Poll Question on Danziger Bridge Massacre

[SpidermanTuba]

Check it out, I wrote a wiki article


Danziger Bridge Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PatekPhilippe]

If you had actually graduated high school you'd know the three fold purpose of the criminal justice system - retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

Revenge and retribution are listed as synonyms in any thesaurus you pick up.

and if you weren't a psychotic inbred from the swamps of Louisiana you would know that any appearance of impropriety in our system of justice would cause the breakdown of our society as we know it. Revenge has no place in our justice system.

You're babbling again.

You're essentially stating that retributive justice has no place in our system of justice - which means you do not believe that punishment for a crime is morally justified so long as the punishment is in proportion to the crime.

So which theory of justice do you prescribe to? Transformative justice? Restorative justice? Its odd to me, you being a rightwinger, that you would believe in liberal hogwash such as that, but if you don't believe in retributive justice, what's left?

Why do you not believe criminals should be punished?

What happened to the other 2 tenets of criminal justice...did you forget those? Don't put words in people's mouths...that's why no one takes anything you say seriously. Retributive justice operates hand in hand with deterrence and rehabilitation right? That's what you said...and I stated that REVENGE is NOT part of our justice system like you imply. Is deterrence revenge...is rehab revenge? NO and NO therefore your statement that revenge and retribtution are interchangeable within the context of the criminal justice system is completely idiotic...much like your hypothetical bullshit poll you've posted here.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

What happened to the other 2 tenets of criminal justice...did you forget those?

Uhh, no. In fact, I mentioned them before you. Stop being a butt fuck.

Retributive justice operates hand in hand with deterrence and rehabilitation right? That's what you said...and I stated that REVENGE is NOT part of our justice system like you imply.

Retribution and revenge are synonyms. Seriously, why do you insist on being a complete douchebag instead of debating the issue?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

What happened to the other 2 tenets of criminal justice...did you forget those?

Uhh, no. In fact, I mentioned them before you. Stop being a butt fuck.

Retributive justice operates hand in hand with deterrence and rehabilitation right? That's what you said...and I stated that REVENGE is NOT part of our justice system like you imply.

Retribution and revenge are synonyms. Seriously, why do you insist on being a complete douchebag instead of debating the issue?

That's what you said...and I stated that REVENGE is NOT part of our justice system like you imply. Is deterrence revenge...is rehab revenge?

Do you even know what the word "part" means? You have got to be the dumbest person in the world. Retribution is not part of criminal justice because there are other parts of criminal justice - yeah, that's real logical.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I don't think I explained the civil rights thing correctly. To be convicted under that statute, you have to prove that they intended to deny him his civil rights. Jumping up and down on chest may very well have been with intent of harming, but that doesn't prove they intended to deny them of their civil rights.

WTF
You are aware that LIFE is a civil right, aren't you? You don't think shooting an unarmed man in the back qualifies as intending to deny that man life? Are you seriously this stupid? Really?

Address the "snitching" thing I brought up earlier please.

I have on multiple occasions. If you want to start a thread on the T-Shirts they sell in Kansas City, you're more than welcome. I fail to see the relevance here.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Look chap....if you don't care to debate this any further then shut your mouth....you're making yourself look real bad.

Uhh, no. In fact, I mentioned them before you. Stop being a butt fuck

When you don't read the entire response you make asinine comments like this.....secondly it's funny to see you get pissed off when your thread FAILS to impress anyone other than yourself....

 

[JWBooth]

I don't think I explained the civil rights thing correctly. To be convicted under that statute, you have to prove that they intended to deny him his civil rights. Jumping up and down on chest may very well have been with intent of harming, but that doesn't prove they intended to deny them of their civil rights.

WTF
You are aware that LIFE is a civil right, aren't you? You don't think shooting an unarmed man in the back qualifies as intending to deny that man life? Are you seriously this stupid? Really?

Those poor hypotheticals, it sure is unfortunate for them that the founders didn't do more to provide written protections for them in the Constitution, them and movie characters.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Look chap....if you don't care to debate this any further then shut your mouth....you're making yourself look real bad.

Ok, is that a "no, I had no idea life was a civil right" ?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Those poor hypotheticals, it sure is unfortunate for them that the founders didn't do more to provide written protections for them in the Constitution, them and movie characters.

If you are mentally incapable of determining whether or not someone deserves to die, that's OK, just don't participate in the discussion.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Well there you have it folks, 73% of US Messageboard posters think its OK for cops to gun down innocent civilians in the streets.

