• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Racist Crowd boos L.A. police chief

facts and substance.

From the article:

Authorities have said the bicycle officers told Jamines in Spanish and English to put down the weapon. Instead, Jamines raised the knife above his head and lunged at Officer Frank Hernandez, a 13-year veteran of the department, said Capt. Kris Pitcher, who heads the LAPD's Force Investigation Division.



Hernandez shot Jamines twice in the head. He died at the scene. Several witnesses later told police Jamines had been drinking.

wait a minit, how can the cops be racist if the cop that shot him is another hispanic?

maybe it was a misunderstanding. the guy was staggering drunk and when the cops told him to drop the knife, he raised his hands lost his balance and fell forward. the cops made an honest mistake and thought he was lunging towards them with the knife and shot him.

tragic accident and no one is a racist, scumbag, or dirty cop.
 
Last edited:
so he was "legal", but didn't speak english? but didn't understand them when they said drop the knife??? so how did he know to raise his hands? rasied his hands but didn't drop the knife?

I think it's pretty much universal that when someone points a gun at you, you raise your hands.

I don't buy it,

I don't give a **** what you buy or don't buy. YOUR opinions of the issue are not important and have no meaning.

I have been in many different countries, many different cultures and one thing they all have in common: when someone points a gun at you, your hands go up and you drop whatever you are holding...unless it is a child. Unless, of course, you are planning on doing something stupid like trying to attack the guy with the gun.

And you come to this conclusion based on what objective measure, exactly?

tired of everyone always getting the benefit of the doubt...except for the cops.

Then you might want to take that up with our centuries old legal system because that's exactly what it demands. :shrug:
 
From the article:

Authorities have said the bicycle officers told Jamines in Spanish and English to put down the weapon. Instead, Jamines raised the knife above his head and lunged at Officer Frank Hernandez, a 13-year veteran of the department, said Capt. Kris Pitcher, who heads the LAPD's Force Investigation Division.



Hernandez shot Jamines twice in the head. He died at the scene. Several witnesses later told police Jamines had been drinking.

wait a minit, how can the cops be racist if the cop that shot him is another hispanic?

maybe it was a misunderstanding. the guy was staggering drunk and when the cops told him to drop the knife, he raised his hands lost his balance and fell forward. the cops made an honest mistake and thought he was lunging towards them with the knife and shot him.

tragic accident and no one is a racist, scumbag, or dirty cop.

Wait a minute...where did I call the cops racist? Are you having a hard time reading my posts?
 
I don't give a **** what you buy or don't buy. YOUR opinions of the issue are not important and have no meaning.

they are just as important and meaningful as yours...at least according to the rules of this forum. :lol:



And you come to this conclusion based on what objective measure, exactly?


several hundred cases of personal experience, in several different regions of the world where I pointed either a loaded M9, M4 or M16 at someone. they all raised their hands and dropped the **** they were carrying. except for the handful that decided it would be wise to charge me with a blade of some kind.
 
several hundred cases of personal experience, in several different regions of the world where I pointed either a loaded M9, M4 or M16 at someone. they all raised their hands and dropped the **** they were carrying. except for the handful that decided it would be wise to charge me with a blade of some kind.

Oh so anecdote. Yeah, that doesn't exactly work here. No one cares about your anecdotes.
 
tired of everyone always getting the benefit of the doubt...except for the cops.

Well that is the basis of our legal system; all burden of proof falls upon the State.
 
Oh so anecdote. Yeah, that doesn't exactly work here. No one cares about your anecdotes.

sorry that it bothers you that I have actual real world experience to back up my opinion and you have...wait, what was it again?...right, just your opinion.
 
Well that is the basis of our legal system; all burden of proof falls upon the State.

I thought the burden of proof falls on the accuser, which in most cases is the state. In this case the cops are the accused, so the burden of proof should lie with those accusing them of misconduct. And should this ever go to court, the state will have the burden of proof to show that these cops acted criminally.
 
I thought the burden of proof falls on the accuser, which in most cases is the state. In this case the cops are the accused, so the burden of proof should lie with those accusing them of misconduct. And should this ever go to court, the state will have the burden of proof to show that these cops acted criminally.

In civil courts, where the State tends not to be the one prosecuting, there are also lower standards of proof. In criminal court, it's all up to the State to prove wrong doing. The police officers are a branch of the government; subject to all the constraints and limitations which are placed upon the government. They must prove that they acted within the constraints of their power and through legal recourse. There will need to be an investigation to see if witnesses can be found and stories verified. If the police officers end up in criminal court (yeah right), then the State will have to prove the individuals acted outside the power granted to them by the People. But in this case of civilian vs. cop the police must verify and prove they acted properly and within the confines of the law.
 
In civil courts, where the State tends not to be the one prosecuting, there are also lower standards of proof. In criminal court, it's all up to the State to prove wrong doing. The police officers are a branch of the government; subject to all the constraints and limitations which are placed upon the government. They must prove that they acted within the constraints of their power and through legal recourse. There will need to be an investigation to see if witnesses can be found and stories verified. If the police officers end up in criminal court (yeah right), then the State will have to prove the individuals acted outside the power granted to them by the People. But in this case of civilian vs. cop the police must verify and prove they acted properly and within the confines of the law.

all true. I was initially referring to how cops never get the bennie of the doubt in "the court of public opinion".
 
all true. I was initially referring to how cops never get the bennie of the doubt in "the court of public opinion".

