The incident of an officer of the Barbados Police Service (BPS) lashing a member of the public with his baton is reported to be under investigation by the BPS. In the past when similar incidents have been investigated by the police the outcome has been as elusive as the one promised by Prime Minister Mia Mottley regarding the HOPE project.
Policeman beating citizen under investigation
Discover more from Barbados Underground
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
127 responses to “Policeman beating citizen under investigation”
-
“The race card which Donna opened her hand and emptied on the table was insulting and unnecessary”
the race card applies as police’s original purpose was to control slave population
this has still been carried through to modern day policing in Americas
black people are not protected by police they are treated with prejudice
-
@ac
If only we understood that without “the letter”, you were merely giving emotional rants and raves 😃😃 -
Dubstreet
Do you have all the evidence to support what happened in the video
If so provide it rather than used other circumstances to build a case about what happened in the video -
NorthernObserver
August 8, 2024 at 4:58 pm
Rate This@ac
If only we understood that without “the letter”, you were merely giving emotional rants and raves…..
Yeap I remember that also but now the blogmaster put up a piece of a video and expect all to fall in line sheepishly in agreement -
“If so provide it rather than used other circumstances to build a case about what happened in the video”
as a courtesy to the angry woman I will engage
the brave police man hit a civilian with a baton
and then slapped him in the facethe civilian was not able to hit the pig back
or go toe to toe blow for blow in a fair fightthe reason why the black panthers called police pigs and carried guns is because it is not illegal to defend yourself against police brutality and stand your ground or call them animals and it is has become common jargon now
facts : 1st and 2nd amendment rights
I like to take the 5th
13th means slavery still exists
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. -
Another……
-
So let me get this right with my limited understanding
The policeman walked up to a civilian an individual standing amongst the crowd
Policeman took one look at the civilian and beat the civilian unmercifully with a baton and slapped the civilian in the face
Is that your evidence provided
Now let me asked you
Dubb where you an eye witness being at the scene
..
Ps would be of interest if the person beaten with the baton was rendered medical help or transported to the hospital
Dubb over to you -
you as dumb as a fake troll phishing so you must be an undercover Bu agent
i think you may be _ _ _ _the video evidence is that the police hit him with stick and slapped him in the face
so those are the facts that you have to eat up and masticate on
the policeman and civilian have not made any public comments yet
-
Ha ha that is my evidence
Dubb over to you -
DPD,
Thank you! Nowhere did I imply that Angela Cox or anyone other than John Knox was a white supremacist.
I was simply pointing out where their argument would get them.
P.S. I thought that is what the mess was trying to state. I just wanted to be sure.
-
David,
I don’t do facebook. Who is wanted?
-
@Donna
The BPS has been aggressively distributing communications about most wanted and suspects captured etc. you probably have seen the same notifications in the traditional media.
-
Thanks, David.
-
Donna
August 9, 2024 at 5:50 am
Rate ThisDPD,
Thank you! Nowhere did I imply that Angela Cox or anyone other than John Knox was a white supremacist.
….
.The operative words would be “intentionally imply ”
However you did cross the racist lineOver to you rub a dub dub
-
@Donna,
I thought that was an excellent point that you made. I was somewhat surprised that you were able to so easily see the connection (parallel behavior).@000
“i think you may be _ _ _ _”
Giving out type of interaction, I assume that you were pointing at me. If so you are wrong.
By now, you should know my style and my triggers.
–xx–
Have a great day all.
Have a great day Barbados -
Trying to figure out where ac is going. This line that she continues to pursue puzzles me.
Instead of taking a cheap and expected poke at the administration she has been steadfast in defending the PO.I am aware that Barbadians decide on who/what is right or wrong often based on personal/familial relationships and not the act itself.
-
That was not one of my better posts.
Just completely puzzled. ‘It does not compute’ -
There is psychological torture of police bullying with harassment to create terror
Slapping a man in the face like he is a boy or a woman would trigger a reaction
Piggies are also arrogant with their facebook accounts ‘jokes’
-
I did not imply, either intentionally or unintentionally, that you are a white supremacist. I merely pointed out that your argument can beand has been used by white supremacists like John Knox to justify what we often rail against.
-
I am surprised that you are surprised.
-
“I assume that you were pointing at me.”
