What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Poll Question on Danziger Bridge Massacre

Assuming Michael Hunter's account of the actions of "Officer A" and "Seargent A"

  • Both should be put to death under Title 18 U.S.C. Section 242

    Votes: 4 33.3%
  • Only Officer A should be put to death

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Only Seargent A should be put to death

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Neither should receive the death penalty

    Votes: 8 66.7%

  • Total voters
    12

SpidermanTuba

Rookie
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
6,101
Reaction score
259
Points
0
Location
New Orleans, Louisiana
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] His first hand account, if accurate, reveals that the Danziger bridge shooting was quite simply a massacre of unarmed civilians [10]. A man identified in the court document as "Sergeant A", according to Hunter, fired at unarmed civilians, with an assault rifle "in a sweeping motion", who were trying to shield themselves behind a concrete barrier. Meanwhile, on the other side of the bridge, a man identified as "Officer A" shot Ronald Madison in the back with a shotgun, from a moving police vehicle, as Madison ran away. Madison had his hands in plain view while he ran, held no weapon, and did not pose a threat. After the shooting of Madison, "Sergeant A" ran from the other side of the bridge. He the proceeded to kick and stomp Madison as he lay bleeding to death.

http://freepdfhosting.com/ae708ed692.pdf


Danziger Bridge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Nonelitist

Rookie
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
1,235
Reaction score
183
Points
0
Correct me if I am wrong, but the information posted says charged with "attempted Murder".

I don't believe the penalty for attempted murder is ever execution, so I would say no for both. If the facts stated are true and these individuals were murdered , I would have to be consistent and believe they would deserve the death penalty just like any other criminal. I don't thinkt that will happen because I don't believe they will be able to prove that it was premeditated.

I do have a question for OP that I am curious about....

Why do you expect cops to tell the truth about other cops when your culture won't cooperate with cops and tell them who commits crimes in your neighborhoods? Why do you have a "no snitching" policy but don't allow them to have the same?

Just curious.
 
Last edited:

CurveLight

Rookie
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
9,768
Reaction score
317
Points
0
Since they like the up close and personal approach I say send em to iraq with a bottle of water and a shovel. They can walk point for one of our units doing a security patrol.
 
OP
SpidermanTuba

SpidermanTuba

Rookie
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
6,101
Reaction score
259
Points
0
Location
New Orleans, Louisiana
Correct me if I am wrong, but the information posted says charged with "attempted Murder".

I don't believe the penalty for attempted murder is ever execution, so I would say no for both. If the facts stated are true and these individuals were murdered , I would have to be consistent and believe they would deserve the death penalty just like any other criminal. I don't thinkt that will happen because I don't believe they will be able to prove that it was premeditated.

I do have a question for OP that I am curious about....

Why do you expect cops to tell the truth about other cops when your culture won't cooperate with cops and tell them who commits crimes in your neighborhoods? Why do you have a "no snitching" policy but don't allow them to have the same?

Just curious.



Title 18 U.S.C. Section 242 does not require premeditation, and it is not a murder statute. It is a civil rights statute, and only those officers who actually caused death would be liable to the death penalty under it. Sergeant A and Officer A - if the statement in the bill of information is true - would be death penalty eligible for unlawfully depriving Madison of his right to life under color of law.


I'm not sure what your comment about my "culture" means, what do you even know of my "culture" ?
 
OP
SpidermanTuba

SpidermanTuba

Rookie
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
6,101
Reaction score
259
Points
0
Location
New Orleans, Louisiana
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
50,337
Reaction score
10,053
Points
0
Since they like the up close and personal approach I say send em to iraq with a bottle of water and a shovel. They can walk point for one of our units doing a security patrol.

Oh Lord.... here we go again from the punishment junkies. We have a process to deal with people who are FOUND GUILTY of crimes. No need for drooling idiots to come up with their own particular forms of punishment.
 
OP
SpidermanTuba

SpidermanTuba

Rookie
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
6,101
Reaction score
259
Points
0
Location
New Orleans, Louisiana
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?
 

Nonelitist

Rookie
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
1,235
Reaction score
183
Points
0
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 understand your point, however there is something that I believe you dont' understand.

To be convicted under that statute, you have to convict them based on the fact that they went there intending to deprive these individuals of their civil rights.

