Poll Question on Danziger Bridge Massacre

[DiamondDave]

And little tuba boy still posting after smoking crack and listening to 'Fuck the Police' by NWA

 

[geauxtohell]

And little tuba boy still posting after smoking crack and listening to 'Fuck the Police' by NWA

I think a person has a hard case to make that the NOPD officers are being victimized here. I doubt the matter is as egregious as Hunter's allegations, but even short of that, this was a heinous act.

The matter needs to be prosecuted and the facts need to come out. All of the facts, not just the ones that support the police or the ones that support ST's obviously biased position.

I want to know why three cops would immediately open fire on a group of people that were acting in a peaceful manner. Unless their intent was to commit murder, which I doubt, it makes no sense. I want to know what the circumstances are behind this. If there is no record of the phone call, why did they respond? Why did they feel the need to utilize "warning shots"? Why did they fire into the crowd? Why did they get in the LSP car and gun down Madison? Who was driving the LSP car? Was it an LSP trooper? What is his perspective?

The facts of this case are so convoluted (which can be blamed in large part on the NOPD for their official cover-up, for which people have been convicted) that it's pretty hard to have a rational opinion on the matter. However, simply because the facts are convoluted doesn't mean they are non-existent and no longer important to this issue, as ST also suggested.

Justice demands it and the reputation of the NOPD will be stained (even more than it already is) as long as this matter lies dormant.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

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.

I never asked for your opinion on whether or not Section 242 applied to the officers involved. Assuming the facts in the bill are correct, it obviously applies to them. I don't need you to tell me that. What is a matter of opinion is whether or not the death penalty should be applied, as 242 only allows for the death penalty, it does not require it.

There isn't a "right" or "wrong".

I'd guess that's exactly what Officers A and Sergeant A were thinking, too.

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.

This is a hypothetical where all parties in the debate agree to the facts as stipulated. Since the facts are known there is no need for a trial.

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.

Sorry bub, but its facts and evidence that leads me to believe these men deserve the death penalty.

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."

My bad, the cop car was unmarked. Obviously, its perfectly OK to shoot an unarmed citizen in the back from an unmarked cop car. After all, that unarmed civilian, not being aware he is dealing with cops, might run all the way to the sports store, pick out a shotgun, and run all the way back and kill the cops. You never know in emergencies.

I want to know why these things happened.

The cops involved have had 5 years to explain why they did what they did. Instead they covered it up. So I could give a fuck why they did what they did. Their chance to explain has long past.

I am not going to simply write this off as cold blooded murder without knowing the fact.

I'm not asking whether its murder. The issue in this thread is the civil rights violation.

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.

Uhhh,,, huggghe what?
You just analyzed a bill of information, now you're pretending like the only evidence against the officers is the complaint filed in 2005? OK. That's just fucked dude. There are 4 officers who have turned federal witness, 2 who were directly involved with the crime. You have the facts that these 4 men agreed to in their respective bills of information.

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.

Dismissal from the force? That's what should happen when on deliberately guns down unarmed civilians in the street? Ok. Welcome to the police state.

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'll tell you exactly what happened. 7 police officers fired on a group of civilians that were unarmed and posed no threat. One shot a mentally handicapped man in his 40's with no criminal record who lived at home with his mom - in the back, from a moving vehicle, as the man ran for his life. Then another, who knew or should have known Madison was unarmed and no threat, proceeded to kick and stomp him mercilessly as he lay bleeding to death. Then the brother of this man was arrested and charged with attempted murder of a police officer, a gun was planted, and false statements were made by the police, and the statements were re-falsified, and then falsified again, in an elaborate web of lies - all to cover-up the incident and prevent the public - and the law - from knowing what happened.

(you can read all about Lt. Lohman's role in this massive coverup in his bill of information http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/bill-of-information-charging-lt-michael-lohman)

 

[SpidermanTuba]

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.

Misprision of a felony as well.