I tend to ignore you.. and it’s much funnier when Donna puts you in your place.
for clarification dismabiguation on the underground station that rules this nation
I was inferring a four letter name for someone who condones the policeman’s licks,
without provoking a comment removal from the king for naming the guilty perp in deep state Bu who pretending to be an AC avatar provoking responses for click bait.Everything is different every new day
Seems like I’m a brand new man
than when the day began
Seem like brand new I’ll be
when the day is through with me
I’m changing changing
seems like no matter what you do
life got a way to turn around on you
-
August 9, 2024 at 8:15 am
Rate ThisTrying to figure out where ac is going. This line that she continues to pursue puzzles me.
Instead of taking a cheap and expected poke at the administration she has been steadfast in defending the PO
…….
Wrong
Not defending one side or another
Just seeking more clarification before making a judgement call -
555dubstreet
555dubstreet
August 9, 2024 at 8:56 am
Rate This“I assume that you were pointing at me.”
I tend to ignore you.. and it’s much funnier when Donna puts you in your place.
…….
Assumptions are like arse holes ever body has one
Dubb how funny is that ? -
Donna
August 9, 2024 at 8:42 am
Rate ThisI did not imply, either intentionally or unintentionally, that you are a white supremacist. I merely pointed out that your argument can beand has been used by white supremacists like John Knox to justify what we often rail against.
Xxxx
Keep digging yourself in quick sand
You will get the point and meaning of racist rants -
It is pointless to argue with you, an incoherent ignoramus.
Carry on not so smartly! Have the last igrunt word!
-
Continue to debate a non point over and over and over. What does it say? Move the hell on.
-
Surprise: it was a clever piece of reasoning. A seamless stitching together of two pieces that on the surface do not appear to match You got it right
-
I have heard of a time and a culture in which there was no police force or service. My mind cannot conceive of such in this time or this culture. My vision does not extend that far. Greater minds than mine are needed for these conceptualisations.
In my limited view, the police are necessary to maintain some semblance of order, even though big fish always seem to escape their nets. That is a matter beyond my power to change.
I personally feel safer with the police around than I would if they were not. However, I expect them to follow the rules of engagement.
Their job in the face of lawlessness is to apprehend the offender with as little damage as possible to the victim/s, potential victims, themselves AND THE OFFENDER. Their job is not to extract revenge or to punish. Therefore, they must use only the force that is necessary to apprehend the offender. Anything else is deemed to be excessive force under the law.
I see multiple officers surrounding one man with no weapon in his hand. If there had been a knife or other dangerous object in his hand the baton strike would have been totally justified. As it is, he could easily have been apprehended without that or the slaps that followed.
What happened before the camera started rolling is irrelevant to the what took place in the video. If the man had had a knife in his hands two seconds before but had dropped it, the baton strike and the slaps were out of order.
-
Agree Donna, we have to nip extra judicial behaviour by police officers in the bud. Even a hint of it.
-
[King’s Dub]
[Instrumental Break][Chorus]
You better run home for your life
When dem fire gun, dat nah go nice
You better run, run, run, but mind you tumble down[Verse 1]
See those bad men, their pistol in their hands
That mean they must have a plan
Things so tough, so man get so rough[Outro]
So, you better run home for your life (Yeah-yeah)
When dem fire gun, that nah go nice
You better run, run, run, but mind you tumble down[Big Spliff]
-
@ David
“What happened before the camera started rolling CANNOT BE irrelevant to what took place in the video,” especially as it relates to an investigation into the matter.
Unlike us, investigators will not pass judgement solely on what was seen in the video.
They would normally apply the ‘totality of circumstances test,’ which is simply analysing all the information and events that occurred prior to, and at the time ‘force’ was used, including the conduct of the person against whom such force was used, and that of the responding police officer.
We must also bear in mind that drones were deployed during Crop Over Events and would provide investigators with an important source of information.
If the results of the investigations revealed the police officer violated BPS’ protocols and ‘use of force policy,’ or a person’s civil rights, then the appropriate action would be taken against him/her.
Unfortunately, one of the problems we have with policing in Barbados, and the Caribbean by extension, is transparency and accountability.
I am aware of several police officers who were charged with misconduct and were either demoted, dismissed or reinstated to duty after lengthy suspensions, but such information is often withheld from or not easily accessible by the public.
