What We Know About the Killing of Elijah McClain

[tulc]

Do not change the facts. He was told to stop he continued going,

So...they initiated the confrontation, not him. I notice you keep ignoring the fact that he had his earphones on listening to his music, under a ski cap. So he probably didn't hear them and was (most likely) unaware they were there until they appeared out of now where and grabbed him. At which point he probably (as we all tend to do) pulled back when they grabbed his arm. Cops seem to hate when people react like normal people would in those situations, you grab my arm, I pull back, 20 minutes later I'm in the back of an ambulance couple days later they turn the machines off because I'm dead.

he resisted to such an extent that he had to be sedated and ultimately suffered cardiac arrest twice do to excessive exertion.

...so yeah, as i said, he was attacked by the police, choked and drugged and died. You want to blame him for that but it was the clearly the cops fault.

Those are facts not emotion.

The facts show they killed that man. The emotion is pretending it was his fault.
tulc(knows that part is pretty much SOP for most Americans, which is why cops get away with murder over and over again)

 

[disciple Clint]

So...they initiated the confrontation, not him. I notice you keep ignoring the fact that he had his earphones on listening to his music, under a ski cap. So he probably didn't hear them and was (most likely) unaware they were there until they appeared out of now where and grabbed him. At which point he probably (as we all tend to do) pulled back when they grabbed his arm. Cops seem to hate when people react like normal people would in those situations, you grab my arm, I pull back, 20 minutes later I'm in the back of an ambulance couple days later they turn the machines off because I'm dead.


...so yeah, as i said, he was attacked by the police, choked and drugged and died. You want to blame him for that but it was the clearly the cops fault.


The facts show they killed that man. The emotion is pretending it was his fault.
tulc(knows that part is pretty much SOP for most Americans, which is why cops get away with murder over and over again)

It does no good to make up what might have happened to fit your argument. The officers camera shows the approach and the conversation where the officer tells him to stop and he replies "I have a right...." he continues walking and the officer gets in front of him. your arguments are nothing more than emotional venting. Cops do not get away with murdering people over and over, that is a vast exaggeration to say the least. He resisted to such a degree that the fire department medical unit gave him a sedative, note the medics not the police got that? It has already been determined once that the police did nothing wrong and a second look at this as a political reaction is not going to change anything. Note the officers have not even been placed on leave pending the results of the investigation. They did not do anything that caused the death. Those are the facts, you can make up whatever story you want to please yourself but the facts will remain the facts. It is unfortunate that the young man is dead, I feel for his family and friends, but I also feel for the officers involved and the nightmare they are going through for no reason other than it being the season to call all cops murders. This has to stop.

 

[tulc]

It does no good to make up what might have happened to fit your argument. The officers camera shows the approach and the conversation where the officer tells him to stop and he replies "I have a right...." he continues walking and the officer gets in front of him.

Thank you for confirming the police were the ones who initiated the confrontation, not him.

your arguments are nothing more than emotional venting.

...or a desire to see justice done for a guy who was killed for wearing a ski mask and being different.

Cops do not get away with murdering people over and over, that is a vast exaggeration to say the least.

Or an uncomfortable truth that people don't like to hear.

He resisted to such a degree that the fire department medical unit gave him a sedative, note the medics not the police got that?

You mean after the police called them to come administer a sedative they administer a sedative? I'm sure they did, it was pretty obvious right there in front of them of what happens if people don't do what the cops tell them to.

It has already been determined once that the police did nothing wrong

Well...except of course for that dead guy who was killed for buying a tea and wearing a mask.

and a second look at this as a political reaction is not going to change anything.

Unless it does.

Note the officers have not even been placed on leave pending the results of the investigation.

"We investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong."

They did not do anything that caused the death.

Let's just think about that for a second. Can anyone point out why that statement isn't even sort of true? Anyone?

Those are the facts, you can make up whatever story you want to please yourself but the facts will remain the facts. (snip)

It's true, the facts do speak for themselves, and the facts are: Elijah was killed for going shopping while wearing a ski mask, which is apparently a Capital offense in Colorado.

This has to stop.

On this part I can agree with you. Perhaps not in the way you mean, but definitely in wanting this sort of thing to stop.
tulc( )

 

[Hank77]

It's true, the facts do speak for themselves, and the facts are: Elijah was killed for going shopping while wearing a ski mask, which is apparently a Capital offense in Colorado.

They're working it.
This bill was just past in Colorado, see pg 13, Section 5 especially. What do you think?
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2020a_217_signed.pdf

 

[The Barbarian]

You mean after they gave you a lawful order to stop and you didn’t?

What crime did the police see happening or about to happen that would make an order to stop, "lawful?" You do realize that police can't just walk up and start barking orders without a reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime is underway, don't you?

 

[The Barbarian]

They're working it.
This bill was just past in Colorado, see pg 13, Section 5 especially. What do you think?
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2020a_217_signed.pdf

Police officers, under "Qualified Immunity" are almost completely protected from lawsuits if they abuse the civil rights of a citizen. Remove Qualified Immunity, and most of the thuggish behavior will end.

