THIS IS WRONG!

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
USC Title 18 Section Chapter 13 Sections 241 & 242

UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS

18 USC § 241 - Conspiracy against rights | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

§ 241. Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured -
They shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results, they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

18 USC § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory, 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 inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.
 
Court Rulings of Interest

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)
 
I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY

[video=youtube;ZePEy7OxV9s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZePEy7OxV9s[/video]
 
I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY: II

[video=youtube;qsoY9VxSsIc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsoY9VxSsIc[/video]
 
Charged with Oppression

[video=youtube;Vm7Pw8D1s7g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm7Pw8D1s7g[/video]

Texas Penal Code - Section 39.03. Official Oppression - Texas Attorney Resources - Texas Laws

§ 39.03. OFFICIAL OPPRESSION.
(a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful;
(2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful; or
(3) intentionally subjects another to sexual harassment.
(b) For purposes of this section, a public servant acts under color of his office or employment if he acts or purports to act in an official capacity or takes advantage of such actual or purported capacity.
(c) In this section, "sexual harassment" means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, submission to which is made a term or condition of a person's exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, either explicitly or implicitly.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1217, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 16, § 19.01(34), eff. Aug. 26, 1991. Renumbered from V.T.C.A., Penal Code § 39.02 by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
 
PoxEclipse,

Resisting arrest is some of the worst advice I've ever heard.

If someone gets arrested either lawfully or unlawfully, resisting that arrest is going to get them hurt.
 
PoxEclipse,

Resisting arrest is some of the worst advice I've ever heard.

If someone gets arrested either lawfully or unlawfully, resisting that arrest is going to get them hurt.

Maxwel,

As with all things in life, pray to the Father for guidance (advice), and act according to your conscience.

I usually try not to give advice as I am not privy to the full understanding of the Fathers will for each and every person, my posts are intended as informational resources only and should be treated as such.

May the Lord bless and keep you.
 
Last edited:
NYPD Officers Shoot Bystanders in Midtown

NYPD cops accidentally use innocent bystanders for target practice (again!)

(NaturalNews) NYPD cops have made headlines once again by attempting to shoot an unarmed man but instead shooting innocent bystanders, reports the Wall Street Journal. This is yet another incident in which NYPD officers have been identified as the primary shooters who injured innocent people: In August of last year, NYPD cops managed to shoot nine innocent bystanders in the so-called "Empire State Building" shooting.

In that incident, NYPD cops "fired randomly into the street, striking nine bystanders in the legs, buttocks and elbow." Mayor Bloomberg initially blamed the suspect for the shooting, but it later came out that all the victims had been shot by New York cops.

Today's shooting was apparently not nearly as bad, involving the NYPD shooting only two innocent bystanders rather than nine. NYPD cops apparently need to carry more ammo if they hope to beat the previous record of nine. Maybe they should carry TWO handguns so they can "go gansta" and fire off two guns at a time, aiming neither of them.

I have yet to see a news report about NYPD cops actually hitting their intended target with gunfire. Hence the headline of this article. My theory is that these guys aren't getting sufficient trigger time at the police range, so they've had to use innocent bystanders as target practice in order to "keep up their skillz."

Because the only thing worse than hitting these bystanders intentionally would be the realization that NYPD cops are such bad shots that they are shooting innocent people ACCIDENTALLY.

Imaginary gun goes "Bang! Bang!"

By the way, if you're wondering why these NYPD cops started shooting at this unarmed bad guy, it's because -- get this -- they claimed the man "allegedly put his hand into his pocket and then took it out, making a motion as if he was shooting in the direction of the police officers," reports the Wall Street Journal.

Hold on a sec, there. So the guy had an imaginary gun? As in, his finger and a thumb? Like, "Bang! Bang! Bang!" style? Kids' playground stuff?

So New York cops think a guy running around with his finger and thumb, screaming "Bang! Bang! Bang!" is so dangerous to the public that they must fire their own guns into the crowd, striking innocent bystanders?

Someone please tell me these aren't the same cops who are going to "keep the peace" when the U.S. debt pyramid implodes, causing spontaneous bank holidays followed by mayhem in the streets of every major U.S. city.