However, although I do not condone the action taken by the police officer as seen in the video, I’m prepared to wait until an investigation into the matter is completed before making any assumptions.
-
@Artax
Agree with comment up to that last sentence. We have too many examples of reports the police never made public or if made public generate more questions. The result is the growing distrust between the BPS and citizenry it has sworn to protect.
-
“We have too many examples of reports the police never made public or if made public generate more questions.”
A next surprise. Sometimes you hit the nail right on the head. It is refreshing to see that level of honesty and stopping of the pretense that our institutions/organizations are working like a well-oiled machine.
It bothers me when folks of good intelligence prefer to stay in the crease and poke at everything. I’ve encountered others that they took prefer to wait till after some investigation is done or a report completed.
Past experience should have told them no such report is soon coming, but they prefer to bat cautiously and wait. Just once, I would love to see them step down the crease and swing at the ball. Please note, that you have picked a side when you cannot comment on what is directly in front of you. My friend you are not being balanced.
“Ships are safe in the harbor, but that’s not what ships are for”.
-
Donna, your reasoning above is logically solid and well on point.
David, we can agree with @Artax’s point on relevance of prior events ONLY from perspective of the officer’s disciplinary career process. Yes one needs to ENSURE all circumstances are considered on how goes. his police future.
But, that’s it.
Donna made the point earlier re this man’s ARREST or threat of arrest when accosted by the cop. She asked did his behaviour warrant an arrest; was he arrested!!
If he was not arrested or under threat of arrest then that PO was no more than an unruly hooligan assaulting a fellow citizen.
Police officers cannot just baton strike and THEN when the person does nothing further ( but supposedly says something derigatory) slap a citizen!
That’s ASSAULT.
The guy should sue the carelessly out of control rogue cop if there was NO ARREST.
What we saw is CRYSTALLY clear … whether the guy spat at the officer, cussed him or even brushed up against him … the the officer’s next actions were NOT in any police training manual …
That was behaviour that would get anyone else arrested!
This cop can’t hide behind his badge to suggest he was doing his job … he WASN’T. He went well beyond a reasonable response
it’s that simple.
How will an investigation change the dynamics of his unreasonable use of extra force.
Peace out.
-
@555dubstreet August 9, 2024 at 8:26 am “Slapping a man in the face like he is a boy or a woman…”
I hope that you are not implying that it is ok to slap boys and women in the face.
-
Let me REPEAT for those persons who engage in ‘contextomy,’ selectively excerpting statements in my comments from their original linguistic context in a way that distorts MY intended meaning,’ and respond thereto.
I DO NOT CONDONE THE POLICE OFFICER’S ACTIONS!!!
However. despite my condemnation, dpD’s comments, or that “Donna’s reasoning is logically solid and well on point,” or ‘saying’ contributors “prefer to stay in the crease and poke at everything,” which may be true……
…… DOES NOT negate the FACT that CoP Boyce promised an investigation would be conducted into the incident.
In other words, ‘we could jump up and holla fuh murda in BU’s court of public opinion,’……
…… an INVESTIGATION is HOW the police hierarchy CHOSE to DEAL with the issue, which is what we seem to be PURPOSELY or CONVENIENTLY IGNORING.
Investigators would usually determine the scope of the investigation, i.e. ‘terms of reference,’ and gather evidence to establish all the circumstances of what occurred leading up to and during the incident (totality of circumstances), which may include taking statements from witnesses and interviewing police officers who were on the scene.
BPS officers are now equipped with ‘body-worn cameras.’
Additionally, drones were deployed during the ‘Foreday Morning Jam’ and ‘Kadooment Day.’ CCTV are also placed at strategic points around the island.
Investigators would analyse surveillance footage therefrom.Dpd ‘said,’ “…..we can agree with @Artax’s point on relevance of prior events ONLY from perspective of the officer’s disciplinary career process. Yes one needs to ENSURE all circumstances are considered on how goes. his police future. But, that’s it.”
BPS is responsible for any disciplinary action against any officer, and would respond accordingly based on the results of the investigation.
If the results indicate the officer used excessive force, he could be dismissed from the service, the file forwarded to the DPP’s Office, where the possibility exists for him facing an assault charge.If this occurs, then obviously the PROSECUTION and DEFENSE attorneys would have to EXAMINE ALL the EVIDENCE, including WHAT occurred PRIOR TO, and at the time ‘force’ was used, including the conduct of the person against whom such force was used, and that of the responding police officer.