It is NOT the case that you can convict if the perps ENDED UP depriving them of their civil rights, but that they went there with that intention. That is pretty difficult to prove.

This is why the Rodney King cops were not convicted... they couldn't prove that they intended to deny him his civil rights.

Prosecute them under the murder statute.
 
Last edited:

CurveLight

Rookie
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
9,768
Reaction score
317
Points
0
Since they like the up close and personal approach I say send em to iraq with a bottle of water and a shovel. They can walk point for one of our units doing a security patrol.

Oh Lord.... here we go again from the punishment junkies. We have a process to deal with people who are FOUND GUILTY of crimes. No need for drooling idiots to come up with their own particular forms of punishment.

It was sarcasm you dumfuk. Even when you think you're shooting fish in a barrel you totally fail.

I'm against the DP so I would say life in prison always in the general population. Thirty years of that would be more punishment than the DP anyways.
 
OP
SpidermanTuba

SpidermanTuba

Rookie
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
6,101
Reaction score
259
Points
0
Location
New Orleans, Louisiana
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 understand your point, however there is something that I believe you dont' understand.

To be convicted under that statute, you have to convict them based on the fact that they went there intending to deprive these individuals of their civil rights.

It is NOT the case that you can convict if the perps ENDED UP depriving them of their civil rights, but that they went there with that intention. That is pretty difficult to prove.

This is why the Rodney King cops were not convicted... they couldn't prove that they intended to deny him his civil rights.

Prosecute them under the murder statute.



The statute does not require premeditation, only that the acts be willful. I don't know about you - but find it hard to believe that jumping up and down on the chest of an unarmed man with a mortal wound to his back is not a willful act.

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States


Incidentally - Officer A would be guilty of 1st degree murder under the state's murder statute, as he shot Madison from a moving vehicle, which makes it 1st degree under the law.
 
Last edited:

xsited1

Agent P
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
17,746
Reaction score
5,777
Points
198
Location
Little Rock, AR
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] His first hand account, if accurate, reveals that the Danziger bridge shooting was quite simply a massacre of unarmed civilians [10]. A man identified in the court document as "Sergeant A", according to Hunter, fired at unarmed civilians, with an assault rifle "in a sweeping motion", who were trying to shield themselves behind a concrete barrier. Meanwhile, on the other side of the bridge, a man identified as "Officer A" shot Ronald Madison in the back with a shotgun, from a moving police vehicle, as Madison ran away. Madison had his hands in plain view while he ran, held no weapon, and did not pose a threat. After the shooting of Madison, "Sergeant A" ran from the other side of the bridge. He the proceeded to kick and stomp Madison as he lay bleeding to death.

http://freepdfhosting.com/ae708ed692.pdf

Danziger Bridge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Before making a decision, I will need to know what kind of home the police officers were raised in, did they suffer from an abusive parent, were they bullied in school, did they suffer from a medical illness like alcoholism or drug abuse, did they suffer from the traumatic effects of the devastation of Katrina, did they eat a Twinkie that morning, etc. You see, everyone is born good and becomes bad because of external influences, so they probably didn't have control over themselves and therefore should not be charged with a crime. I'd recommend letting them go free.
 
OP
SpidermanTuba

SpidermanTuba

Rookie
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
6,101
Reaction score
259
Points
0
Location
New Orleans, Louisiana
Before making a decision, I will need to know what kind of home the police officers were raised in, did they suffer from an abusive parent, were they bullied in school, did they suffer from a medical illness like alcoholism or drug abuse, did they suffer from the traumatic effects of the devastation of Katrina, did they eat a Twinkie that morning, etc. You see, everyone is born good and becomes bad because of external influences, so they probably didn't have control over themselves and therefore should not be charged with a crime. I'd recommend letting them go free.

The time for mitigating factors is long over. If these filthy pigs had actually come forward and admitted to shooting unarmed civilians right after it happened rather than constructing a web of lies over 5 years to cover it up - the 'It was Katrina and were were scared and confused' defense might actually be believable.
 

Nonelitist

Rookie
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
1,235
Reaction score
183
Points
0
Before making a decision, I will need to know what kind of home the police officers were raised in, did they suffer from an abusive parent, were they bullied in school, did they suffer from a medical illness like alcoholism or drug abuse, did they suffer from the traumatic effects of the devastation of Katrina, did they eat a Twinkie that morning, etc. You see, everyone is born good and becomes bad because of external influences, so they probably didn't have control over themselves and therefore should not be charged with a crime. I'd recommend letting them go free.

