The Minneapolis Police Choke an Unarmed Handcuffed Black Man to Death

5

598

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
1,505
Location
Frankfort IL
ON D BIT said:
"That arrest looked pretty bad, too. The jury forewoman on the first trial said that when she saw the King video on television, “I was revulsed. … I thought they were hitting that poor man too hard and too long.”

But at the trial a year later, she got to see the 13 seconds of video that had been deliberately edited out by the media: the 6-foot-4, 240-pound King rising like a phoenix and charging at one of the officers.

The video that played on an endless loop on TV showed only the tail end of the encounter, when officers were whacking King with their batons.

In fact, however, the beating was the officers’ last resort for subduing King, who’d just led them on a high-speed car chase, at times reaching speeds of up to 115 mph, drawing several police cars and a police helicopter.

Once stopped, King’s two (black) passengers exited the car and got on the ground, as instructed. They went home without a scratch that night.

But King leapt out and began dancing and babbling, crouching, kneeling, laughing and waving to the police helicopter overhead. Both the officers and King’s passengers believed he was high on angel dust.

The senior officer, Sgt. Stacey Koon, ordered the officers to back away and holster their guns. He didn’t want to risk a fatal encounter.

Four officers tried swarming King — he threw them off his back like rag dolls. A dart from a Taser gun did nothing. Then another — also nothing. King lunged at an officer and got hit with a baton, but kept on raging. The police were running out of options that would allow everyone to stay alive.

That’s when three officers began hitting King with their metal batons, under the supervision of Sgt. Koon. If King moved, they whacked him. Finally, they managed to double-cuff him — the procedure for suspects on PCP — and put him in an ambulance to the hospital."

I never heard this. I just heard that there was no way they could convict those officers once the evidence was shown. But no one ever reported the actual evidence even after the trial.
ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE’S RODNEY KING … - Ann Coulter

Is there anything we do not know in this instance? We just found out he had multiple high doses of illegal drugs in him and had both coronary and hypertension heart disease....
Im still wondering why they sat on him for so long after they cuffed him? Did they wait for him to stop moving?
Click to expand...



This all day long. My college kid drank the kool aid so while we were watching parts of the video, I explained you need the entire timeline to make an informed decision. We have the beginning where his is passive and cuffed, and we have the end where he is held down. What happened to have him on the ground? Where is the whole middle of the video? Tons of the beginning and end, but no middle? Bet we will eventually find out he strongly resisted arrest and would not get into the car.
 
quad

quad

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2004
Messages
8,073
Location
Detroit
03cobra#694 said:
Any truth to this?
View attachment 1644443
Click to expand...
In case you missed it, Hillary Clinton lost her appeal in court yesterday, and will have to testify in September.

The judge ordered Clinton to testify at a deposition for a lawsuit related to her use of a private email server for involving official business while working as secretary of State under President Barack Obama.

Judge Royce Lamberth says, “It is time to hear directly from Secretary Clinton.”

Hillary Clinton Will Testify in Email Case After Losing Her Appeal in Court -

But looks like it is business as usual!? See below...

DC Circ., Group Spar Over Deposing Clinton In Email Saga - Law360

Law360, Washington (June 2, 2020, 11:06 PM EDT) -- A conservative watchdog's lower court victory ordering Hillary Clinton to sit for a sworn deposition over her use of a private email server as secretary of state appeared to be on shaky ground after the D.C. Circuit cast doubts on the presiding judge's authority to grant such relief.

U.S. Circuit Judges Thomas B. Griffith, Cornelia T.L. Pillard and Robert L. Wilkins, who traded sharp exchanges with an attorney for Judicial Watch Inc. during a one-and-a-half hour-long teleconference hearing, on Tuesday examined U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth's March ruling that also requires Clinton's former chief of staff Cheryl Mills to be deposed again. The ruling was issued in the group's Freedom of Information Act suit that demanded records relating to the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.

The judges suggested that the district court granting Judicial Watch's discovery request under the FIOA suit doesn't seem appropriate. For one, they reasoned that such suits can only cough up public records within the government's possession and that such cases cannot seek materials from third-parties outside the government, such as Clinton and Mills. And the U.S. Department of State has already provided the group with the responsive documents sought in the suit, the judges added.

But Judicial Watch attorney Ramona Cotca told the panel the FBI handed over dozens of emails it recently obtained from some four former State Department staffers and that she's not convinced the government has sufficiently searched for all the relevant emails in the case. They also asserted that Clinton using a private server to avoid FIOA is "a critical question that should be answered" by her and Mills.

But Judges Pillard and Wilkins noted the State Department later found it actually had those emails in its possession already and they were not related to Judicial Watch's FOIA suit.

"If the question is whether there's been an adequate search, what difference does it make with what the intent was or reasons for using a private server, or Hillary Clinton's or anyone else's understanding of State's record-keeping obligations?"Judge Wilkins asked Cotca. "How does that prove or disprove whether this search, [...] conducted since Secretary Clinton left office, was adequate?"

