He most certainly did.No, he did not resist arrest.
This is a wildly absurd and inaccurate statement.a reason to kill him in your opinion.
Another fact you have wrong.Just image what police groupies would have wanted done to that guy if he had done anything illegal or even just suspected of doing something illegal? Probably cut off his face and genitals, run over him multiple times with a squad car and then set his body on fire. But since he hadn't actually broken any laws, they probably figure it should have been limited to destroying his face and crushing him to death into concrete in deference to his being a law abiding citizen - other than being poor and shirtless.
The system?
A jury represents the people.
Anyways, these Officer were doing their job with a person who was resisting with great force.
It was unfortunate he died because he chose to resist, but it is not criminal on their part.
Why? you seem okay with it. Why change something that works so well?At most, it is as opportunity to review and/or enhance training to establish protocol for such extreme situations. Training that will avoid the use of the body where it could unintentionally crush the chest.
:dohNo it doesn't. It's just one of your wild claims.
What do you mean resist what? You are going to extremes here and gaining no traction. He was resisting the attempt to subdue him. He was already told to get on the ground and failed to comply with the order, and then attempted to flee. He was resisting arrest.They were doing their job. He chose to resist. resist what? He died because he chose to resist, which was not criminal on his part.
I guess you are just showing that you do not understand what I have said.Why? you seem okay with it. Why change something that works so well?
If you have anything to show what happened was on the "mandate of City Council" present it.
:doh Said the unreasonable person. Figures.
I haven't twisted anything.
Kelly resisted.
You saying he wasn't, is twisting. Next.
As I already told you, providing such videos as you have in nonsense. We know what not resisting looks like. Kelly was resisting.
Besides that though, you seem to be confused as to what I said I could provide. Just standing there and taking a beating? WTF? I never said anything of the sort.
Just another example of you twisting.
You can not guarantee anything. So can it.
And your take of what happened is further spin.
He didn't go straight to screaming. That is nothing but spin on your part.
Kelly had already been non-cooperative and continued his game when given instructions.
Kelly escalated the situation by not cooperating.
:lamo I keep saying this matters not. Do you really not understand that?
Do you really think an Officer has to tell you he is arresting you before actually arresting you?
Matters not.
Why you think this matters is beyond comprehension.
And the rest is just your usual bs spin. Responding to a report on Kelly is not harassing him. Reacting to Kelly's actions was lawful.
More absurdity. There were no rouge cops here. That is just your spin.
And no Kelly was not terrified at the beginning. He was non-cooperative from the get and escalated it to the point of failing to comply, resisting, and fleeing. He did not attempt to flee because he was scared or terrified. He even attempted to bait the Officer into hitting him. That is not being scared or terrified. So can the bs.
Your videos are meaningless.
They do not show Kelly. Or the reality of his arrest and resistance.
They are meaningless to that.
More idiotic spin. There was no rouge cops.
These were Officers doing their jobs. Nothing more than that.
Do you really not understand that the video is meaningless to this case.
Why you continually harp on a meaningless video is beyond comprehension.
It is irrelevant.
And get a clue. You can not say a video created for tv, as in edited to show what they want it to show, is an accurate representation.
It serves to subdue him
Officers are allowed to use force in subduing a person, and with Kelly's resistance being so great, as testified to, the Officers thought they were out of options.
And after tasering Kelly multiple times with no effect, it is no wonder that they thought that.
Cont. Below.
Cont. from above.
What was the point?
You do not seem to understand what being pinned down actually is, or what continuing to resist actually means.
He was continuing to resist. That is why. They could not get him subdued, that is why. Kelly was also a threat to their safety by resisting.
Meaningless drivel and spin, as Kelly was still resisting after multiple taserings.
There were no rouge cops.
You are speaking of that which you do not know. This is nothing more than an assumption on your part, much like your whole position on this case. Nothing but assumption.
Matters not. He was resisting and continued to resist. His resistance brought about his death.
