Gyroscopic Investing

dualstow wrote:It was Moda.

Keith Scott WAS carrying a stolen gun, police say – and his wife filed for a restraining order against him saying he was armed, violent and had threatened to kill her

...

'He hit my 8 year old in the head a total of three times with is [sic] fist,' she wrote on the form published by TWC News.

'He kicked me and threaten [sic] to kill us last night with his gun. He said he is a "killer" and we should know that.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z4LSwKmhck

farjean2 wrote:Caution. If you're like me this might be the most sickening thing you've ever seen and it might leave you disliking cops....

https://youtu.be/VBUUx0jUKxc

The background is simple. Shaver was a traveling pest control worker. He was in his hotel room (a La Quinta Inn) showing off to guests a pellet gun he used for work. Police responded to a 911 call claiming that a man was pointing a rifle out a window.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/45 ... iel-shaver

MangoMan wrote:I'm not sure what you guys think is the problem here. The cop thought the perp was armed, told the guy not to move his hands or he would shoot him, and the idiot disobeyed and got what was promised. If I was the cop, I would have shot him, too.

You think the cop should have let the guy potentially draw on him?

South Carolina sheriffs have embezzled, bribed and dipped into public funds for expensive chauffeurs. They’ve driven drunk and bullied other public officials. They’ve been accused of leveraging their power to sexually assault their female employees.

While many South Carolina sheriffs have strong records of serving the public, others served themselves and their cronies, a five-month Post and Courier investigation found.

In the past decade, no fewer than 11 of South Carolina’s 46 counties have seen their sheriffs accused of breaking laws — nearly one in four.

Like the sheriff in Orangeburg who funneled public funds into bogus credit union accounts to buy a $72,000 motor home. The missing money was discovered only after the sheriff died.

And the sheriff in Chesterfield County who embezzled money, gave weapons to inmates — even let a prisoner host a dinner at the sheriff’s home. A judge sentenced the sheriff to two years.

Investigators say the officer was driving his orange Corvette 94 miles an hour, nearly twice the speed limit, when he collided off-duty with a family’s SUV.

The crash killed a 1-year-old girl who went flying out of the vehicle, according to police. But the Baton Rouge Police Department’s Christopher Manuel will face no criminal charges — not even for speeding, prosecutors said this week.

The news has drawn further scrutiny to the 2017 tragedy that stirred public outrage last year after authorities arrested the dead child’s mother, 21-year-old Brittany Stephens, on suspicion of negligent homicide, saying the baby probably would not have been ejected and killed if Stephens had properly secured the car seat. Authorities have decided not to charge her, East Baton Rouge district attorney Hillar Moore III said.

The choice to prosecute neither Manuel nor Stephens was an agonizing one, Moore told The Washington Post on Friday. But after two years of discussions, he said, prosecutors felt they couldn’t meet the burden of proof for homicide or even a lesser charge like negligent injury for the officer. At the same time, they were loath to go after a young woman whom Moore said has already “punished herself.”

“You never want any officer traveling 94 miles an hour,” he said. “It’s just stupid. It’s dangerous. But when we looked at the law and the facts and the circumstances, we just thought that this was the only reasonable decision to make.”

An attorney for Stephens told The Post he’s troubled by authorities’ handling of the case, though. He has questioned last year’s action against his client, calling it a tactic to muddy responsibility for baby Seyaira’s death. Now, he’s blasting the district attorney for letting the officer off the hook, saying the choice exudes “impropriety” given prosecutors’ close work with police.

Xan wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2019 12:17 pm ...any number of things could have killed their kid, and if they had cared enough, they could have prevented it.

drumminj wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2019 4:19 pm

Xan wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2019 12:17 pm ...any number of things could have killed their kid, and if they had cared enough, they could have prevented it.

True, but those other things didn't. In this case, it was the actions of the officer that triggered the outcome.

Agree that the parents made a poor choice, but I also believe that those we entrust with upholding the law (and grant a monopoly on violence) should be held to a higher standard. In this case, it was the officers direct actions that led to the outcome.

Xan wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2019 5:10 pm It isn't quite as clear for actions that take place off duty, when the officer is acting as an ordinary citizen. Whether or not a crime is prosecuted, and whether the officer/suspect is guilty or innocent, shouldn't have anything to do with his status as a policeman unless it related to being a policeman.

Xan wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2019 5:10 pm Actually, speeding could be kind of a grey area. Was he speeding because he knows that cops don't get speeding tickets? The "wink and nod" arrangement that cops don't get tickets certainly is an issue, and I don't know what the solution is. To the extent that this speeding was enabled by that knowledge, now you might be crossing back into an abuse of office kind of thing.

drumminj wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2019 7:44 pm There's this too. Police seem to get away with so many things that us normal folks don't, so I don't see how the outcome could be any different than simply believing the rules don't apply to you as an officer. I think our current society has this wrong -- the bar has to be higher, not lower, for those we employ to enforce the rules of our society.

drumminj wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2019 7:44 pm

Xan wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2019 5:10 pm It isn't quite as clear for actions that take place off duty, when the officer is acting as an ordinary citizen. Whether or not a crime is prosecuted, and whether the officer/suspect is guilty or innocent, shouldn't have anything to do with his status as a policeman unless it related to being a policeman.

This is an interesting issue, and I think I disagree. Yes, they're not on duty, but they still should better understand the law (if ignorance isn't an excuse for the rest of us, it most certainly shouldn't be for the police), and I think there's some aspect as a society where we should expect our 'enforcers' to set a good example, whether they're on the clock or not. IMO this is a profession where I think it's wholly appropriate that their behavior in their private life affect their job/professional life. If the police don't follow the law, why should anyone else???

Xan wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2019 5:10 pm Actually, speeding could be kind of a grey area. Was he speeding because he knows that cops don't get speeding tickets? The "wink and nod" arrangement that cops don't get tickets certainly is an issue, and I don't know what the solution is. To the extent that this speeding was enabled by that knowledge, now you might be crossing back into an abuse of office kind of thing.

There's this too. Police seem to get away with so many things that us normal folks don't, so I don't see how the outcome could be any different than simply believing the rules don't apply to you as an officer. I think our current society has this wrong -- the bar has to be higher, not lower, for those we employ to enforce the rules of our society.

The government lied, "framed," hid favorable evidence, and showed "contempt for the law at every turn" in their treatment of Michael Flynn, the retired three-star Army general and former Trump White House national security adviser.

Those charges were contained in a new filing in the government's case against Flynn. And his attorney, Sidney Powell, was just getting started.

In the 27-page-filing, an add-on to her previous motions, Powell demanded charges be dropped against Flynn based on previously withheld exculpatory documents by the government and the IG report on FISA abuse.
link

Kriegsspiel wrote: ↑Sun Mar 01, 2020 8:07 am

The government lied, "framed," hid favorable evidence, and showed "contempt for the law at every turn" in their treatment of Michael Flynn, the retired three-star Army general and former Trump White House national security adviser.

Those charges were contained in a new filing in the government's case against Flynn. And his attorney, Sidney Powell, was just getting started.

In the 27-page-filing, an add-on to her previous motions, Powell demanded charges be dropped against Flynn based on previously withheld exculpatory documents by the government and the IG report on FISA abuse.
link

Hmm.