Charges of murder were filed in 2007 and dropped because the prosecutor - in an act which surely must have been deliberate as no prosector could be this stupid - a) leaked grand jury testimony and b) refused to honor an agreement of immunity with some of the officers.



You want some more evidence of the cover-up?

Here are police arresting Lance Madison - after killing his unarmed mentally handicapped brother - and instead of apologizing and saying "My bad, we didn't mean to kill your brother man" - they put him on his knees, cuffed him, and tried to frame him with the attempted murder of a cop.

The charges against Madison were so weak the DA was not able to get the grand jury to indict - and this time the DA did it by the book.

The officer who pulled the trigger, giving Madison his mortal wound, and the officer who then proceeded to mercilessly kick and stomp Madison as he lay bleeding to death, were fully aware that their acts were being covered up by this arrest and frame up - how you could tell me that a cop who killed an unarmed man, and then arrests his brother in attempt to obscure the truth - does not deserve death - its unfathomable to me.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

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.

The cops were in uniform.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I doubt the matter is as egregious as Hunter's allegations, but even short of that, this was a heinous act.

What exactly do you base this doubt on? You own gut feeling that there's just no way people who have sworn a duty to protect the citizenry could have such little regard for human life?

Are you from New Orleans? If not, you should familiarize yourself with the NOPD's past.
Antoinette Frank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sadly, if Officer A and/or Sergeant A are sentenced to death, they won't be the first NOPD officers to receive such a penalty.

The matter needs to be prosecuted and the facts need to come out. All of the facts, not just the ones that support the police or the ones that support ST's obviously biased position.

If there existed facts that would exonerate this officers, they've had 5 years to make those facts known. Why have they instead deliberately lied - going so far as to arrest and attempt to frame up an innocent man?

I want to know why three cops would immediately open fire on a group of people that were acting in a peaceful manner.

Guess what? Those three cops that did that - THEY DO NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW WHY THEY DID WHAT THEY DID
So too fucking bad. You're going to have to judge them based solely on their actions.

 

[QUENTIN]

Other: I believe both should be prosecuted to the full extent of just law, meaning if found guilty sentenced to life in prison.

The death penalty is barbaric bullshit that would put the state on the level of Sergeant and Officer A.

Less than what amounts to a life sentence, assuming the charges are true and the evidence known strongly points to that being the case, would also be unjust.

What of other police on the scene? Anyone who bore witness to the event, did not attempt seriously to intervene, did not arrest or immediately report the actions of the officers, should be held legally accountable as well.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Other: I believe both should be prosecuted to the full extent of just law, meaning if found guilty sentenced to life in prison.

The full extend of Title 18 Section 242 is death.

The death penalty is barbaric bullshit that would put the state on the level of Sergeant and Officer A.

Doesn't matter. Its what the law provides for. In the context of how the death penalty is applied, I think it would only be fair to do so in this case.

What of other police on the scene? Anyone who bore witness to the event, did not attempt seriously to intervene, did not arrest or immediately report the actions of the officers, should be held legally accountable as well.

2 at the scene have already plead guilty. 2 not at the scene have plead guilty to covering it up after the fact. Additionally, 1 civilian has pleaded guilty to aiding in the coverup with false statements.

That leaves 5 officers at the scene. 4 of them were responsible for causing death. The actions of at least 2 of those 4 are so egregious as to warrant the death penalty.

 

[geauxtohell]

I never asked for your opinion on whether or not Section 242 applied to the officers involved. Assuming the facts in the bill are correct, it obviously applies to them. I don't need you to tell me that. What is a matter of opinion is whether or not the death penalty should be applied, as 242 only allows for the death penalty, it does not require it.

I didn't even touch the Section 242 matter. I stated I opposed the death penalty universally.

This is a hypothetical where all parties in the debate agree to the facts as stipulated. Since the facts are known there is no need for a trial.

Except it's not a hypothetical situation. It's a real one and you are obviously emotionally involved in the matter. Claiming it is a hypothetical situation while linking your wiki account and the criminal complaint about the Danziger Bridge is absurd.