The time for mitigating factors is long over. If these filthy pigs had actually come forward and admitted to shooting unarmed civilians right after it happened rather than constructing a web of lies over 5 years to cover it up - the 'It was Katrina and were were scared and confused' defense might actually be believable.

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.
This is one reason this statute is suspect in the first place... how do you prove such a thing.

Address the "snitching" thing I brought up earlier please.
 
Last edited:
OP
SpidermanTuba

SpidermanTuba

Rookie
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
6,101
Reaction score
259
Points
0
Location
New Orleans, Louisiana
Before making a decision, I will need to know what kind of home the police officers were raised in, did they suffer from an abusive parent, were they bullied in school, did they suffer from a medical illness like alcoholism or drug abuse, did they suffer from the traumatic effects of the devastation of Katrina, did they eat a Twinkie that morning, etc. You see, everyone is born good and becomes bad because of external influences, so they probably didn't have control over themselves and therefore should not be charged with a crime. I'd recommend letting them go free.

The time for mitigating factors is long over. If these filthy pigs had actually come forward and admitted to shooting unarmed civilians right after it happened rather than constructing a web of lies over 5 years to cover it up - the 'It was Katrina and were were scared and confused' defense might actually be believable.


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




Since I had no idea that was part of my culture, I can't address it. Funny how you know more about my culture than me.
 

DiamondDave

Army Vet
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
18,169
Reaction score
2,824
Points
183
Location
MD, on the Potomac River
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?

You are also assuming that all agree with this 'civil rights' or 'hate crime' additions to law... I personally do not... murder is murder, robbery is robbery, assault is assault

I am all for the death penalty of heinous murderers who are proven without doubt to have committed 1st degree murder(s).... not every person convicted of murder, lesser degrees of murder, etc, and not ones who are convicted of 'attempted murder' etc

And actually.. quite tired of people like you and a few others on here who continually show an inherent hatred for law enforcement
 

Nonelitist

Rookie
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
1,235
Reaction score
183
Points
0
The time for mitigating factors is long over. If these filthy pigs had actually come forward and admitted to shooting unarmed civilians right after it happened rather than constructing a web of lies over 5 years to cover it up - the 'It was Katrina and were were scared and confused' defense might actually be believable.


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




Since I had no idea that was part of my culture, I can't address it. Funny how you know more about my culture than me.


Apologies. I don't know your culture. But, there is a culture in this country where certain neighborhoods won't "snitch". In Kansas City, where I live, there have even been Tshirts sold with that information about not snitching.

Watch a reality cop show... happens all the time. Someone is murdered and the community remains silent, even though they know who did it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Snitchin'
 
Last edited:
OP
SpidermanTuba

SpidermanTuba

Rookie
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
6,101
Reaction score
259
Points
0
Location
New Orleans, Louisiana
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?

You are also assuming that all agree with this 'civil rights' or 'hate crime' additions to law... I personally do not... murder is murder, robbery is robbery, assault is assault

I'm not sure what you're referring to. The federal government does not have jurisdiction to charge murder in this case. The charge under "Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law" would stand on its own, its not an add-on to any other charge.



I am all for the death penalty of heinous murderers who are proven without doubt to have committed 1st degree murder(s)....

Why wouldn't you want the death penalty to be enforced whenever it is applicable? Why just murder? Are you against executing those guilty of treason, for instance?

And actually.. quite tired of people like you and a few others on here who continually show an inherent hatred for law enforcement

Why are you defending people who brutally gunned down unarmed civilians and then literally jumped up and down on their dying bodies?
 
OP
SpidermanTuba

SpidermanTuba

Rookie
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
6,101
Reaction score
259
Points
0
Location
New Orleans, Louisiana
Apologies. I don't know your culture. But, there is a culture in this country where certain neighborhoods won't "snitch". In Kansas City, where I live, there have even been Tshirts sold with that information about not snitching.

There's also certain police departments where there exist a culture of "no snitching." I can think of one in particular.


Now please explain what the fuck "don't snitch" T-Shirts being sold in Kansas city has to do with pigs gunning down unarmed innocent civilians?
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top