As well as whether or not the guy ‘was arrested or under the threat of arrest.’
Therefore, dpD suggesting such evidence is SPECIFICALLY CONFINED ONLY to the “officer’s disciplinary career process and that’s it,” is not entirely correct, perhaps because he does not fully understand how such investigations are conducted, or is probably relying on what he believes occurs.
-
Brother Artax, you are quoting chapter and verse of a police investigation … I believe all the sentient educated folks here understand that clearly.
I stressed that the investigation is pertinent only to the officer’s career simply because that’s the principal focus… I really should more artfully have said exactly that: pertinent principally to the officer’s career.
A criminal investigation of necessity has to be thorough … that we expect, not so!
Let me add to my earlier remarks: if there is any criminal recommendation re this officer’s conduct then his goose is cooked – as you so astutely concluded … whether he is found guilty or not, at trial.
And tell me brother how exactly would the lawyer where his client is accused of excessive force brutality use a DEFENSE that the officer’s actions were a result of the suspect’s prior acts towards the cop!
How does a lawyer use the pretense that the officer was provoked into EXCESSIVE force!
The standard is what was rational use of force to restrain the suspect AFTER he was reasonably already under control!
Let’s be absolutely clear about that standard: It’s about excessive (unnecessary) force to subdue a suspect … what that suspect does to cause the arrest cannot itself be a factor BECAUSE he is already reasonably under control and no longer a threat to the officer or the public.
Don’t let’s get confused.
Peace out.
-
“I hope that you are not implying that it is ok to slap boys and women in the face.”
Nope of course not dear
an open slap to the face gesture is more about domination and power and is a show of strength to a weaker person
it typifies the mindset and psychology of a sociopathic bully
at the very least the policeman has anger and violence issueshis duty was simply providing a police presence for crowd control at a carnival
-
Where there is video evidence of the conclusive kind, I need no report. In cases where there is no video evidence, I will allow a reasonable time-frame for an adequate report to be presented.
In the event that no such report is forthcoming, I will come out, not swinging wildly like Johnston Charles, but clinically like Brian Lara. At least that should be our aim.
Most of my interactions (and that of my immediate family) with the police have seen them being professional, polite and non-threatening, even pleasant and apologetic. Only one experience so far has been otherwise. Or to be more accurate, I should say – the experience of my fifteen year old son. And even then it was only one officer who transgressed and another who restrained him. The station sargeant did try to cover for that officer, but eventually relented when gaslighting failed.
But I have heard believable stories from believable people and I have good reason to believe that this professional treatment is not extended to all.
And it should be!
The reality is that some people, poor people, people from certain areas “does get unfair”.
I will never forget the sheepish looks on the faces of those policemen when I walked into Central Police Station with my mentee one night and turned him in with the demand that he be returned to me in exactly the same condition in which I handed him over. They couldn’t even respond with a denial.
That was my report. Guilty as charged!
Our system does not work as it should. The problem is that to most of us it is not a problem. We believe that the police only beat the guilty. And we believe that they deserve it. We believe that this keeps us safe.
And so the cries will continue. Because we like it so…..until one foolish officer makes a miscalculation with SOMEBODY’s sweet boy as one did with my son. Then we will not like it at all.
-
Oh, and what happened before IS INDEED irrelevant to the determination of whether or not the officer used excessive force. What happened before can only be relevant in determining the extent of the the officer’s transgression, mitigating factors. Any investigation would definitely include a review and consideration of the full incident.
BUT, let us be clear – if the guy had just stabbed somebody and dropped the knife, thereby posing no further threat to the officer or bystanders, there was no need for the baton strike or the slap in order to arrest him.
And arresting is the goal. Punishment is for the courts.
-
The shootings continue.
https://barbadostoday.bb/2024/08/10/man-killed-3-injured-following-shooting-in-st-james/
-
Narratives and biases muddy the waters.
I wonder if the Junior Officer Overseer reads BU*
In UK there were several attacks on mosques and immigrant housing centres
but now 1 Church was attacked GB News are claiming Christians are petrified -
RE: “And tell me brother how exactly would the lawyer where his client is accused of excessive force brutality use a DEFENSE that the officer’s actions were a result of the suspect’s prior acts towards the cop!”