Hell, you even titled the thread "Poll Question on Danziger Bridge Massacre". So let's stop acting like this is a "hypothetical situation".

Of course, your penchant to want to oscillate between this being a real situation and a hypothetical allows you to straddle the fence on the issue. You keep intertwining LA statutes (i.e. shooting someone from a moving car) to justify a murder rap when the state is not prosecuting them. The federal government might (I suspect they will).

Sorry bub, but its facts and evidence that leads me to believe these men deserve the death penalty.

Which is why you could never be a juror on this issue. You haven't heard all the facts and evidence and you've already reached a conclusion of guilt and a verdict to boot..

My bad, the cop car was unmarked.

Yes it was, and it's not germane to my original point, which you jumped all over me for making. Long before the un-marked car showed up, the three officers showed up in a Budget Rental Van and fired warning shots to create a scene of chaos that begot more chaos. That was reckless behavior on their part.

Why did they act recklessly?

Obviously, its perfectly OK to shoot an unarmed citizen in the back from an unmarked cop car.

Obviously, I never said that. Why don't you read what I am actually saying as opposed to letting your emotions cloud your vision?

After all, that unarmed civilian, not being aware he is dealing with cops, might run all the way to the sports store, pick out a shotgun, and run all the way back and kill the cops. You never know in emergencies.

More rubbish.

The cops involved have had 5 years to explain why they did what they did. Instead they covered it up. So I could give a fuck why they did what they did. Their chance to explain has long past.

Sorry, that is not how it works. I suspect you have a legal background, so you should know this as well as I.

I'm not asking whether its murder. The issue in this thread is the civil rights violation.

Because the state bungled the original charges. I think the federal government will be hard pressed to carry out an execution based on civil rights violations. This isn't like the klan selectively targeted people for execution because of their race.

Uhhh,,, huggghe what?
You just analyzed a bill of information, now you're pretending like the only evidence against the officers is the complaint filed in 2005? OK. That's just fucked dude. There are 4 officers who have turned federal witness, 2 who were directly involved with the crime. You have the facts that these 4 men agreed to in their respective bills of information.

All from the side of the prosecution. Why are you so opposed to these officers having their day in court and allowing for their side of the story? The facts don't add up here, and it's in the interest of justice that all sides are heard.

Dismissal from the force? That's what should happen when on deliberately guns down unarmed civilians in the street? Ok. Welcome to the police state.

I said "dismissal from the force and criminal charges". What the fuck is your problem? I just basically concurred with what you have been harping about. You no doubt read it, but just ignored it for the sake of being outraged.

We agree on a lot of things about this (and probably a lot more beyond this). However, unlike you, I am not ready to execute "Officer A" and "Sergeant A" without their right to due process.

I'll tell you exactly what happened. 7 police officers fired on a group of civilians that were unarmed and posed no threat. One shot a mentally handicapped man in his 40's with no criminal record who lived at home with his mom - in the back, from a moving vehicle, as the man ran for his life. Then another, who knew or should have known Madison was unarmed and no threat, proceeded to kick and stomp him mercilessly as he lay bleeding to death. Then the brother of this man was arrested and charged with attempted murder of a police officer, a gun was planted, and false statements were made by the police, and the statements were re-falsified, and then falsified again, in an elaborate web of lies - all to cover-up the incident and prevent the public - and the law - from knowing what happened.

Aside from what is public record and fact, I am not going to accept your version of what happened. You are emotionally involved in this matter and have a clear agenda.

(you can read all about Lt. Lohman's role in this massive coverup in his bill of information Bill of Information Charging Lt. Michael Lohman | ProPublica)

I read about Lohman. The fact that there was a cover-up doesn't automatically make the crime as egregious as what you are claiming. It doesn't mean it wasn't that egregious either.

This is why justice needs to be served on this matter.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

This is a hypothetical where all parties in the debate agree to the facts as stipulated. Since the facts are known there is no need for a trial.

Except it's not a hypothetical situation.