By the way, in case you haven't already figured this out, the old, "he reached into his pocket" story is a line of complete B.S. that cops use when they try to justify why they shot an unarmed person. This same excuse can be made for anyone at anytime. A cop can walk right up to you, pull out a gun, point it at your head and pull the trigger, all while claiming you "reached into your pocket" and he thought you were going to pull out a gun, so he "shot in self defense."

That's the mind game these NYPD cops are playing. Don't be fooled into thinking these cops were actually playing by the rules. They were trying to murder this individual, but they are so utterly incompetent with firearms that they couldn't even hit him with three attempts. Apparently, the answer is to give 'em more firepower, right? I think we should let Bloomberg's cops carry full-auto weapons on the streets of New York with full permission from Bloomberg to use them against shops that sell extra large sodas.

Being a cop is hard. Being a GOOD cop is even harder

Now, I have no illusions that being a New York cop is a tough, risky job. But being a New York bystander... now THAT'S a risky situation because you're unarmed and completely at the mercy of the NYPD's spontaneous target practice sessions.

All kidding aside, Natural News honors the GOOD cops on the streets of American cities who actually do exercise restraint when dealing with potentially dangerous individuals. Being a cop is a tough job. Being a good cop is even tougher. Nevertheless, there are good cops -- who actually can hit their intended targets, by the way -- all across America, and we need 'em to prevent bad guys from overrunning society (which they would do in an instant if you give them the chance).

So here's to all the GOOD cops across America. Maybe you guys can give the NYPD some badly-needed lessons on the four rules of gun safety...
 
Ohio Cop Terrorizes Family

NOTE: THERE IS POTENTIALLY OBJECTIONABLE LANGUAGE CONTAINED WITHIN THIS VIDEO, VIEW AT YOUR DISCRETION.

Ohio Cop Terrorizes Family: Witness Gets it on Video | The Daily Sheeple

[video=youtube;v__icFT634s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v__icFT634s#t=160[/video]

What began as a routine traffic stop resulted in a man, his girlfriend, and his 14-year old son being tossed on the pavement and thrown in handcuffs.​

Aaron Tatkowski had just arrived home when he saw his daughter-in-law, Cassandra Meyers, being pulled over by Officer Eric Hart. There was something about the way Hart was speaking to Meyers that made Tatkowski get out of his truck to question the officer’s behavior. The officer ordered Tatkowski to return to his truck, and he complied.
​

That’s when things spiraled out of control.
​

“He hollered for me to get back in my truck, so I got back in my truck,” Tatkowski told CBS affiliate WTOL. “Next thing you know, I’m yanked out of the truck and it made my girlfriend say a few things. He yanked her out of the truck.”
​

Tatkowski says Hart pulled himself, his girlfriend, and his 14-year-old son out of the truck and threw them to the ground. His two young granddaughters, who were sitting in the back seat, remained in the truck.
​

At one point Hart aimed a Taser and a handgun at the family, pointing the weapons directly at Tatkowski’s head.
​

Another witness attempted to call 911 for help. Hart grabbed the man’s phone and tossed it aside.
​

This is when a witness began recording the incident (warning: contains strong language):
​

Tatkowski says he complied with the officer’s instructions. He was charged with misconduct at an emergency, obstructing official business, and resisting arrest, and was taken to a hospital for injuries to his knee and elbow. Hart was treated at the scene for scratches.

Officer Hart has been placed on paid administrative leave, and the Washington Township Police Department says it is investigating the incident.

A witness told WTOL that Hart overreacted.

“It was totally uncalled for, the way (the officer) was using force on people,” said Jim Stechschulte. “I’m sorry to say that, but that’s the way it is and if they don’t like it, so be it.”
 
AUSTRALIA: THIS IS WRONG!

Police change defence after allegedly breaking student's leg over ticket

A group of police officers who allegedly broke the leg of an arts student and told her ''we don't care if it's legal'' have been allowed to change their defence at the eleventh hour after CCTV footage of the assault emerged.

Rachel Gardner is suing the NSW police force claiming she was kicked, sat on, handcuffed, pushed against a fence, loaded into a paddy wagon and then dumped at a nearby train station without charge after being caught without a train ticket on March 13, 2011.