I don't think that any branch of the government should be given the benefit of the doubt. Instead, they should have to prove their plans and actions as proper actions of the government to the People. Government was never to be trusted, just necessary.
 
sorry that it bothers you that I have actual real world experience to back up my opinion and you have...wait, what was it again?...right, just your opinion.

It doesn't bother me one bit. I don't know you. As far as I am concerned, you're just joe six pack blathering away on an internet forum like everyone else. You could be rambo in the real world and it wouldn't make one iota of difference here.

Your anecdotes mean nothing to anyone here, commando.
 
I thought the burden of proof falls on the accuser, which in most cases is the state. In this case the cops are the accused, so the burden of proof should lie with those accusing them of misconduct. And should this ever go to court, the state will have the burden of proof to show that these cops acted criminally.

The cops shot a citizen. That's tantamount to the government acting as judge, jury, and executioner right there on the street. The burden of proof is on the cops to show that they used necessary force.

And if you will notice, I haven't said they did or didn't. I also haven't convicted the cops themselves of any wrong-doing. I have simply stated FACTS (notice, not opinions, not anecdotes, but facts) and stated that there are questions that need to be answered. :shrug:
 
OK first of all, the guy was not a violent criminal or suspect.
How are the police to know that about a drunk man walking towards them with a weapon and refusing to cooperate?


He was walking along the street on Sunday morning, a worker on his way to his job. The "knife" was a tool he used in his job (think putty knife) and he didn't understand the police officers who were looking for an actual violent suspect.

Links?

By the way, he was legal.

I never said he wasn't and how is that relevant to a drunk man getting shot while approaching officers with a knife?


Also, the pregnant lady and the other lady...no one seems to be able to find either. KTLA has been following the story very closely and reporting on it every night.

Also, between the time it happened and Tuesday...suddenly this knife appeared (which is not a switchblade, by the way) as
Links?

The police in LA have a proven record of shooting first and asking questions later.
They also have a proven record of planting evidence, using unnecessary force, and all manner of corruption.

Links?

Now you can mouthfoam about "scumbag sympathizers" as if that kind of rhetoric is going to lend substance to your uninformed ranting, but the fact is, there's a lot of pissed off people in LA right now and they kinda have every right to be until some very serious questions are answered.

I am going by MSNBC article which and every other story or article on this which says the man was drunk carrying a knife approaching officers and refused to cooperate. What news source do you have that contradicts this?
 
I have simply stated FACTS (notice, not opinions, not anecdotes, but facts) and stated that there are questions that need to be answered. :shrug:


Facts like these?

Ummm...that "little thug" was in his 40's and had never had any kind of record.

the guy was 37, not in his 40s.

a worker on his way to his job.

According to numerous witnesses he was a vagrant and had been drinking. Doesn’t sound much like a worker on the way to a job to me.

By the way, he was legal.

Pitcher said Jamines was an illegal immigrant from Guatemala.

before you lecture anyone else about using facts...you might want to double check and make sure yours are correct. A quick google search turned up the above contradictions in just a few minutes.
 
How are the police to know that about a drunk man walking towards them with a weapon and refusing to cooperate?


First of all, no one said drunk. They said he had been drinking.


KTLA's website. It's been reported every single night since it happened. Go take a look.

I never said he wasn't and how is that relevant to a drunk man getting shot while approaching officers with a knife?

I'm simply pointing it out before it turns into a "dey took our jobs!" episode.


Same search...go to KTLA's website and see the news reports. Have you seen any statement of these witnesses other than the cops saying "they said"? Any names, and interviews? Let me know how that works out for you. Onus is on you to prove they exist if you believe it so desperately. I can't very well prove a negative nor am I required to do so.


Let me know when you're done with the list

I am going by MSNBC article which and every other story or article on this which says the man was drunk carrying a knife approaching officers and refused to cooperate. What news source do you have that contradicts this?

The news was reported as it unfolded. Again, witness testimonies, etc. The MSNBC article, while good about sticking to the facts that have been uncovered, doesn't ask the questions that are being asked locally.

And again, I am merely pointing out that these are testimonies from witnesses that have gotten on the news and stated their observations openly. I'm NOT stating these cops are guilty of any wrong-doing...merely that there are questions that need to be anwered and other accounts besides the one two officers with their asses in the fire have given.
 
Facts like these?



the guy was 37, not in his 40s.



According to numerous witnesses he was a vagrant and had been drinking. Doesn’t sound much like a worker on the way to a job to me.



Pitcher said Jamines was an illegal immigrant from Guatemala.

before you lecture anyone else about using facts...you might want to double check and make sure yours are correct. A quick google search turned up the above contradictions in just a few minutes.

37, 40...either way, you get the point...he wasn't a "little thug".

No one has reported that he was illegal. In fact, it was reported that he was a legal and had been here for 7 years.