Good show, Colorado. Recently, Colorado made officers personally liable for violating one's First Amendment right to photograph or video in public. And cases of abuse suddenly became very rare.

 

[hislegacy]

What crime did the police see happening or about to happen that would make an order to stop, "lawful?" You do realize that police can't just walk up and start barking orders without a reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime is underway, don't you?

They were investigating a suspicious person call someone who was wearing a ski mask in summer. They had every right to stop him.

 

[disciple Clint]

What crime did the police see happening or about to happen that would make an order to stop, "lawful?" You do realize that police can't just walk up and start barking orders without a reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime is underway, don't you?

They had a lawful reason, they were investigating a citizen complaint about a subject matching the description of the person they detained.

 

[Hank77]

They had a lawful reason, they were investigating a citizen complaint about a subject matching the description of the person they detained.

What did they complain about? What he was wearing? It's not a crime.

 

[tulc]

They were investigating a suspicious person call someone who was wearing a ski mask in summer.

You do understand that wearing a ski mask isn't actually a crime, right? let alone a capitol offense.

They had every right to stop him.

uhmmm...it was the swarming him, choke holding him, drugging him, killing him parts that a lot of people are having a problem with.
tulc(isn't sure why some people want to ignore those parts of what happened)

 

[disciple Clint]

What did they complain about? What he was wearing? It's not a crime.

the original article indicates that He was acting irrationally at a store, people were concerned about his mental condition and felt that he might be a danger to himself or others. Note someone does not have to commit a crime to qualify for contact by the police.

 

[The Barbarian]

They had a lawful reason, they were investigating a citizen complaint about a subject matching the description of the person they detained.

Sorry, no. The law requires, that to detain a person, the officer must have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed, or is about to be committed. Someone concerned about a person's attire does not meet the legal standard. "Someone was upset about the way he was acting" doesn't meet that standard, either.

So the officer's unlawful command is not a defense. Nor is, "we thought he was emotionally disturbed, and he wouldn't do what we asked, so we shot him."

They were free to contact him; they were not free to detain him.

 

[The Barbarian]

They were investigating a suspicious person call someone who was wearing a ski mask in summer. They had every right to stop him.

They have a right to contact him. To detain him, they must have a reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime. He was under no obligation to stop or talk to them, absent that RAS.

 

[Hank77]

the original article indicates that He was acting irrationally at a store, people were concerned about his mental condition and felt that he might be a danger to himself or others. Note someone does not have to commit a crime to qualify for contact by the police.

Just after 10:30 p.m. on August 24, 2019, the Aurora Police Department received a call about a “suspicious person” wearing a mask and waving his hands. They dispatched three officers — Nathan Woodyard, Jason Rosenblatt, and Randy Roedema — who subsequently said McClain “resisted contact” and continued down the street.

Where's the crime here or the suspected crime?

 

[hislegacy]

They have a right to contact him. To detain him, they must have a reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime. He was under no obligation to stop or talk to them, absent that RAS.

You need to give your law degree back to where you got it from - IMHO -

If you are asking me to believe that a Police officer does not have the right and authority to stop a suspicious person (responding to a complaint), you are greatly mistaken.

 

[hislegacy]

Just after 10:30 p.m. on August 24, 2019, the Aurora Police Department received a call about a “suspicious person” wearing a mask and waving his hands. They dispatched three officers — Nathan Woodyard, Jason Rosenblatt, and Randy Roedema — who subsequently said McClain “resisted contact” and continued down the street.

Where's the crime here or the suspected crime?

They have the right, authority and responsibility to investigate. That includes stopping the person, asking questions.

Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?

 

[Hank77]

They have the right, authority and responsibility to investigate. That includes stopping the person, asking questions.

Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?

Actually they don't. No one has to talk to the police unless they are being put under arrest and even then they don't have to talk to the police. I very surprised you don't know this.

 

[Hank77]

They have the right, authority and responsibility to investigate. That includes stopping the person, asking questions.

Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?

Here you might learn something. You might want to listen not just to the lawyer but to the police officer also in the video.

You've been brainwashed.

 

[The Barbarian]

You need to give your law degree back to where you got it from - IMHO -

Guess how I know you don't have a law degree...

If you are asking me to believe that a Police officer does not have the right and authority to stop a suspicious person (responding to a complaint), you are greatly mistaken.

Police officers need no justification to stop someone on a public street and ask questions, and individuals are completely entitled to refuse to answer any such questions and go about their business. However, the Fourth Amendment prohibits police officers from detaining pedestrians and conducting any kind of search of their clothing without first possessing a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the pedestrians are engaged in criminal activity. Terry v. Ohio, 392U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 21 L. Ed. 889 (1968). Police may not even compel a pedestrian to produce identification without first meeting this standard.

It's surprising to learn how many police officers don't even get Law Enforcement 101. I suspect that many of them know, but hope that citizens don't know. Hence the frequent whines of "where did you get your law degree", when faced with Americans who actually know their rights.

 

[hislegacy]

Question:

caller: There is a person acting strange wearing a ski mask and waving his hands around.

Police cannot go and investigate?

Thus ends crime prevention because police cannot interact unless there is a crime committed, or suspected of being committed.