 

[JWBooth]

Well there you have it folks, 73% of US Messageboard posters think its OK for cops to gun down innocent civilians in the streets.

Just so long as they dont really exist.

 

[geauxtohell]

Why don't people want the law applied? Under "Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law", Officer A and Sergeant are liable for the death penalty, why does no one want it applied? Because they are cops and cops are above the law?

I am anti-death penalty so I voted against that.

I want to see justice done.

As I said before, you can't argue for justice when you have already reached a verdict in your mind.

Its a question about two hypothetical people, "Officer A" and "Sergeant A", and the question assumes the facts presented about them are true.

So given those facts, and given what the federal statute say - do you think they deserve the death penalty? That's the question.

Except we both know this is not a hypothetical situation and I don't support the death penalty so "no".

I also profess to be shaky on pursuing a murder rap based on the civil rights violations, so I won't even speculate.

If the cops intended simply to massacre people on the Danziger Bridge, then I want them punished to the full extent of the law (short of the death penalty).

However, I am hesitant to believe that was the officers' intent. The whole situation was a cluster fuck and a text book example of how not to do things.

The officers were responding to reports of gunshots in a rental van they had commandeered. They showed up, saw a mob they believed to be responsible for the gunfire, and fired warning shots out of an un-marked vehicle. The innocent people on the Danziger Bridge, naturally, were terrified and started to flee. The officers perceived this to be hostile and started firing indescrimately.

In normal circumstances, they would have had a cop car and there would have been no need for warning shots (probably wasn't to begin with).

I think the cops did wrong and deserve jail time, I don't think they were the brutal killers you make them out to be. The complaint against them is just one side of the story. They deserve their day in court, the entire set of facts need to be heard (which you are unconcerned with), and justice needs to be done.

With most things in Katrina, myth, hyperbole, out-right lies, and half truths accompany most of the salacious accusations in Katrina. Dr. Anna Pou was demonized by that moron Foti under claims of euthanasia. The charges were so hyped up, that not only could Foti not even indict Dr. Pou, the state was found liable for malicious prosecution and had to pay her legal fees. (I believe Pou is entirely innocent and a hero).

 

[geauxtohell]

If you had actually graduated high school you'd know the three fold purpose of the criminal justice system - retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

Revenge and retribution are listed as synonyms in any thesaurus you pick up.

Are either of the anonymous officers currently charged with any crimes by the state or federal government?

Or is it just Hunter so far?

Hunter is the 4th NOPD officer to be charged, and the 2nd involved directly in the shooting. Which leaves 5 cops who participated in the shooting and who have not been charged yet.

Weren't the charges dropped though? Who is currently charged besides Hunter?

 

[geauxtohell]

Wow, so far only one other person thinks that a cop who shoots an unarmed mentally handicapped civilian in the back from a moving vehicle, killing him, should actually have to pay for his crime with his life.



My question for the others is - if I were to shoot an unarmed mentally handicapped man in the back from a moving vehicle, and then have one of my buddies come over and jump up and down on his body as he lay bleeding to death - would I deserve the death penalty?

If you aren't going to accept other people's answers and opinions, why ask the question?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

If the cops intended simply to massacre people on the Danziger Bridge, then I want them punished to the full extent of the law (short of the death penalty).

However, I am hesitant to believe that was the officers' intent. The whole situation was a cluster fuck and a text book example of how not to do things.

Title 18 Section 242 does not require that they hatch a conspiracy from the beginning to deprive people of their rights - it only requires that the action be "willful" If indeed the facts are as described by Hunter - that means a police officer shot a man in the back who was running with his hands in view and clearly not carrying a weapon - that officer willfully deprived that man of his right to life. Title 18 Section 242 does not care whether this was the result of pure evil - or simply a result of total disregard for civilian life (apathy as opposed to hate) - it only cares that it was a willful act.

So you're wrong.

The officers were responding to reports of gunshots in a rental van they had commandeered. They showed up, saw a mob they believed to be responsible for the gunfire, and fired warning shots out of an un-marked vehicle. The innocent people on the Danziger Bridge, naturally, were terrified and started to flee. The officers perceived this to be hostile and started firing indescrimately.

In normal circumstances, they would have had a cop car and there would have been no need for warning shots (probably wasn't to begin with).

Dude I don't think you actually read the bill of information . Madison was shot FROM A MOVING COP CAR in the BACK while running with his hands in plain view.