@ dpD
Please indicate where in my contribution I mentioned anything to suggest that in the likelihood of the officer facing an assault charge, his lawyer would “use a DEFENSE that the officer’s actions were a result of the suspect’s prior acts towards the cop?”
My friend, your problem is, you READ, yet you do not UNDERSTAND what you read.
It’s ‘obliviously clear’ you’re NOT aware of the ‘disclosure of evidence principle.’ If you did, you would not have made the above comment.
Let’s assume, for example, investigations revealed ‘what occurred before determined the extent of the officer’s transgression,’ which the prosecution plans to use that evidence against the accused.
Disclosure simply means the prosecution is obligated to provide the accused or his defense counsel with copies of, or access to all material collected during the investigation, including schedules of unused evidence.
“Then obviously the PROSECUTION and DEFENSE attorneys would have to EXAMINE ALL the EVIDENCE, including WHAT occurred PRIOR TO, and at the time ‘force’ was used, including the conduct of the person against whom such force was used, and that of the responding police officer.”
However, both you and I have different perspectives on this issue.
Rather than continue the ‘back and forth,’ let’s ‘agree to disagree.’
-
1/2
I saw this story elsewhere and some comments. I will now repost the story and the gist of the commentsFrom the Nation newspaper unedited.
No one owned this land’By Maria Bradshaw mariabradshaw@nationnews.com
Shernell Blackman plans to guard her home as if her life depended on it.
For the past ten years, she has taken up residence in Ashby Alley, Nelson Street, The City, on the same spot where her three-year-old son, Kamal, died 34 years ago when a wall collapsed on him.
After searching high and low for the owner of the property and coming up empty-handed, and following the advice of an attorney, Blackman said she moved onto the land and started to build her house.
But it seems as if her presence is being threatened as a man claiming to be the owner of the land, recently turned up there with police.
Blackman told the Weekend Nation that on June 20, she received a telephone call from a neighbour telling her to get home quickly as something had happened to her house.
“When I get home all of my galvanise was pulled down and my back door was opened. My neighbour tell me that four police jeeps full with officers carrying guns turn up at my property and an ‘Indian man’ was with them. They pull down my galvanise, prise open my back door and went into my house and tell my neighbour to tell me that by the time they get back, they want the shack in the yard pull down because the ‘Indian man’ own the land,” the upset woman explained.
“When my neighbour ask why they come with such force, an officer said, ‘Well, you know the area’.”
Blackman said she immediately went to Central Police Station but received no information regarding why the police had taken such action, but a statement was taken from her. “I ask for the police to come and put back up my galvanise and all I was told was that an investigation would be carried out.”
A few days later, she staged a protest outside Parliament holding up placards with the photos of her deceased son and was quickly arrested by the police.
She is demanding that the police re-erect the galvanised fencing and also for the mysterious “Indian man” who claims to own the land, to come to her. She pointed out that since the incident two men have tried to break into her house.
“I want the man to step forward and come to me,” an upset Blackman said, stressing that her decision to build a house on the land was taken after several years of searching for the owner to pursue compensation for the death of her child. “I have been to 35 different Government agencies since 1990. Even when the Ombudsman was Frank Blackman in Culloden Road, I went to him. I went to the Attorney General; I went to the Archives, the land tax, the Registry – every single place you could think of and all I was told there was no owner for this land and no land tax was never paid.”
Blackman, who works at the National Conservation Commission, said after several years of grieving for her first born, she decided to move onto the property, first living in a tent and slowly using whatever little funds she had to build her home.
“It is sentimental. I feel close to Kamal and my three other children when I am here,” she said, as she showed several photographs of the little boy posted around the patio.
Of the incident which made headlined news in 1990, Blackman, who was 19 at the time, recalled that around 4 p.m. she had just left the home of Kamal’s father and was walking along Ashby Alley. Kamal was riding a tricycle behind her. She heard a loud crash and a male voice shouted: “Look at that!”
“I glanced back and I saw like a ‘Bobcat’ emptying out stuff and my eyes went blank. I went out for a couple of seconds and when I regained consciousness, my son was covered in dust. I pulled off the rocks and everything from off him and we get rush to the hospital, but he died,” she said, choking back tears.