The attorney, again, doubled down that the department should identify all sources where the emails reside because the agency still doesn't "know the universe of Clinton's emails."

This line of defense drew skepticism from Judge Pillard, who suggested Cotca's notion that more emails reside in other places is "mere speculation."

To get such discovery relief from the district court, the watchdog group has to allege a claim under the Federal Records Act, which governs the management and preservation of federal agency records, the judge explained. "The authority or duty of the district court to look outside a department's custody and look for documents that might exist," the judge continued, "I just don't follow how FOIA leads you there."

Judge Pillard later added, "The State Department now has every incentive to get to the bottom of this if you have any questions, if that's the case. This is no longer Secretary Clinton's State Department, this is the Trump State Department."

Cotca replied, "It doesn't matter who the administration is," before Judge Pillard interjected, saying, "It does in the sense of whether you think, from what I gather you're saying, that there's some kind of cover-up."

When asked by Judge Griffith what her client hopes "to learn realistically" from the deposition, the attorney argued that the group needs "to determine what greater effort the State Department takes if there's an intent by the agency to circumvent FIOA."

"But Secretary Clinton has already answered that question" publicly, Judge Griffith judge swiftly stated. "She gave an explanation of why she had the server in her home. Are you expecting her to change her answer or is there going to be new evidence that will refresh her memory?"

Cotca answered, "Yes."

Tuesday's hearing marked the latest turn in the almost six-year-old litigation, one of several court actions the conservative group filed to obtain records concerning Clinton's talking points that the State Department circulated in response to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Four Americans, including an ambassador, a staffer and two security staff, were killed.

Clinton has publicly stated that her use of personal email to conduct official business during her four years in the Obama administration was intended as a matter of convenience, not an attempt to cover-up or avoid disclosure requirements. Clinton, who resigned in 2013, had also said she provided the agency with copies of tens of thousands of relevant emails.

The revelation that she used a private server had roiled Clinton's 2016 presidential bid and is believed to have contributed to her defeat by President Donald Trump. Clinton was subject to FBI probes but investigators concluded that she should not face criminal charges even though the email account contained some highly classified information.

In his March order, Judge Lamberth ruled "discovery in FOIA cases is rare," but said Clinton can be deposed concerning her reasons for using a private server "and her understanding of State's records management obligations." The order also contended "there is still more to learn" because "even years after the FBI investigation, the slow trickle of new emails has yet to be explained."

Clinton had previously submitted a sworn written statement about her email use, but Judge Lamberth wrote that her answers were either "incomplete, unhelpful, or cursory at best."

During oral arguments Tuesday, another source of tension was whether the case is moot under the circuit court's December 2018 holding in Judicial Watch v. Pompeo.
kb-icon-red.png
In this case, filed under the FRA, the court found that the government "has already taken every reasonable action to retrieve any remaining emails" Clinton sent from her private email accounts and servers.

David Kendall of Williams & Connolly LLP, who argued for Clinton and Mills, pressed that the case is moot. But Cotca and a federal attorney disagreed.

According to Kendall, the mere purpose of the depositions is harassment and the conservative group could use the video footage for political reasons. However, Judge Griffith suggested that Clinton could ask the district court to seal the recording.

Both Judges Griffith and Pillard also stated the writ of mandamus petition that Clinton and Milles filed to block their depositions is an uphill battle because it's an extraordinary relief the circuit court rarely grants. But Kendall insisted this legal tactic is warranted because discovery in FOIA suits are rare and only issued in very limited circumstances.

"The purpose of this discovery, even if it was sealed, is simply harassment. It is not authorized by the law, or the court, or by court precedent," he argued.

Meanwhile, government attorney Mark Freeman said the government hasn't taken a position on the mandamus petition but that the government will soon file a summary judgment motion at the district court to end the case.

U.S. Circuit Judges Thomas B. Griffith, Cornelia T.L. Pillard and Robert L. Wilkins sat on the panel for the D.C. Circuit panel.

Hillary Clinton is represented by David Kendall, Suraj Kumar, Katherine M. Turner and Stephen Lewis Wohlgemuth of Williams & Connolly LLP.

Cheryl Mills is represented by Beth Wilkinson of Wilkinson Walsh & Eskovitz LLP.

Judicial Watch is represented in-house by Ramona Cotca, Michael Bekesha, Lauren Burke and Paul J. Orfanedes.

The goverment is represented by Mark Freeman and Mark Stern of the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Division, Appellate Staff.

The appeal is In re: Hillary Clinton, case number 20-5056, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The district court case is Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of State, case number 1:14-cv-01242, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

--Additional reporting by Bryan Koenig. Editing by Jay Jackson Jr.
 
jsd512

jsd512

Wannabe Ghostbuster
Established Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
9,698
Location
Houston area
hrfhjDmd.png


This fat-ass arrested 3 "members" of a "far right" extremist group called the boogaloos. All 3 were vets.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 25 (members: 0, guests: 25)


Top