Police initially denied the kick occurred but sought to amend their defence in the Sydney District Court on Monday, minutes before the beginning of a five-day trial, after Ms Gardner's legal team revealed they had obtained CCTV footage from Cronulla station.

On Tuesday, Judge Sharron Norton lambasted the force's barrister Matthew Hutchings for presenting an "entirely different" defence document on the morning of the trial but she allowed it and deferred the trial to November.

Ms Gardner, 36, was at Cronulla station with two tourist friends just before midnight when they were approached by transit officers and found to be without tickets.

An altercation ensued when the tourists couldn't produce identification and police attended. Ms Gardner claims that when she protested that one of the tourists was being pinned to the ground by a transit officer, Acting Sergeant Craig Sands kicked both her legs out from under her, breaking her right leg.

In her statement of claim, it is alleged Sergeant Sands then directed a transit officer to sit on her while she was lying face down on the platform before she was handcuffed, told she was under arrest and put in a paddy wagon.

When she objected to what she believed was an unlawful arrest, an officer said ''we don't care if this is legal'', the statement said. Ms Gardner was not taken to a police station and charged. Instead, she was driven to Sutherland railway station and ''left to fend for herself in a seriously injured condition''.

She is seeking damages of up to $750,000 for the injuries as well as the humiliation, disgrace, mental suffering, emotional distress, fear and anxiety, loss of social status and inconvenience caused by assault, false arrest and false imprisonment. A doctor's report says she will likely develop osteoarthritis within five to 10 years.

Her aspirations to become a filmmaker would also be hindered as well as attempts to get casual work while studying at the University of NSW College of Fine Arts, the court heard. Barrister Geoffrey Petty, SC, said the only record of the incident was a standard internal log that was ''brief in the extreme''. He said CCTV footage showed the kick ''as plain as daylight'' and also showed the officers chatting on the station as Ms Gardner limped away.

The police initially denied all Ms Gardner's claims and said she bit and kicked officers.

Mr Hutchings said this was because Ms Gardner's statement of claim was so vague and void of detail that it prevented them investigating the claims and preparing a proper response.

The trial will begin in November.
 
Right to Remain Silent

Right to Remain Silent

In the United States, the right to remain silent is designed to protect a person who is undergoing police questioning or trial. This right may help a person avoid making self-incriminating statements. It may also include the condition that unfavorable comments or inferences cannot be made by the tribunal because the defendant refused to answer questions before or during a court trial.

The Miranda Warning is used to inform a suspect of his or her right to remain silent after being placed under arrest. This warning came into being after the United States Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona. The court stated that a confession would be inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination clause unless the suspect was made aware of his or her rights and had thus waived them.

In stark comparison to the decision made in Miranda v. Arizona, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Raffel v. U.S. that once the suspect begins cooperating with law enforcement and answers questions or consents to a search, he or she gives up the right to remain silent and must continue to cooperate throughout his or her arrest, trial, and judgment.

This means that if you cooperate with the police in any form or fashion before being placed under arrest, you give up your Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. Under the Raffel ruling, you cannot later reclaim your rights, even after arrest and being informed of your Miranda rights. This makes the Miranda Warning rather powerless, as the police do not have to advise the suspect of his or her rights until after a self-incriminating comment is made and/or he or she is arrested. If the suspect has already cooperated prior to arrest, he or she has already given up most of the rights that the Miranda Warning would advise him or her of.

There are some instances where remaining silent may look unfavorably upon a suspect. For example, if a person is silent before being placed under arrest, it may be inferred that he or she is guilty because there are no declarations of innocence. One way to combat this is to tell the police officer that your attorney advised you to stay silent should you ever be accused of committing a crime. Attributing your silence to your attorney’s advice looks less suspicious.
 
City Cops Caught on Video Viciously Attacking, Siccing Dog on Non-Resisting Man

Atlantic City Cops Caught on Video Viciously Attacking, Siccing Dog on Non-Resisting Man - BlackListedNews.com

[video=youtube;rHXLE1oAvHU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHXLE1oAvHU[/video]

Another disgusting show of police abuse was caught on surveillance camera, showing five Atlantic City police officers beating, punching and kneeing a man repeatedly before a sixth officer drives up and sics a dog on the man.