Clearly you do not wish to engage in a debate where all parties agree to facts as stipulated in a hypothetical. So just stop.

Hell, you even titled the thread "Poll Question on Danziger Bridge Massacre". So let's stop acting like this is a "hypothetical situation".

That's because its a hypothetical based on the Danziger Bridge Massacre. If you can actually conceive of a hypothetical about anything based in no way on reality - then I'd like to hear it.


A big DUH and a good day to you.

 

[geauxtohell]

Charges of murder were filed in 2007 and dropped because the prosecutor - in an act which surely must have been deliberate as no prosector could be this stupid - a) leaked grand jury testimony and b) refused to honor an agreement of immunity with some of the officers.

So murder charges were dropped by the state. Of course, in your opinion, this could only be because the prosecutor was involved in this grand conspiracy.

You want some more evidence of the cover-up?

Here are police arresting Lance Madison - after killing his unarmed mentally handicapped brother - and instead of apologizing and saying "My bad, we didn't mean to kill your brother man" - they put him on his knees, cuffed him, and tried to frame him with the attempted murder of a cop.

I agree. That act was egregious behavior by the NOPD.

The officer who pulled the trigger, giving Madison his mortal wound, and the officer who then proceeded to mercilessly kick and stomp Madison as he lay bleeding to death, were fully aware that their acts were being covered up by this arrest and frame up - how you could tell me that a cop who killed an unarmed man, and then arrests his brother in attempt to obscure the truth - does not deserve death - its unfathomable to me.

You mean beyond the whole "I don't support the fucking death penalty" thing?

I would say it's because I am not allowing emotions to cloud my judgment and thinking.

You are. To the extent that you are unconcerned with these officer's right to a jury trial by their peers and a defense of their actions.

 

[geauxtohell]

What exactly do you base this doubt on? You own gut feeling that there's just no way people who have sworn a duty to protect the citizenry could have such little regard for human life?

No. I base it on the fact that Hunter is trying to save his ass from being locked up for a long time and will, undoubtedly, testify for the federal government.

I am also extremely curious and concerned with getting the entire set of facts. Why did the police act in the way they did? Why did Hunter create a chaotic scene by firing warning shots from an unmarked rental van? Why did Sergeant A, then Officer A, then Hunter start firing into a crowd? Did they perceive a threat? Were they murderous thugs? What about the LSP (presumably) officer that drove the car?

There are more questions than answers right now, and I am not willing to make bold statements without the answers I seek.

I suspect it won't be until this thing goes to trial, and Hunter is put on the stand, that we will know the answer.

Are you from New Orleans? If not, you should familiarize yourself with the NOPD's past.
Antoinette Frank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know about Antoinette Frank. I also know of other matters, on record and off, that make the NOPD look like shit.

I am also logical enough to know that one really, really bad cop like Frank (who got justice) doesn't equate to an entire police force.

The NOPD has real problems. I am not a fan of theirs, but I simply want justice. Real justice, done here.

If there existed facts that would exonerate this officers, they've had 5 years to make those facts known. Why have they instead deliberately lied - going so far as to arrest and attempt to frame up an innocent man?

You keep repeating that. Why would the officers make a defense when they aren't currently being charged with anything? We might have heard their version of the matter if the state hadn't bungled their murder case.

You seem to have construed my hesitancy to jump on your bandwagon with a belief that I think the cops are wholly innocent. I don't believe that either. My point is this: somewhere in between the cops doing their duty to the best of the ability of a reasonable police officer and your version of the event lies the real facts. That's the point I want to get too.

BTW, I noticed on NOLA.com that you've been commenting on this matter for several years.

Again, would it be too much to assume that you are emotionally invested in this matter?

Guess what? Those three cops that did that - THEY DO NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW WHY THEY DID WHAT THEY DID
So too fucking bad. You're going to have to judge them based solely on their actions.

Not me. A judge and jury of impartial people. Unlike you, I don't think egregious acts by members of society void their rights to a fair trial.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

What exactly do you base this doubt on? You own gut feeling that there's just no way people who have sworn a duty to protect the citizenry could have such little regard for human life?