“For years I was telling myself I killed my son because I thought that I didn’t snatch him up in time, but the autopsy proved that he died instantly on the spot.”
She added: “No one owned this land. There was no name on the land. This land does not even exist at the land registry. I invested my money into building this house. Every little money I get, I would buy material and put down.
“Nothing can bring back Kamal. No money can bring back Kamal. The land can’t bring back Kamal but it is total disrespect and to know that I didn’t even get a wreath; I never even got a sympathy card. I get put on medication for years and then I was seeing a psychiatrist. So anybody who wants to claim this land, I want them to come to me.”
She added that every year on the anniversary of the death, she has to seek medical treatment, including heart tests.
When contacted, Senior Superintendent Adrian Broomes confirmed that Blackman made a complaint to the police about damage to her property. He said the matter was at the Office of Professional Responsibility and would be investigated.
-
LOL, Artax you may be quite right that I read and sometimes lack understanding but not here brother, not here.
You said initially and then repeated that “If this occurs, then obviously the PROSECUTION and DEFENSE attorneys would have to EXAMINE ALL the EVIDENCE, including WHAT occurred PRIOR TO, and at the time ‘force’ was used, including the conduct of the person against whom such force was used, and that of the responding police officer.”
The very obvious interference is that the officer’s defense attorney would likely offer a DEFENSE based on the ‘disclosure’ of the investigated evidence re the suspect’s prior acts!
I say that is NONSENSE. Read Donna’s crisp post at 6:07. Evidently my longer responses are being lost. It seems she understands what’s being read quite well. 🙃😇
Brother, neither of us are lawyers so I see my analysis as that of a juror dissecting the facts of the case . And also, I do UNDERSTAND and know well the concept of disclosure so please no need to quote the dicta as you did.
Thus my apologies, but I can’t agree to disagree when you seek an ‘understanding’ on something that has no basis in reality: EXCESSIVE FORCE has nothing to do with what came before. NOTHING. 🙂
Peace out.
-
2/2
The comments from another with my own thoughts added in.1) “Shernell Blackman plans to guard her home as if her life depended on it.”
“My neighbour tell me that four police jeeps full with officers carrying guns turn up
at my property”***Her life depends on it.
How do you four jeeps of police officers with big guns to the home of an elderly woman?
What were they expecting from this lone elderly person.
This is not a good image for the Barbados Police Service. The policemen of Barbados should not be used to intimidate and terrorize the poor and unfortunate. This smells bad.2) “all of my galvanise was pulled down and my back door was opened”
***If this woman was at home and she saw this happening, then she would have resisted in some way.
What would have happened?
Do you think that “four jeeps of policemen full with officers carrying big guns would have just walked away?
It is quite likely that she would have protested and get much more than two hard slaps. I fear for the life of this woman.The policemen of Barbados should not be used to harass, intimidate and terrorize the poor and unfortunate.
3a) ” “I ask for the police to come and put back up my galvanise and all I was told was that an investigation would be carried out.”
***Probably and investigation done and report written. Some folks here love to see that phrase. It is an euphemism for “Get out of here. Carry your a__. We don’t have time for you.”
3b)”She pointed out that since the incident two men have tried to break into her house.”
****This no cybercrime or computer misuse, they are actually terrorizing, intimidating and putting fear in the heart of this woman. They have treed this woman like how a hunter trees a lion; they have cornered and are intimidating and terrorizing her. You and I must stop them moving in for the kill.
She has been been signaled that the police men will not help her and now she has ‘desperados’ knocking on her door. I will bet my last dollar that this woman is not sleeping well. Deprived of sound sleep and living in sheer fear.
My thoughts
(a)The police should not come back with four jeeps and big guns for then they would be a party to these terror tactics. The should come to help this woman and not scare her. If they cannot help, they should stay away.(b) The police should talk firmly with their ‘sponsor’ and told him to cease and desist with this action. Harassing, terrorizing, intimidation and stressing out citizens is not what the police force is for.
Damn you all! Support and protect this woman. Let the matter go through the courts. Is she so poor and unfortunate that there is no value to her existence.
I am on watch for any more developments in this case. It is the least that I can do.
-
Why do I take the ball and just run with it? Don’t I care if i stumble or fumble the fall?