Just more bs.
If you have to ask "So what?", you are not being objective. The videos are meaningless to this case. Trying to use them as you are is illogical.
Calling them rouge cops is also a sign of your lack of objectivity.
You speak of your debate tactic, that is all. Just as you were wrong about Zimmerman, you are again wrong here. Both Jury verdicts say that.
Being on the ground does not mean being pinned down. He wasn't pinned down. Had he been, an arrest would have been affected. His continued resistance says he wasn't pinned.
iLOL You are hilarious. You are the only one attempting to twist here.
It is the facts that do not agree with you and actually fly in the face of what you say.
The facts, as well as the Jury decision on those facts, makes that abundantly clear.
The only time a police officer doesn't tell you you're under arrest is that there is a warrant already out there for your arrest or if you are caught committing a crime and are fleeing or you try to assault the officer when being questioned.I keep saying this matters not. Do you really not understand that?
Do you really think an Officer has to tell you he is arresting you before actually arresting you?
But he died because his chest was crushed.
You have no clue as to debate.I see you're resorting to your usual tools of the trade by simply dismissing any argument you can't handle as "meaningless" and "matters not". That's not the way to argue, Excon. At least not in a mature and logical debate.
You can say that as many times as you want, and any way you want to, but you are still wrong.Let me say this again. Kelly was clubbed by Wolfe and Ramos without cause on each side of his knee as he backed away from their vicious attack. Now you called that resisting?
There is a lot of assumption and spin in what you just said.And when he was clubbed down to the ground following a short chase and was then pinned to the ground with crushing weights to the point of fractured ribs and suffocation on top of being tased multiple times and pummeled senseless into a pulp, you called his instinctive reaction to pain and preservation of life as resisting?
Meaningless drivel.Of course, any human being in that circumstances is going to resist being beaten and crushed to death. Even if, that's a big IF, he resisted, would resisting arrest justify being crushed and pummeled senseless in the head and face to a pulp until comatose and subsequent death? Wouldn't you also have resisted under such circumstance to save your soul from such vicious attack?
More meaningless drivel.Or do you think you would just lay there completely relaxed trusting they would not harm you while they had already relentlessly rained down blows after blows into your body, your head and face and tased you repeatedly in quick succession without giving you so much as a chance to even comply? And you expect Kelly or any person in that circumstance not be terrorized?
More meaningless and false drivel.Any reasonable person viewing the tape would come to the conclusion that Ramos was there to harass and humilate Kelly with intent to stir up trouble. For a Mexican/Hispanic person to taunt Kelly, who was a White American, for not able to understand English and repeatedly asking to know what languages he spoke, if that's not an attempt to belittle and harass him, what is?
Your tortures logic is irrelevant as usual.You said responding to a report on Kelly is not harassing him. But, you are wrong on your fact. The caller did not specifically state it was Kelly.
They didn't have to. What do you not understand about that?Ramos and Wolfe did not even go to contact the caller at the restaurant where the call was made and thus nobody had even identified or pointed a finger at Kelly on the scene.
Tortured logic again. Pay attention. They did not have to.Ramos and White also didn't get any info regarding which cars were involved where the car doors who jiggled. If they had conducted their investigation properly instead of harassing a homeless man for no reason, they would have dusted the car doors for finger prints so as to match out with whoever was accused. But, they didn't.
Wrong on all counts. This is nothing more than more tortured logic.Instead, they went straight to Kelly whom they knew from their past dealings and acted like they had no idea who Kelly was. And then they started to harass him for a long time without just cause while Kelly was put through unreasonable commands meted out just to humiliate him which he tried to comply as best as he could until Ramos put on his gloves and threatened to f**k him up.
Wrong.It was Ramos who initiated the confrontation by putting his hand on Kelly's left arm as shown in the video while Kelly was still seated in a non-threatening way on the curb with his legs extended and hands on the knees as he was told to do.
WTF?So, don't you think Ramos' so-called investigation had already started with a conduct unbecoming of a police officer?
:naughtyBut, we also know that Kelly had many previous run-ins with Ramos in which Ramos was tired of Kelly coming back sleeping at the bus depot despite being harassed by Ramos repeatedly. At one point Ramos threw away Kelly's belonging and even prevented him to go back to find his clothing and ordered him to go away in the reverse direction. With such unreasonable action on Ramos' part, Kelly didn't even reacted violently towards Ramos for his mistreatment.
More tortured logic with biased assertions. Figures.So, in this incident we can see that Ramos was itching to stir up something in order to justify his unlawful beating of Kelly that would put him out of commission, into a nursing home and away from the bus depot once and for all for good. But, the beat down was beyond his control and Kelly ended up beaten to death.
OMG the savagery of rouge Cops.No matter how much you try to dismiss all these and my video links showing proper police tactics as meaningless, you are not going to get away with defending the savagery of the rogue cops who crush, tased and pummeled Kelly to his death, in particular Ramos, Cicinelli and Wolfe.
See. More absurdity.Seriously, how do you expect a person to relax and not move when you persistently rain down blow after blow and tasing after tasing without letting off for even a second while being crushed to the point of suffocation?
Oh? Now it is involuntary movement huh?How can you keep insisting that the involuntary movement due to pain and the instinctive effort to prevent being suffocated and crushed to death as resisting?
Wrong. Nothing but more biased false absurdity based on tortured logic.The officers kept beating him and torturing him every time he instinctively reacted to being tased and pummeled to a pulp while being suffocated by the crushing weights. It's a vicious cycle. There were plenty of occasion the rogue cops were able to grab his hands and legs and cuffed him but they chose to beat him and tased him senseless.
It happens all the time, a tasering stops an individual from resisting. I am sure you can find videos of that also, if you bother.So, let me see if I tased you multiple times do you think you would just calmly lay there and not move at all at each tasing?
Like you said? :dohLike I said, until you have been subjected to the brutal beating, relentless tasing and the fatal crushing of the chest and still can remain calm and still without movement, your dismissal as "matters not" simply rings hollow.
iLOLHaven't you heard that jury decision often times sent innocent men to prison or death sentence for crimes they did not commit and exonerate true criminals to be out to the streets only to commit more murders. Check out the case in the innocence project of innocent men being convicted and sent to prisons for decades for crimes they did not commit, courtesy of the jury decisions.
:naughtyAll these go to show how unreasonable and relentless your belligerence and out of touch to reality are with your debate tactics.
Wrong.The only time a police officer doesn't tell you you're under arrest is that there is a warrant already out there for your arrest or if you are caught committing a crime and are fleeing or you try to assault the officer when being questioned.
Telling him he wasn't going to arrest him at specific moment is meaningless to the moment where he gave him orders and Kelly failed to comply.Otherwise, if Ramos did not tell Kelly he was under arrest, Kelly had the right to walk away from Ramos and not answer any more question. Furthermore, earlier in the video Ramos had repeatedly told Kelly he was not going to arrest him. So, what right did Ramos had to put his hand on Kelly when he was merely seated on the curb and clubbed his knees when he tried to avoid the attack?
iLOLDo you even know the law and your right, Excon?
Wrong.Thank you. By ANY definition ANYwhere, crushing a chest is excessive force.
I sense someone is shilling that which they do not know, didn't bother to check, and are just assuming.I sense a "The Police can do no wrong" shill...
Wrong.
If they were purposely crushing his chest to crush it. You would have a point.
But their weight crushing it unintentionally while trying to subdue him, is not.
Officers use their weight all the time to try and pin someone down who is resisting. It is not excessive force.
You are wrong on both counts.By your definition, then, it leaves no room for "excessive force" to even exist because all that is required is for the cops to say they "weren't trying" to crush his chest. Unfortunately for you and your one-way-street opinion, that is not how the real world gauges it. Here (in reality), we consider the force required to "crush" the chest of a human body to be excessive.
See. More absurdity.
I am more than sure you can go find some video exemplifying a suspect stopping their resistance after he is hit multiple times. Duh!
Next.
Oh? Now it is involuntary movement huh?
iLOL
More absurd assumptions.
Maybe you do not realize it. But Officers are allowed to continue until the person is subdued. And directed aggression against them is different from involuntary movements like spasms.
Wrong. Nothing but more biased false absurdity based on tortured logic.
It happens all the time, a tasering stops an individual from resisting. I am sure you can find videos of that also, if you bother.
Next.
Like you said? :doh
What you have said is meaningless drivel.
He was resisting. End of story.
iLOL
:doh
And the evidence says that is not what happened in this case.
:naughty
No. That is what it shows about you.
It is why you are wrong at every step.
It is why you resort to absurd and biased assumptions.
It is why you were wrong in Zimmerman's case.
These things are not going to change.
Wrong.
Telling him he wasn't going to arrest him at specific moment is meaningless to the moment where he gave him orders and Kelly failed to comply.
When the police have detained you and then have told you to get on the ground, you are not free to leave at that moment.
It is absurd to even suggest such.
Failing to comply, and fleeing at that point, is resisting.
iLOL
:doh
Obviously I know that law and these specific rights far better than you do.
Kelly was detained. Under suspicion of a 496 and had no right to just walk away at that point.
You have no clue as to debate.
Your bringing meaningless bs to a debate shows that. That your failure.
Dismissing your meaningless assertions is all that is needed.
Sorry you do not understand what is and isn't meaningful, but that again, is your failure.
You can say that as many times as you want, and any way you want to, but you are still wrong.
He was told to get on the ground.
He refused to do as ordered and then attempted to flee.
He was resisting arrest. Or do you really not understand that fleeing is resisting?
There is a lot of assumption and spin in what you just said.
Clubbed to the ground? Assumption and spin.
Pummeled senseless? Assumption and spin.
There is a reason for what happened to Kelly.
I know what it is and the Jury knows what it is.
You might want to learn why.
Meaningless drivel.
He was resisting and was in the wrong for resisting.
Next.
More meaningless drivel.
He was resisting and was in the wrong for resisting.
Next.
More meaningless and false drivel.
Ramos and Wolfe were there as a response to a call. No there to harass or humiliate anybody.
Kelly was playing a game pretending not to understand. That is clear form the video.
Had Kelly cooperated from the get none of this would have happened. But he didn't, and wanted to play instead.
Kelly's playing dictated how this encounter went.
Your tortures logic is irrelevant as usual.
Kelly was the guy that was called upon. Which is the call that Ramos and Wolfe responded to. It didn't have to be by name.
What an utterly absurd thing to assert.
They didn't have to. What do you not understand about that?
They found property that didn't belong to him in his back pack. It is clearly stated in the video who it belonged to and that it was suspicion of a 496.
Tortured logic again. Pay attention. They did not have to.
Wrong on all counts. This is nothing more than more tortured logic.
Wrong.
Doesn't work that way.
Ramos pushed his arm in the direction that he wanted him to comply. This is allowed.
Kelly was detained and it was his responsibility to do as directed. Instead, he chose to play his game.
WTF?
Try learning how to quote specifically what you are responding to.
And Just how do you think this plays into their not being guilty of criminality? Cause I am going top tell you right now, it matters not one bit. It is as meaningless as the rest of the irrelevant bs you brought up.
:naughty
No, what we have here is your tortured logic calling prior interaction harassment, when there is nothing to suggest it was anything other than an Officer doing his job in a normal manner.
More tortured logic with biased assertions. Figures.
There was no "itching" to start anything.
There was no unlawful beating.
OMG the savagery of rouge Cops.
Oh noes, what ever will we do?