No. I base it on the fact that Hunter is trying to save his ass from being locked up for a long time and will, undoubtedly, testify for the federal government.

I am also extremely curious and concerned with getting the entire set of facts. Why did the police act in the way they did? Why did Hunter create a chaotic scene by firing warning shots from an unmarked rental van? Why did Sergeant A, then Officer A, then Hunter start firing into a crowd? Did they perceive a threat? Were they murderous thugs? What about the LSP (presumably) officer that drove the car?

There are more questions than answers right now, and I am not willing to make bold statements without the answers I seek.

I suspect it won't be until this thing goes to trial, and Hunter is put on the stand, that we will know the answer.

Are you from New Orleans? If not, you should familiarize yourself with the NOPD's past.
Antoinette Frank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know about Antoinette Frank. I also know of other matters, on record and off, that make the NOPD look like shit.

I am also logical enough to know that one really, really bad cop like Frank (who got justice) doesn't equate to an entire police force.

The NOPD has real problems. I am not a fan of theirs, but I simply want justice. Real justice, done here.

If there existed facts that would exonerate this officers, they've had 5 years to make those facts known. Why have they instead deliberately lied - going so far as to arrest and attempt to frame up an innocent man?

You keep repeating that. Why would the officers make a defense when they aren't currently being charged with anything? We might have heard their version of the matter if the state hadn't bungled their murder case.

You seem to have construed my hesitancy to jump on your bandwagon with a belief that I think the cops are wholly innocent. I don't believe that either. My point is this: somewhere in between the cops doing their duty to the best of the ability of a reasonable police officer and your version of the event lies the real facts. That's the point I want to get too.

BTW, I noticed on NOLA.com that you've been commenting on this matter for several years.

Again, would it be too much to assume that you are emotionally invested in this matter?



Not me. A judge and jury of impartial people. Unlike you, I don't think egregious acts by members of society void their rights to a fair trial.

Why would you think they would want a judge and jury to know why they did what they did? They did everything to cover up the act, they clearly don't want anyone to know why they did it.

 

[geauxtohell]

Clearly you do not wish to engage in a debate where all parties agree to facts as stipulated in a hypothetical. So just stop.

Because this isn't a hypothetical situation. Clearly, you do not wish to engage anyone who isn't going to jump on your bandwagon. Perhaps you should stop. I am not the one castigating anyone that doesn't agree with this.

Let's be frank, as evidenced by you earlier statements on this thread, any answer short of "I think both officers should be executed" is unacceptable to you.

So this is far from a hypothetical situation to you.

That's because its a hypothetical based on the Danziger Bridge Massacre. If you can actually conceive of a hypothetical about anything based in no way on reality - then I'd like to hear it.

If you wanted this to be completely hypothetical, you wouldn't have titled it after an actual event and linked it to an actual criminal complaint involving that event.

Hell, you didn't even mention the word "hypothetical" until late in the thread.

I guess you wanted to deflect from all the ancillary issues that detracted from a purely law student-esque hypothetical.

I guess you can go ahead and hypothetically throw the switch on your hypothetical criminals.

 

[geauxtohell]

Why would you think they would want a judge and jury to know why they did what they did? They did everything to cover up the act, they clearly don't want anyone to know why they did it.

What the probable future defendants want in regards to people knowing of their alleged criminal conduct is, again, irrelevant.

My interest is justice here, not stacking the deck in favor of the defendents or the prosecutions.

Again, the fact that they tried to cover up the crime doesn't automatically make them guilty of what Hunter claims they did.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Hell, you didn't even mention the word "hypothetical" until late in the thread.
.

They hypothetical nature of the poll is clearly implied in the statement of the poll itself.

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

Really dude, stop being stupid.

 

[geauxtohell]

Hell, you didn't even mention the word "hypothetical" until late in the thread.
.

