Police investigating after pastor killed in sting

[DUB]

Richard_ wrote:

<quoted text>The prosecutor is in the executive branch of governemnt, so are the cops. Executive branch executes the will of the state. Therefore, the prosecutor represents the state and that's why a criminal complaint from the plaitiff, the state, will have a heading, "State v. Accused Person".

One more time since you must have been in the back row or in the bathroom. There is no plaintiff in a criminal case. Plaintiffs are part of criminal cases. Definition from our friend Webster:
A plaintiff (&#928; in legal shorthand), also known as a claimant or complainant, is the party who initiates a lawsuit (also known as an action) before a court. By doing so, the plaintiff seeks a legal remedy, and if successful, the court will issue judgment in favor of the plaintiff and make the appropriate court order (e.g., an order for damages).
Criminal cases have Prosecutors.

[DUB]

Ecce_Homo wrote:

<quoted text>
He's going to be swaying public opinion the wrong way because his posts make it seem like police are above the law and may murder civilians and get away with it because they believe that even if they commit a crime on purpose, it's for all the right reasons.

That is the most leftist double talk I have heard in a while. First the police are not above the law, period. They fall subject to the same laws as everyone else.
However the leftist speak comes when you say that the officers can commit crimes if it's for the right reason. Well putting it that way makes officers sound evil. But if you were to put it this way; Police officers can do things that would otherwise be illegal if they are doing it as part of their job. Things like speed to catch speeders, run red lights to get to emergencies, ram cars to stop criminals from getting away, point guns at people to protect themselves and the public, and yes shoot people to stop them from hurting others. But unless they are doing what they do within the bounds of the laws that govern them they answer to the same laws as you; would be a better way to say it. But again, why let little things like the truth get in the way.

[DUB]

Ecce_Homo wrote:

<quoted text>
You forgot that police also get to lie when testifying so that they can overcome that silly thing called facts. In fact, police lying is so rampant, it's jokingly referred to as "testilying".

See again, you refuse to answer the question posed to you and instead choose a tangent to take the light off of the fact you lied. And you think I'm trying to sway opinion?

[The Sage]

Ecce_Homo wrote:

<quoted text>
You forgot that police also get to lie when testifying so that they can overcome that silly thing called facts. In fact, police lying is so rampant, it's jokingly referred to as "testilying".

Right.... cops have to lie all of the time because there's really not any crime going on, so they have to lie about it so they can keep their jobs. All the break ins and robberies are committed by invisible trolls...the cops just pick innocent people to put the blame on.

Were you dropped on your head when you were a kid?

[DUB]

Ecce_Homo wrote:

<quoted text>
You forgot that police also get to lie when testifying so that they can overcome that silly thing called facts. In fact, police lying is so rampant, it's jokingly referred to as "testilying".

And you forget the term testilying was brought about to describe defendants when their lawyers put them up feeding them questions to avoid admitting guilt while never exactly lying by omitting facts.

[DUB]

Ecce_Homo wrote:

<quoted text>Testilying is in regards to police, it is government that has the burden of proof, therefore it is police who must use tainted evidence to obtain a conviction.
And since you're obviously ignorant of the US Constitution, a defendant may never be asked if they committed a crime becasue they simply have the right to not do so.

You seem to be the oblivious one. Nothing prohibits the police from asking a defendant if he did it if he does not invoke his right to remain silent or request a lawyer. Nothing prohibits the prosecutors from asking in court if the defendant gets on the stand. Your problem is you read just enough to look like an idiot. And lord knows there has never been a guilty person and the police always use tainted evidence. I think you need to see someone about the delusions you have.

[The Sage]

Ecce_Homo wrote:

<quoted text>Testilying is in regards to police, it is government that has the burden of proof, therefore it is police who must use tainted evidence to obtain a conviction.
And since you're obviously ignorant of the US Constitution, a defendant may never be asked if they committed a crime becasue they simply have the right to not do so.

Anyone with as much animosity and prejudice towards police either has a criminal record, or a family member with a criminal record. So tell us, which is it with you??

The crackhead's choice of words was very telling, as someone else pointed out. "I've never been charged with prostitution." Prostitution? Who said anything about prostitution?? Seems like an odd statement to make out of nowhere. Why didn't she just say, "I'm an addict, but I'm not a prostitute or anything like that." No, she said, "I've never been CHARGED with prostitution. Interesting...