The 20-year-old man, David Connor Castellani, was charged with aggravated assault. The video shows he did no such thing. The altercation begins just after the 3:00 mark.

Atlantic Police Chief Ernest Jubiliee told NBC10 that he viewed the tape of the incident that took place and “saw no reason to suspend or remove officers from their regular duties.”

He also sees no reason to release Castellani’s arrest report after NBC10 reporter Harry Hairston filed a public records request.

It turns out, the cop who sicced the dog on Castellani, Sterling Wheaten, has been sued three times in the last three years for abusing citizens and has been investigated by internal affairs more than a dozen times in two years for excessive force.

But the Atlantic City Police Department boasts on its website that it “has one of the finest K-9 training programs in the country. We have trained law enforcement agencies along the entire Eastern United States and the U.S. Virgin Islands.”
According to the Press of Atlantic City:

The encounter lasted less than three minutes — with police and the K-9 seen backing away shortly after 3:12 a.m. — but the elder Castellani, who is a lawyer, said it left his son with permanent injuries, including nerve damage and muscle paralysis where the K-9 grabbed onto his son’s neck.
“They’re just here standing around looking at him, like he’s a piece of meat,” said his mother, Terri, as the officers on the tape slowly back away from her son, much of his body blocked by the K-9 vehicle.
Medics arrived about eight minutes later. An officer who arrived after the arrest prevented Castellani from bringing his handcuffed hands up to feel his injuries.
Terri Castellani said her son still wore those handcuffs when, hours later, she visited him in the hospital after authorities allowed the 20-year-old to call home. His back and head “looked like Hamburger Helper,” she said, with more than 200 stitches needed to close his wounds.
“It was the most horrific sight I’d ever seen,” she said. “I never expected to walk into what I did.”
​

Castellani is now suing and the incident is supposedly under investigation by internal affairs and the Atlantic County Prosecutor, which we can imagine, will go nowhere.

The incident took place in June after Castellani was kicked out of a casino for being underage. The video shows he was exchanging words with cops from down the street when they came charging at him and attacked like a pack of rabid dogs.

And police wonder why citizens would not call 911 to report an officer getting beat up.
 
Police Chief Paid $115K While Suspended

Paid Vacation: Police Chief Paid $115K While Suspended - | Intellihub News

Police Chief Michael Chase from Irvington, New Jersey was suspended with pay after he was accused of covering up corruption with in the police department. It was recently revealed through a new state investigation that the police chief has already received $115,000 so far during his paid vacation.

An indefinite suspension without pay is many times the worse punishment that members of the police department receive, even when they are guilty of theft, assault, murder and rape. It is extremely rare for a police officer to be suspended without pay.

According to NJ.com a report on the prosecutor’s probe obtained by The Star-Ledger in January revealed the investigators found that Chase ordered Internal Affairs detectives to kill the investigation into his nephew and that Internal Affairs failed to properly investigate more than 100 citizen complaints against officers.

“What they’ve done is given him a legal no-show job,” said Councilman David Lyons.

“The police department is costing us a hell of a lot of money. The townspeople are being robbed because the whole police issue is going to cost us money because the chief is not working, and he’s not working because of them,” Lyons said.

Irvington police chief paid $115K while suspended, sparking state investigation | NJ.com

"Records show Chase earns $12,856 per month, meaning he has earned nearly $112,500 while suspended."
 
Last edited:
Seven?

Calif. boy with pellet gun shot 7 times by deputy, autopsy finds | Fox News

SANTA ROSA, Calif. – Residents of a Northern California community expressed skepticism Thursday about a sheriff's deputy's decision to shoot a popular 13-year-old boy who was carrying a pellet gun that looked like an assault rifle.

A preliminary autopsy report released Thursday said Andy Lopez was shot seven times, and the two fatal wounds were in his right hip and the right side of his chest.

The final autopsy results won't be ready for several weeks.

Meanwhile, hundreds of people marched more than 3 miles from Santa Rosa City Hall to the field where Andy Lopez was killed Tuesday afternoon. Some lit candles and placed flowers at a makeshift memorial with printed pictures of the victim, stuffed animals and a balloon that read "RIP Andy L." An Aztec dance performance followed the march.