I don't think they were the brutal killers you make them out to be.

Of course you don't. You haven't actually been keeping up with the news. Its as if yo don't even know what happened.

The complaint against them is just one side of the story.

And so far its the only side not shown to be full of lies and deliberate coverups.

With most things in Katrina, myth, hyperbole, out-right lies, and half truths accompany most of the salacious accusations in Katrina.

OK. Read the fucking bill of information. All if it. Then get back to us.





BTW - the supposed phone call these cops got for assistance, there's no record of it existing.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Are either of the anonymous officers currently charged with any crimes by the state or federal government?

Or is it just Hunter so far?

Hunter is the 4th NOPD officer to be charged, and the 2nd involved directly in the shooting. Which leaves 5 cops who participated in the shooting and who have not been charged yet.

Weren't the charges dropped though? Who is currently charged besides Hunter?

Danziger Bridge Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(full disclosure - the wiki article is written by me)

 

[theHawk]

If Hunter's testamony is true, I'd say they should get the death penalty.

What I don't get though, is why in the hell would this Hunter guy fired shots in the direction of citizens just because they wouldn't had known they were cops. Doing essentially a drive-bye shooting in an unmarked truck or van isn't exactly the best way to identify yourself as a cop. Anyone with a gun would have the right to fire back to defend themselves. But then again, maybe that's exactly what the cops were hoping for.

 

[geauxtohell]

Title 18 Section 242 does not require that they hatch a conspiracy from the beginning to deprive people of their rights - it only requires that the action be "willful" If indeed the facts are as described by Hunter - that means a police officer shot a man in the back who was running with his hands in view and clearly not carrying a weapon - that officer willfully deprived that man of his right to life. Title 18 Section 242 does not care whether this was the result of pure evil - or simply a result of total disregard for civilian life (apathy as opposed to hate) - it only cares that it was a willful act.

So you're wrong.

You asked me for my opinion. There isn't a "right" or "wrong". Furthermore, even if we aren't arguing opinions, this is a contentious issue and there won't be "right" or "wrong" until these officers see their day in court. You have indicated that you aren't interested in anything but a guilty verdict and damn the facts and evidence. I would argue that your opinion on this matter is skewed.

Dude I don't think you actually read the bill of information . Madison was shot FROM A MOVING COP CAR in the BACK while running with his hands in plain view.

From page 3:

"defendant HUNTER and other NOPD officers loaded into a large Budget rental truck, which HUNTER then drove from the Crystal Palace to the Danziger Bridge. En route to the Danziger Bridge, Sergeant A asked to borrow an assault rifle defendant HUNTER had placed in the cab of the Budget truck. HUNTER hesitated initially, but then relented and agreed to let Sergeant A use the assault rifle. When defendant HUNTER first observed the Danziger Bridge on September 4, 2005, he saw in the distance a handful of people casually walking on the roadway on the bridge. HUNTER realized that the people on the bridge would not know that the Budget truck held police officers who were responding to a call for assistance, so he used his left hand to fire warning shots, with his NOPD-issued handgun, out the window of the truck..... Defendant HUNTER stopped the Budget truck a short distance from where he had seen people climb over the concrete barrier. As the truck rolled to a stop, Sergeant A fired an assault rifle down toward the civilians on the walkway. HUNTER got out on the driver’s side, ran to the front of the truck, and fired his handgun in the direction of the people running away up the bridge. Sergeant B, who had also run to the front of the truck, stood nearby, firing an M4-type assault rifle at the same civilians....... Defendant HUNTER and Sergeant A entered the cab of the Budget truck and HUNTER drove to the crest of the bridge. On or near the crest of the bridge, they met Sergeant B, who said that civilians running toward the bottom of the west side of the bridge had fired at him. HUNTER saw three black males running down the bridge, but they did not appear to have weapons or to be a threat to the officers. Sergeant B may have fired an assault rifle at the fleeing civilians. An unmarked car driven by an officer with the Louisiana State Police (LSP) approached from the east side and stopped near the crest of the bridge.As the car moved down the bridge, defendant HUNTER saw three black males running away, near the bottom of the bridge. None of the civilians appeared to be armed or to be a threat to the officers. Two men, later identified as Lance and Ronald Madison, ran down the right side of the road, while a third, older man ran down the left side. As the LSP car drove down the bridge, defendant HUNTER focused on Lance Madison, who was wearing black clothing, and Ronald Madison, who was wearing a white t-shirt, with blood on it."