The answer is “No!”. I know the miscreants that I am dealing with.They will attempt to murder you and you are expected to be silent and smiling as they strangle you. They will be mad at you if you scream. Ignore your pain, grin and bear it. They will whisper sweet nothings in your ear as their hands circle your neck and squeeze.
Scream and they will back off and then send in their imps, apologists, lackies, partisans and helpers to condemn and criticize you “Be silent Theo! Smile sweetly Theo! Shhh! Silence! It is not as bad as you say. Keep quiet”.
And if you are silly enough to listen to them, the squeeze begins again.
I know them. I know them well.
I scream for those who are afraid to scream. I scream for those whose voice will no be heard when they scream.
-
Edited
Why do I take the ball and just run with it? Don’t I care if I stumble or fumble the ball?
My answer is “No!” I know the miscreants that I am dealing with.They will attempt to murder you and you are expected to be silent and smiling as they strangle you. They will be mad at you if you scream. You are expected to ignore your pain, grin and bear it. They will whisper sweet nothings in your ear as their hands circle your neck and squeeze.
Scream and they will back off and then send in their imps, apologists, lackies, partisans and helpers to condemn and criticize you. Hera them whisper “Be silent Theo! Smile sweetly Theo! Shhh! Silence Theo! It is not as bad as you say it is. Keep quiet”.
And if you are silly enough to listen to them, the squeeze begins again
I know them. I know them well. . They are relentless in pursuing their objectives
I scream for those who are afraid to scream. I scream for those whose voice will no be heard when they scream.
-
dpD
RE: “The very obvious interference is that the officer’s defense attorney would likely offer a DEFENSE based on the ‘disclosure’ of the investigated evidence re the suspect’s prior acts!”
How can what I “said initially and then repeated” could be reasonably and objectively interpreted to be an obvious interference is that the officer’s defense attorney would likely offer a DEFENSE based on the ‘disclosure’ of the investigated evidence re the suspect’s prior acts! obvious interference is that the officer’s defense attorney would likely offer a DEFENSE based on the ‘disclosure’ of the investigated evidence re the suspect’s prior acts,”……
…… when I ‘said’ “examine ALL the evidence, INCLUDING what occurred prior to […]?”
You could simply ADMIT you do not understand the point I’m making.
RE: “I say that is NONSENSE. Read Donna’s crisp post at 6:07. Evidently my longer responses are being lost. It seems she understands what’s being read quite well.”
However, because you and Donna share the same opinions in this matter, does not necessarily mean both of you are correct, and I must ‘bow down to you with my tail between my legs’ and agree with them.
RE: “Brother, neither of us are lawyers so I see my analysis as that of a juror dissecting the facts of the case.”
Of course I’m not a lawyer, and, more often than not, most people chosen for jury duty do not have a basic understanding of the law.
But, I’ll ask you, do you having any formal training in investigation planning and litigation methodologies, questioning suspects, report writing and specialised investigation techniques, or have you ever investigated any matter?RE: “Thus my apologies, but I can’t agree to disagree when you seek an ‘understanding’ on something that has no basis in reality: EXCESSIVE FORCE has nothing to do with what came before. NOTHING.”
Donna made her comments graciously and, more or less, moved on. She and I often share the same opinions on issues, and an issue is never created whenever we disagree. The respect remains.
Even though I disagreed with your opinion, I REMAINED RESPECTFUL and suggested we should ‘agree to disagree.’
Oh no, NOT YOU. Rather than reciprocate the gesture and ‘move on,’ you openly ADMITTED to being UNABLE to ‘agree to disagree.’
You MUST prolong the discussion, perhaps in an effort to prove to BU ‘how much more intelligent thou art.’Probably the reason why most interactions with you usually end in a confrontation.
My friend, you seem to have an UNCANNY OBSESSION with WINNING every discussion and FORCING your opinions ‘DOWN THE THROATS’ of people who disagree with you, reinforced by your ‘TRADEMARKED EXHAUSTIVE, LONG-WINDED’ COMMENTS.
That’s why you OFTEN come over as a POMPOUS, CONDESCENDING ‘KNOW IT ALL.’ That you are an AUTHORITY on ‘each and every issue.’
Reasons why I try my very best to avoid engaging in any discussion with you.
I’ll repeat, let’s ‘agree to disagree’ and MOVE ON!!!!!!!!!!!!
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.