"It's very tragic and sad. It just happened so quick," said Noel Nunez, 15, a sophomore at nearby Elsie Allen High School. Still, he said deputies should have been able to tell the difference between a real gun and a replica weapon.

A Sonoma County sheriff's deputy twice told the boy to drop the weapon, but he instead raised it in the deputy's direction, police said at a news conference Wednesday.

"The deputy's mindset was that he was fearful that he was going to be shot," said Santa Rosa police Lt. Paul Henry, whose agency is investigating the shooting in the suburban town of roughly 170,000 people. It's about 50 miles northwest of San Francisco in California's wine country.

The gun looked just like an AK-47 assault rifle, with a black body and ammunition magazine, and a brown butt and grip. Only after the shooting did deputies realize it was a plastic replica, authorities said.

"Nobody should die for a misunderstanding, especially not a young boy who hasn't even started his life. It's just really sad knowing that," said Viviany Diaz Agirra Torres, 17. Torres said she wanted to know whether police gave Andy time to put the gun down before opening fire.

Hundreds of community members marched Wednesday night to remember the teen and protest the shooting, chanting "We need justice," the Press Democrat of Santa Rosa reported.

Police said two deputies were riding in a marked patrol vehicle and were in uniforms when they spotted Andy in a hooded sweatshirt and shorts at 3:14 p.m. Tuesday. His back was turned toward the deputies, and they did not realize he was a boy.

One of the deputies saw what appeared to be an assault rifle similar to an AK-47 in the teen's left hand. The deputies pulled over and took cover behind one of the vehicle's doors, according to police.

A witness reported seeing the patrol car's overhead emergency lights turn on and hearing the chirp of a siren, police said.

One of the deputies twice ordered Andy to drop the weapon, according to a witness, police said.

The teen was about 20 or 30 feet away from the deputies with his back toward them when he began turning around with what one deputy described as the barrel of the rifle rising up and turning in his direction, police said.

One deputy then fired several rounds, striking the boy at least once, Henry said. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

Investigators said they believe eight rounds were fired. The timeline released by Santa Rosa police says those shots were fired within 10 seconds of the deputies' first report of a suspicious person.

At Wednesday's news conference, Santa Rosa police displayed the pellet gun alongside a real AK-47. The two appeared strikingly similar.

Deputies also found a plastic handgun in the boy's waistband, police said.

The pellet gun did not have an orange-tipped barrel like other replica firearms, including the plastic handgun found in the boy's waistband, police said.

The deputies, who have not been identified, have been placed on administrative leave, which is standard after a shooting, sheriff's officials said.

Assistant Sheriff Lorenzo Duenas told the Press Democrat that the deputy who shot the teen is a 24-year veteran and his partner, who did not fire his weapon, is a new hire.
 
State cop shoots at minivan full of kids

State cop shoots at minivan full of kids

[video=youtube;Myqwv1xxkv4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Myqwv1xxkv4[/video]


"diggerdan says:

November 17, 2013 at 5:55 am

Yes this must be appropriate behavior that they teach in their accadamy – ya know to open fire on a van full of young kids. If this isn`t what they are told is appropriate then why does it seem like daily behavior by cops."

"Sunfire says:

November 17, 2013 at 8:26 am

They had the vehicle’s plate, her license information, etc. The order for her to get out of the van was completely unnecessary..."
 
Granted shooting into the van at that point was over the top, but did the cop shooting know it was a van full of children? Or did he roll up on seeing another officer being attacked and people trying to flee?
Far as the rest, i don't see anything wrong. All she had to do was sit and wait for the cop. Instead she drove off, tried to take off a second time, fight with the officer, her son attacks the officer and then she tries to run again. If it had been a man in a car by himself no one would think twice about this stop. Or even think the actions were justified. Some people like to create sensational stories is all. As is evidenced here.
 
Sometimes this cop brutality stuff gets a bit ridiculous and makes the legit stuff look bad. " I GOTS A CAMERA, IMA VIGILANTE NAO!" There's a lot of over the top videos, where the cops were wrong. There are also many where the persons involved were asking for it. Don't try to run from cops and then cry fowl when they start responding.
 
5 Policemen Rape 16-Year-Old Girl

[video=youtube;FhnF3MJYAKs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhnF3MJYAKs[/video]