* friendly, “laid-back,” and “easy going;”

* well-liked by community and department;

* hardworking;

* to look for “good” in others;

* to use less force than other officers felt they would use in similar circumstances;

* to perceive themselves as more public relations- and service-oriented than law enforcement-directed;

* to not follow all the rules, especially in making arrests, confronting prisoners, enforcing traffic laws, and waiting for backup (when available); and

* to feel that they could “read” others and situations and would drop their guard as a result.

…

“some behavioral descriptors used by peers, supervisors, offenders, and, in some cases, the researchers to characterize these officers”

So in effect it’s a selection of after-the-fact descriptions of those killed, biased by co-worker relationships and “educated guesses” by the researchers themselves.

…

http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=139198

Annotation: The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports Section selected and analyzed 51 incidents of police officer killings in order to evaluate the psychology of the offender, the behavior of the police officer, and circumstances in which the police officer lost his or her life.

Abstract: The study was conducted over a 3-year period; the 51 incidents resulted in the death of 54 police officers and involved 50 offenders. Results demonstrated that, while no single offender profile could be established, most killers of police officers had been diagnosed as having some type of personality disorder. Behavioral descriptors of victims were frequently similar in that they were good-natured and more conservative than their fellow officers in the use of physical force. The incidents themselves revealed that killings were often facilitated by some type of procedural miscue (e.g., improper approach to a vehicle). Type of assignment, circumstances at the scene of an encounter, weapons involved, and the environment in which events occurred all played a role in the preponderance of police officer deaths in the South. The report presents extensive information on the victims, offenders, and incidents studied. It identifies personality types of offenders, provides guidance on how individuals of a given personality type interact with authority figures, and offers approaches to interrogation. The report also points out specific areas where law enforcement training and procedures may be improved. Appendixes contain the study methodology and a description of personality types. 65 references, 5 tables, and 12 figures

…

Funny, the study abstract itself says “killings” and “deaths,” not murders. Ray’s point would appear to stand.

Again, unless the perpetrator had intent to kill the officer before hand, then the correct term would be killed, and not murdered. That’s probably why the 1992 FBI study is titled “Killed in the line of duty” and not, as you contend, “murdered”.

Respectfully, thank you for “bottom lining” it, but I would still prefer the statistics on officers not killed in the line of duty do draw a quantitative comparison. Also, I did google the report, it’s interesting reading, but it’s still only one set of data points without a corollary for comparison. It’s quite possible that the officers NOT killed in the line of duty would be described as “laid back” and “easy going” they might also “use force only as a last resort”

I don’t know anything about this study but as a journalist who has written about many people who have died before their time, including cops, I can assure you that they are all described by their friends as “laid-back and easy-going” and “friendly and well-liked” who looked for the good in others.

There is something about death that makes us focus on the positive things about that person.

They will probably describe you the same way, even though you claim not to be that way.

Looks to me like you’re once again dodging the point.

Ray, murder is the right word. Look it up. We aren’t talking about cops who died in car accidents.

The bottom line on this study is that officers who stumble around with rose colored glasses on about all the goodness of mankind are the ones who end up six feet under. You have a problem with the results of that study, call the FBI.

Perhaps you should google it and read up on it before you dismiss it? Nah that would be too hard and might mess up your world view.

You take something that doesn’t belong to you (apparently you don’t have to ask permission from mere civilians, laws be damned, they don’t apply the same to you) to illustrate one of your hateful little rants against a group of people you don’t like.

And when you get called on it, do you apologize for doing that, or for placing the people in the photo in a false light? No, you remove the photo and insult the person you acquired it from without permission. You even seem to imply that you’ve done so only at their request – not because failing to do so would result in a DMCA takedown of at least that post by Blogger, if not your site.

And that’s all pretty much beside the point of your demeaning people you don’t like/agree with, and bragging about treating them as badly as you can without explicitly admitting to any specific wrongdoing.

You claim to be so hard, but all I’ve actually seen out of you is the emotional maturity of a maladjusted second grader.