I read it. As I said, these officers created a scene of chaos by approaching a crowd of people in a rental van and firing "warning shots" from it. The unmarked car was not at the scene at this time. This event is what set the stage for the "massacre". At any rate, if I was a civilian on the ground during Katrina, I would assume they were criminals and act in the same method that they did. The only vehicles on the scene were a rental van and an unmarked LSP car. As you noted, Madison was shot from the unmarked LSP car.

You also have to question the mentality of three officers who all indiscriminately started firing into a group of civilians (3rd bolded portion). Either all three has conspired to commit "murder" before being on the scene, Sergeant A acted recklessly by firing first and Hunter and Officer A responded with force under the assumption that he had identified a threat (still acting recklessly if they were not firing well aimed shots into a crowd of people), or something else was at play.

I want to know why these things happened. I am not going to simply write this off as cold blooded murder without knowing the fact. Nor am I going to claim that, since the has been distortions and obstruction by NOPD officers, that the facts and circumstances are not relevant (which you have claimed in your other thread). We both know that's not how it works.

I am also not going to take a criminal complaint and call it the final word. We both know criminal complaints are written from one perspective and assume guilt. There is another side to this story and it needs to be told before anyone is convicted and sentenced.

I will say that the reckless behavior of all three officers (firing indiscriminately into a crowd of people with lethal force) warrants dismissal from the force and some sort of criminal charges.

Of course you don't. You haven't actually been keeping up with the news. Its as if yo don't even know what happened.

And you apparently have, but are so biased that you aren't bringing much to the argument either.

And so far its the only side not shown to be full of lies and deliberate coverups.

That still doesn't mean it's not slanted towards the prosecution's view of the events, which are obviously deemed to be criminal in nature.

OK. Read the fucking bill of information. All if it. Then get back to us.

Pointless deflection.

BTW - the supposed phone call these cops got for assistance, there's no record of it existing.

Which implies what? Someone told the cops there were civilians on the Danziger Bridge, they decided to become mass murderers, took a rental car, fired warning shots just to flush the people so that it was more sport, and then started massacring the people for fun? They were even so fortunate to have a like minded individual in an unmarked LSP car show up and allow them to go poaching?

I suspect they got the call. I suspect like a lot of things in Katrina, the records got "lost in the storm".

 

[geauxtohell]

Danziger Bridge Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(full disclosure - the wiki article is written by me)

So the status quo is this:

The police officers involved in the shooting were taken into custody on January 2, 2007 and were indicted for murder and attempted murder. [2]. NOPD officers Robert Gisevius, Kenneth Bowen, and Anthony Villavaso were charged with the first-degree murder of Brissette. NOPD officer Robert Faulcon was charged with the first-degree murder of Madison. Those officers, as well as NOPD officers Michael Hunter, Ignatius Hills and Robert Barrios, were indicted on charges of attempted murder relating to the other four victims. [3] On August 13, 2008, charges against the officers were dismissed by District Judge Raymond Bigelow due to misconduct by the prosecution with regards to the grand jury.[4]

In September of 2008, the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI began investigating the case. U.S. Attorney Jim Letten vowed his office would take "as much time and resources as necessary" to resolve the case.[5]

After a year and a half of investigation, on 24 February 2010, former New Orleans police lieutenant Michael Lohman entered a plea of guilty to obstruction of justice in federal court. [6]..............

On April 7th, 2010, Michael Hunter, one of the seven officers originally charged with attempted murder in 2007, pleaded guilty to misprision of a felony and obstruction of justice.[9]..............

On April 16th Robert Barrios was charged by a bill of information with one count of conspiring to obstruct justice, becoming the fourth NOPD officer to be federally charged in the case....................

At the time of this writing, April 22nd 2010, no federal charges have been filed against any of the other five officers involved in the shooting. However, it is expected that charges will be filed.

The only people who have been convicted or currently charged have been for obstruction of justice. No charges of murder or anything else have been filed against Officer A or Sergeant A.

 

[geauxtohell]

If Hunter's testamony is true, I'd say they should get the death penalty.

What I don't get though, is why in the hell would this Hunter guy fired shots in the direction of citizens just because they wouldn't had known they were cops. Doing essentially a drive-bye shooting in an unmarked truck or van isn't exactly the best way to identify yourself as a cop. Anyone with a gun would have the right to fire back to defend themselves. But then again, maybe that's exactly what the cops were hoping for.

That's what I am curious about.