They hypothetical nature of the poll is clearly implied in the statement of the poll itself.

Back-peddle, back-peddle, back-peddle....

Look: go back and mentally insert the term "hypothetically speaking" in front of all of my sentences and satisfy your inner psyche.

As for me, I'll continue to discuss what I know we are talking about, the Danziger Bridge.

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

Really dude, stop being stupid.

Start doing something constructive. We are talking about the same Hunter that admitted to lying to federal officials (and the same goes for all other witnesses with criminal raps over this). However, now that their words suit your conclusions, they are 100% honest?

Like I said, you've reached your verdict and even a sentence. You are entitled to you opinion. I want to see justice done. I want to know all of the facts around this incident.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Start doing something constructive. We are talking about the same Hunter that admitted to lying to federal officials (and the same goes for all other witnesses with criminal raps over this). However, now that their words suit your conclusions, they are 100% honest?

Wow. I'll try again I guess



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

 

[geauxtohell]

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

I don't support the death penalty. Even if I did, I don't think these officers deserve the death penalty. They certainly (if we assume that Hunter's account is 100% correct) deserve a very long prison stint, but they don't deserve the death penalty.

I hate to break it to you too, but since you are chomping at the bit for an execution, I doubt the federal government is going to pursue that either. The federal government is much less eager to execute people than the state is.

The information is only current as of 2003, but since 1927, the federal government has executed 37 people. Prior to McVeigh's execution in '01, the last federal execution was in 1963.

Federal Executions 1927-2003 | Death Penalty Information Center

And, as of 2003, no one has been executed by the federal government for a civil rights violation. So I think it will be a hard case to make that these officers, while on duty, murdered the victim in an attempt to deprive him of his civil rights. However, this would be yet another reason why we need to try and figure out a motive.

Below are the federal crimes which can mandate capital punishment:
Federal Laws Providing for the Death Penalty | Death Penalty Information Center

Here is the actual statutes:
http://www.capdefnet.org/fdprc/pubmenu.aspx?menu_id=84&id=2138

This is probably the most relevant, which has been linked by you.

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, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

By my reading of the statute, if the prosecution wants to pursue a death penalty under this law, they will have to prove that the victims were intentionally targeted because they were black. So on top of everything else I've been saying, I don't think the statute will be satisfied for execution. I don't think they acted to "deprive the victim of his civil rights" under "color of law".

Again, sorry to break the bad news to you. If execution is what you were gunning for, state prosecution was your best bet.

 

[QUENTIN]

The full extend of Title 18 Section 242 is death.

Doesn't matter. Its what the law provides for. In the context of how the death penalty is applied, I think it would only be fair to do so in this case.

I said the full extent of "just" law. The death penalty is inherently unjust. If convicted, and I'd certainly expect them to be, I think life in prison is the just sentence.

If you're interested in real punishment, let them be among the general population. Prisoners love ex-cops.

What of other police on the scene? Anyone who bore witness to the event, did not attempt seriously to intervene, did not arrest or immediately report the actions of the officers, should be held legally accountable as well.

2 at the scene have already plead guilty. 2 not at the scene have plead guilty to covering it up after the fact. Additionally, 1 civilian has pleaded guilty to aiding in the coverup with false statements.

That leaves 5 officers at the scene. 4 of them were responsible for causing death. The actions of at least 2 of those 4 are so egregious as to warrant the death penalty.

Like I said, I don't support the death penalty, but the two responsible for killing the civilians should be tried and if found guilty sentenced to life imprisonment. I'd want stiff sentences for those who covered it up as well, covering up a murder in an official capacity should be a ten-year minimum sentence. The civilian should be tried too. The rest of the cops after being kicked off the force should be tried as accomplices after the fact at the least if they didn't attempt to arrest the murdering officers or immediately report their crime.

Examples have to be made of our police force who betray public trust, especially those who will gun down innocent civilians, otherwise abuses of power will be rampant.

I admire and appreciate your passion on the subject, but as damning and clear as the evidence is, they still get their day in court.