[Wildflower]

DUB wrote:

<quoted text> And rocket scientist aren't exactly cops, and you sure aren't a brain surgeon. And you sure aren't winning any games.

Actually Dubbie, Dubbie, Dubbie, Dubbie, this isn't a game. And how do you know he isn't a brain surgeon?
You spend a lot of time throwing negative energy towards others. You sound like a cop yourself. Anytime someone raises a valid point, you use legaleese to talk circles and avoid the real point of any debate that someone brings to you.
Rev Ayes was killed in cold blood by the hoodlums that you defend. There is no justification for what they did.
If you were really a good guy you would at least admit that they were wrong. But you would rather point out poor grammar or the fact that you make people so mad they may not clearly state the point they want to make.
If you could at least admit that the procedure those boys followed was the wrong way to handle it, maybe someone would take heart to your rantings.

[Wildflower]

The Sage wrote:

<quoted text>
Anyone with as much animosity and prejudice towards police either has a criminal record, or a family member with a criminal record. So tell us, which is it with you??
The crackhead's choice of words was very telling, as someone else pointed out. "I've never been charged with prostitution." Prostitution? Who said anything about prostitution?? Seems like an odd statement to make out of nowhere. Why didn't she just say, "I'm an addict, but I'm not a prostitute or anything like that." No, she said, "I've never been CHARGED with prostitution. Interesting...

Sorry for butting in, but you don't sound like you have one drop of compassion. I feel sorry for people like you. Maybe you have lived your life in a crystal palace and have never done any wrong. Or maybe you live in a fairy tale land where no one in your family has ever had a run-in with the law. I'm not sure from what planet you have arrived.

[DUB]

Wildflower wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually Dubbie, Dubbie, Dubbie, Dubbie, this isn't a game. And how do you know he isn't a brain surgeon?
You spend a lot of time throwing negative energy towards others. You sound like a cop yourself. Anytime someone raises a valid point, you use legaleese to talk circles and avoid the real point of any debate that someone brings to you.
Rev Ayes was killed in cold blood by the hoodlums that you defend. There is no justification for what they did.
If you were really a good guy you would at least admit that they were wrong. But you would rather point out poor grammar or the fact that you make people so mad they may not clearly state the point they want to make.
If you could at least admit that the procedure those boys followed was the wrong way to handle it, maybe someone would take heart to your rantings.

I'll admit they were hoodlums and were wrong when you admit that Mr. Ayers was involved in illegal activity and purposely hit the officer and tried to run the other over and deserved to be shot at. Bet you won't do that. All I am asking you and anyone else to do is the one thing you refuse to do that I will do. That is give the "hoodlum" officers the same presumption of innocence you give Mr. Ayers. Do that and the discussion will be exactly what it needs to be. Fair. But until you give the officers the same considerations that I give Mr. Ayers, and yes, as of right now, I presume that Mr. Ayers was innocent, you can not be fair and impartial.

[The Sage]

Wildflower wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry for butting in, but you don't sound like you have one drop of compassion. I feel sorry for people like you. Maybe you have lived your life in a crystal palace and have never done any wrong. Or maybe you live in a fairy tale land where no one in your family has ever had a run-in with the law. I'm not sure from what planet you have arrived.

And just who am I not having enough compassion for that deserves compassion??

[janie]

The only problem is the pastor can't speak for himself because the police acted stupidly.....
Not my words but Obama's.

DUB wrote:

<quoted text> I'll admit they were hoodlums and were wrong when you admit that Mr. Ayers was involved in illegal activity and purposely hit the officer and tried to run the other over and deserved to be shot at. Bet you won't do that. All I am asking you and anyone else to do is the one thing you refuse to do that I will do. That is give the "hoodlum" officers the same presumption of innocence you give Mr. Ayers. Do that and the discussion will be exactly what it needs to be. Fair. But until you give the officers the same considerations that I give Mr. Ayers, and yes, as of right now, I presume that Mr. Ayers was innocent, you can not be fair and impartial.

[The Sage]

Ecce_Homo wrote:

<quoted text>
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/dershowitz_t...

What has brought you to this pathetic state?? Why are you so prejudiced against cops?? Me thinks that you have had a few too many run ins with the law, or someone close to you has. Response???