#11
|
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to MeMyselfandI For This Useful Post: | ||
AceGoober, darryl2016, M.F.D.B., pokerplay, Suicide_Note, tandc, zhazoo |
#12
|
Good job pup!
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Tyrantus For This Useful Post: | ||
darryl2016, docfr8, M.F.D.B. |
#13
| ||||||||
So Fucking Banned Poster Rank:10 Join Date: Dec 2016 Mentioned: 478 Post(s) Quoted: 43304 Post(s) | ||||||||
Authorities have released bodycam footage from a Tucson police shooting that killed 49-year-old Francisco Javier Galarza at a Circle K on Aug. 25. According to the Pima Regional Critical Incident Team (PRCIT), Tucson Police SWAT officers had been conducting surveillance on Galarza, regarding active felony arrest warrants stemming from a home invasion and bank robbery just before the shooting. Officials said that officers approached Galarza when he came out of the store at 11:51 a.m. and told him to get down on the ground so that they could arrest him. But Galarza tried to flee and removed a black handgun out of a bag that he was carrying, according to the incident team. Officer Barrie Pedersen released his police dog, Kiro, to apprehend Galarza and brought him to the ground, according to police. Police said that while Galarza was on the ground, he pointed his gun at officers Ernest Ortiz and Pedersen which prompted officers to shoot at him. The critical incident unit said that officers provided medical attention to Galarza using first aid kits until Tucson firefighters arrived. Despite these efforts, Galarza was pronounced dead at the scene, police said. PRCIT said police later learned the gun in Galarza's possession was a Taurus G3 9mm semi-automatic and that it was recovered with ammunition in the magazine and one round in the chamber. https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...ct/8122180001/ |
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Yanni For This Useful Post: | ||
AceGoober, hughjardon67, kellyhound, M.F.D.B., Marsofwar, Suicide_Note, Susan |
#14
|
fixed.
|
The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to kellyhound For This Useful Post: | ||
Azimuth, darryl2016, docfr8, Gravy42, hughjardon67, M.F.D.B., Marsofwar, Monty2992, NEKROHUNTER, pingumaria, pokerplay, ride, ringtoss, tucow, Yanni |
#15
| ||||||||
My Rank: STAFF SERGEANT Poster Rank:789 Join Date: Aug 2009 Mentioned: 4 Post(s) Quoted: 364 Post(s) | ||||||||
Police man are not officers. Only elected officials to an office are officers. In military service, commission and noncommission are also officers. Police are a civilian law enforcement agents of a police department. All who are not ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY, and who do NOT answer to the Uniform Code of MILITARY Justice, ARE CIVILIANS including police ,deputies to a sheriff department or troopers. |
The Following User Says Thank You to photo2uj For This Useful Post: | ||
11B2P |
The Following 22 Users Said Fuck Off to photo2uj For This Post: | ||
AceGoober,
anorexorcist,
Azimuth,
Black Claw,
darryl2016,
destroyerangel,
docfr8,
firefirefire,
GMauler0433,
habsphannn,
Hogmann,
M.F.D.B.,
mothmon,
RangerDanger,
reload101,
seeker2121,
Suicide_Note,
Thomdiver,
Travis72,
tucow,
upinthemountains,
xxxxcrisisxxxx |
#16
|
W cop. W dog.
|
#18
| |
Blow your weird political shit out of your ass. Quote:
|
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to upinthemountains For This Useful Post: | ||
Azimuth, Black Claw, docfr8, Gravy42, Hogmann, hughjardon67, RangerDanger, reload101, seeker2121, tucow, xxxxcrisisxxxx |
#19
| |
Quote:
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to cohort66 For This Useful Post: | ||
AceGoober, docfr8, habsphannn, M.F.D.B. |
#20
| |
Quote:
In Pierson v. Ray (1967) the Supreme Court decided that police were “officers” and covered under the Qualified Immunity doctrine that protects public officials from frivolous lawsuits and financial liability during execution of their duties. The Supreme Court denied a 2016 petition to hear the libel case of Armstrong v. Thompson thereby allowing a lower court ruling to stand stating “law enforcement officers are ‘public officials’ under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)”. There are also state cases that similarly recognize police as officials in context, e.g. the Massachusetts Supreme Court in Rotkiewicz v Sadowsky (2000) ruled “for the purposes of a defamation action, a police officer is a public official.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity https://casetext.com/case/thompson-v-armstrong-1 https://www.scotusblog.com/case-file...ng-v-thompson/ http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/431/431mass748.html |
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to spamwich For This Useful Post: | ||
Gravy42, kellyhound, reload101, Thomdiver, vondeckbar72, Yanni, zhazoo |