I will tell you what I will do. Dismiss your absurd, biased, tortured logic, false claims.
There were no rouge cops.
The videos you provided are meaningless to what happened here.
Besides me, a Jury decision says you are wrong.
Still speaking nonsense I see.In another thread about the same Kelly Thomas case I had enough of your same old same old absurd argument and had thus let you had the last words. But, you insisted to engage me here even though I was responding to someone else and not you. I could have just ignore you but I took pity on the lonely you when everybody else had enough of your senseless diabtribe and ran away from you to every direction.
For now I'm just baby sitting you for a while until I have enough. I'm like a cat and you're like a mouse caught between my paws. I'm slapping you left and right, back and forth till you're half dead and you still have no idea what's going on. And you thought you're the king of the hill.
The only end of story is the end of your twisted story. Most people here and everywhere in the world find your twist and denial disturbing and appalling. Your appeal to jury verdict is a fallacy of authority without regard to the fact that often times jury got their verdict wrong and they convicted innocent people of crimes they did not commit while exonerating criminals who were guilty as hell and thus letting them out to go on to commit more crimes.Still speaking nonsense I see.
Figures.
And I have already answered your bs. You are doing nothing but going in circles.
You are in the wrong.
Every damn thing you have said is wrong, twisted, irrelevant and convoluted.
The Jury did not find the Officers guilty. Their actions were not criminal.
End of story.
By your definition, then, it leaves no room for "excessive force" to even exist because all that is required is for the cops to say they "weren't trying" to crush his chest. Unfortunately for you and your one-way-street opinion, that is not how the real world gauges it. Here (in reality), we consider the force required to "crush" the chest of a human body to be excessive.
It appears that what many are suggesting here is that the individual in question (Kelly?) did not resist until he started getting beaten even though he wasn't resisting.A reality check....and true End of Story
The very old rule still stands...you do what the LEO tells you to do when you are told to do it, or you'll force the officer to decide where you'll be spending the night...
You have 4 choices
1 Home (thats good)
2 Jail (not too good)
3 Hospital (thats bad)
4 Autopsy (thats beyond bad)
iLOLThe only end of story is the end of your twisted story. Most people here and everywhere in the world find your twist and denial disturbing and appalling. Your appeal to jury verdict is a fallacy of authority without regard to the fact that often times jury got their verdict wrong and they convicted innocent people of crimes they did not commit while exonerating criminals who were guilty as hell and thus letting them out to go on to commit more crimes.
Give it up already, Excon.
Didn't you read all the posts from posters in this thread and another thread giving you their piece of mind before they threw up the towel on you? That's what they think, duh.iLOL
This is nothing but you engaged in another fallacy. You have no idea what "most" think.
That is hilarious.
You have been shown to be wrong every step of the way. That isn't going to change.
What you have provided and argued is nonsense and irrelevant. That isn't going to change.
All you are doing now is going in circles. It is pointless. You and your reasoning and logic have already been shown to be wrong. That isn't going to change.
The Jury's decision was finale.
It is not a fallacy in this debate as they are the only authority on the subject that matters at this point.
And most importantly, it is a decision that is based on far more information that either you or I have.
And you do not seem to understand that their decision, as long as it is based upon the law and the known evidence, not something outside of the evidence, is not wrong. They have the authority to determine what matters and what doesn't. Do you really not know that?
Your coming back with the innocence project was laughable. And you do not even understand why. You are in way over your head here, especially with the available logic you employ.
The innocence project delivers new evidence which is then considered. New evidence by way of DNA testing.
Do you not understand what "new evidence" means? That is evidence that was not available to the originally Jury to make their decision on.
You are wrong on both counts.
As I already stated. Purposely trying to crush his chest would be excessive. Did you not understand the word "purposely"?
But as to the way it happened, no, it wasn't. It was unintentional. They meant to subdue him, not crush his chest.
Here in the real world, you know, that which is called reality, they were not found guilty of using excessive force.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?