Also, he was no vagrant. He was a member of the community and a laborer. Vagrants typically don't get memorials set up for them. Also, family members have been speaking out.

I'm not denying he might have been drinking. In fact, he probably was with it being a holiday weekend. That still does not preclude him going to work.

Get your facts straight before you come at me with this attitude again, commando.
 
37, 40...either way, you get the point...he wasn't a "little thug".

No one has reported that he was illegal. In fact, it was reported that he was a legal and had been here for 7 years.

Also, he was no vagrant. He was a member of the community and a laborer. Vagrants typically don't get memorials set up for them. Also, family members have been speaking out.

I'm not denying he might have been drinking. In fact, he probably was with it being a holiday weekend. That still does not preclude him going to work.

Get your facts straight before you come at me with this attitude again, commando.

the guy, "Capt Pitcher", who is investigating the officers involved in the shooting reported that Jamines was illegal from guatemala

37 isn't 40, nice backtrack though facts is facts regardless of the point

the point is, there is a lot of confusion and conflicting information out there about the situation. don't be an arrogant ass and accuse other members of not stating facts when you have no proof that your "facts" are indeed correct.
 
the guy, "Capt Pitcher", who is investigating the officers involved in the shooting reported that Jamines was illegal from guatemala

And KTLA reported the exact opposite. Well not the exact opposite...they have reported that he was from Guatemala.

37 isn't 40, nice backtrack though facts is facts regardless of the point

Oh well you must be so proud of uncovering that three year difference, detective.

the point is, there is a lot of confusion and conflicting information out there about the situation. don't be an arrogant ass and accuse other members of not stating facts when you have no proof that your "facts" are indeed correct.

And this is exactly what I said...questions need to be answered. And my facts have been correct, though I concede to you your 3 year difference if it's what it takes to get you through it ;). And by the way....the arrogant ass comment. Reported.
 
the guy, "Capt Pitcher", who is investigating the officers involved in the shooting reported that Jamines was illegal from guatemala

37 isn't 40, nice backtrack though facts is facts regardless of the point

the point is, there is a lot of confusion and conflicting information out there about the situation. don't be an arrogant ass and accuse other members of not stating facts when you have no proof that your "facts" are indeed correct.

Moderator's Warning:
In bold. Cease the personal attacks or there will be further consequences.
 
You have to understand that there is a LONG HISTORY between LAPD and the HIspanic community in Los Angeles, and it isn't clean on either side. You have cops that have been ambushed and killed by 18th Street gang members, and you have Sleepy Lagoon, back in the 1950s, when the cops just rounded up innocent Latinos and pinned a murder rap on them, and you have LA Crash (gang unit) that was corrupt as hell and built fake cases against Hispanic gang members, and then you have just average beat cops in LA who will knock someone's head for lipping off.

LAPD doesn't exactly have the best history of treating minorities fairly. And, the Latino community members have their own issues, from immigration issues to supporting the local street gangs.

It's gone back and forth for several generations, and it's way more complicated than just "they're racist."
 
Last edited:
No, youre right. Theyre racist cause theyre all hispanic. Makes perfect sense.

Still no better reason as to why they are all discounting the eyewitess and police reports? Or why liberals here immediately jumped to their defense?

Dont bother changing your described lean...
 
Ummm...that "little thug" was in his 40's and had never had any kind of record. So funny how you guys keep fleshing this story out with a bunch of colorful embellishments but very little in the way of facts and substance.

So YOU are the next contestant to come forward with the 'real' account and a way to refute the eyewitness and police accounts. Awesome...thats all Ive been asking for...so...go ahead...tell us.
 
The cops shot a citizen. That's tantamount to the government acting as judge, jury, and executioner right there on the street. The burden of proof is on the cops to show that they used necessary force.

And if you will notice, I haven't said they did or didn't. I also haven't convicted the cops themselves of any wrong-doing. I have simply stated FACTS (notice, not opinions, not anecdotes, but facts) and stated that there are questions that need to be answered. :shrug:

So either a-the original witnesses were telling the truth and THAT is why the police ended up shooting the guy, or b-the police for no good reason found a guy, shot the guy, then fabricated evidence and witnesses. Okie dokie.

The alleged perp...he appartently never did such a thing...so he is innocent. And the specific cops...they probably do this kind of thing all the time.

"And if you will notice, I haven't said they did or didn't. I also haven't convicted the cops themselves of any wrong-doing. I have simply stated FACTS (notice, not opinions, not anecdotes, but facts) and stated that there are questions that need to be answered."

OK...Im glad I saw this before I hit send. SO...on this we actually AGREE. In every police shooting there is an investigation. So...let it be investigated.

And if it is found to be a rightous shoot...bets on whether or not there is rioting?
 
So YOU are the next contestant to come forward with the 'real' account and a way to refute the eyewitness and police accounts. Awesome...thats all Ive been asking for...so...go ahead...tell us.

No, I am relating what witnesses interviewed on the news have said. None of these "eyewitnesses" that have made these claims about stabbing pregnant women have been produced in any interviews so far.

Try reading what I actually said before you decide to get snarky. This is a conversation...no a bunch of asinine chest thumping. kthanx.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom