12 votes

Arizona Police Officer Execute Man For Telling Them They Needed A Warrant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qx9Mt4krDtc&feature=player_em...

-------------

This stuff is getting just a tad ridiculous.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Video has been removed.

Did you DL it?

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Judge,,,, city not liable

Even if he was listed on the Bradey list that identifies officers with questionable character. Giving him a license to kill, not their concern http://www.kpho.com/story/19243370/judge-dismisses-wrongful-...

The real story

Officer Sergio Virgillo

If Cops don't wish to be mislabeled, they must start rejecting..

If Cops don't wish to be mislabeled, they must start rejecting the very system that keeps them all in line. It's as simple as admitting the fish-bowl is rotten.

The problem is you cannot swim outside of a polluted pool, if the entire tank has turned murky. It's just not possible.

It is much like dropping bits of chlorophyll into a dirty fish tank. In the short-term, sure you will get rid of stray bacteria. But before long, the residue left over will poison every last fish.

Once it happens one time, fish can never live in the water again. The system of penal codes is exactly the same. It has become such a mess, that even those with the best intentions will be poisoned by it. Laws are not passed as laws but as entitlements; which forces the law-enforcer to see themselves as authoritative rather than a servant.

When people naturally start granting laws as entitlements rather than rights of justice, it is inevitable the enforcers of those codes will become corrupt. This has always been what results in a totalitarian society. Every entitlement is backed by a debt, which means all legal maxims are now set according to financial terms.

Instead of rights for the people, they are now mere business transactions. Once that poison has set in, the entire justice system tosses out the notion of equal rights. Since each law is a debt, whoever has the most money wins. This is exactly what our founders warned us about; and now we pay for it dearly.

Another example...In Arizona the Legal system is corrupt. I have no confidence that Mr. Chrisman will be convicted for Second Degree murder. Therefore he could kill again. I have no faith that justice will be served, not because the people there are corrupt. But because the entire "PLEA"(Phoenix Bar Association) system is run like an ATM machine that does not answer to the public. This produces brutal men/women of no conscience; simply because "Law" is turned into debt and deemed acceptable. They can then twist the "Law" by twisting the money.

My only hopeful development that I see in Arizona, is the new "POST" system. This investigative body of LEO's to investigate other agencies like PLEA is the exact kind of remedy I spoke before. Only it needs to be more tightly knit, it needs citizen oversight of the department. Eventually we clearly need this type of system in every state. Cops cannot change a corrupt system such as this by complaining. The very foundation of "Law" as a right has been usurped, which means the debt-based ATM mentality of law must end by cutting out the bank. I thank Ron Paul for bringing it to our attention.

Whoa...let's get our facts straight before we go into a tirade!

First off, this is not a recent event. The killing of Mr. Rodriguez by Richard Chrisman occurred back on October 5, 2010. Since then, Richard Chrisman has been charged with 2nd degree murder and fired from the police department. He's being accused of murder by another, honest and law-loving police officer who witnessed the crime. There is a very good chance he's going to be locked up for a long time, if not worse. Also, a $30 million wrongful death lawsuit has also been filed and the victim's mother will almost certainly prevail. Read this article for the most recent update on the case.

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2011/03/richard_chr...

I'm as angry about this anybody, but we need to use caution before we begin attacking ALL cops.

Cuimhnigh orm, a Dhia, le haghaidh maith.

Who the hell attacked "ALL"

Who the hell attacked "ALL" cops? Address those who are. I didn't see anyone do it.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

I'm not interested...

...in splitting hairs on this issue. The unambiguous "they" and references to "pigs" in this topic comment thread, as well as other threads, are sufficient to make my statement true. If you disagree with me, then fine, but I'm not interested in engaging in a debate over what is clearly inferred by these terms and how they are being deployed (wrongly) in a general sense.

My question to you is how has your comment enriched this discussion in any meaningful way other than to be confrontational?

Cuimhnigh orm, a Dhia, le haghaidh maith.

People, INCLUDING myself are

People, INCLUDING myself are referring to the idiot cops that shoot and ask questions later. You are taking this way too personal. You dont really think we include the oath keepers and other cops who are doing good things?

Your assumption that something inferred something is just as stupid as what you accuse us of. I.e. generalizing..

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

I'm not talking about all "people"...

...I'm talking about those that would "broad-brush" it with terms like "pigs". Pigs is an epithet. Just as the n-word is an epithet that refers to ALL blacks in a disparaging manner, I am against those who would do the same thing using "pigs". Just because I didn't name names or comment directly under their comments doesn't invalidate my use of the word "all" in the sense of my original post, nor does it disparage those who support Oath Keepers or those who use the proper terminology saying "some" cops are bad.

My original comment was to those who did not have their facts straight. Is this a hard concept for you to follow? Or are you emotionally invested in not allowing yourself to be wrong when you make snarky, misappropriated comments that are easily refutable?

Perhaps a quick course on Aristotelian logic would serve you well. Think before you write.

Cuimhnigh orm, a Dhia, le haghaidh maith.

"ALL blacks"?

Since when?
I know the origins of the word "nigger", and it is indeed derived from the latin for black, but since then it has come to mean far more.
Just as John Lennon was right when he said that "Woman is the nigger of the world", and George Carlin was right when he said "We're all Nixon's niggers", it remains true today that libertarians, atheists, and polyamorists are Americas's newest (and last remaining?) niggers. It has long ago lost most of its racialist meaning.

In addition to the above listed pariah groups, we ALL, as Americans, at least in the eyes of the ruling elite, are Massa 'Bama's niggers.

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

Hmmm, I always thought it it was a term that was derived from

geographic origins. Interesting.

Anyway, it's just a word to me and I guess I'm less attached to slurs on a personal level so they don't bother me like they do some. I don't however use that term because I know it does bothers others.

I've been called cracker before and even honkey when I was younger but I always had a laugh at the idea that they believed it should bother me.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

What does "nigger" actually

What does "nigger" actually mean? I can never get an answer for that. Does it mean idiot, black, moron, negro, homie? What exactly?

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Just like the poster before

Just like the poster before you mentioned...it's a derivative of the word 'black' in Latin, that's it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger

Should we ban the word

Should we ban the word "black" also?

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

No words ever need to be banned.

I learned a saying in 3rd grade 'sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me'. And three decades later I can say with confidence that I have never been hurt by a word.

But we have to protect

But we have to protect people, right? We need to make sure everyone is safe from offensive words...

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

I hope that was sarcasm!

Or do you really think people need protected from words?
That is the kind of thinking that will have you burning books very soon - they are FULL of words, and who knows which ones will offend who?

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

Self-regulation is called for

I object to the very notion that a word can be offensive.

At the same time, I am acutely aware that many people do not see it from that perspective, and will react emotionally, perhaps violently, to certain words. Negro is spanish for black, and fairly inoffensive, but if you pronounce it with a loose southron accent it suddenly becomes offensive. Unless, of course, your own skin is black - then it is ok. (What colour is my skin? Does anyone reading this know? Does it matter? Should it matter?)

None of that makes any sense in the broader view, but it's still true, society operates as a herd and often doesnt make sense.

So as a practical matter, I do avoid certain words. I use words to communicate, and that goal is not served if you insult your audience, even inadvertantly. My grandfather taught me to always be polite and respectful to other people, and to take care not to insult people even by accident. He was a good man, and a wise man.

I dont think this should be made law, however. We shouldnt need a law to tell us to behave politely. And people that refuse to do this should not be locked up. Society has dealt with this for millenia before the state appeared, through a method that works pretty well - shunning.

Well I am thinking

that 8 months has been long enough that his mother no longer misses him. This cop might get a few months in jail. Big whoop. If you or I tazed someone a couple of times and killed the family dog then killed the victim we would be looking at life or a death sentence. That 1 brave cop that witnessed the crime will need to resign and probably move or he will be paid back big time by the rest of the "brotherhood"
To me a few months is still pretty recent, especially to family members!

Formerly rprevolutionist

Let's see what happens is all I'm saying.

The legal process is going forward the way that it should and we ought to applaud that. If justice isn't served, then I'm with you 100%. If justice is ultimately served however, then isn't it best not to use this as an example of the police getting away with murder but rather an example of the system actually working for the people? Only time will tell, but as of now I'm actually happy with how the case is progressing legally.

My statement regarding it not being recent was to imply that there are important updates to the case which the youtube video does not contain, especially regarding the murder charges. These updates address much of the anger posited by DPers on the boards of this forum topic and are not related to the degree of pain and suffering the victim's family is surely experiencing.

Cuimhnigh orm, a Dhia, le haghaidh maith.

Definitely isn't a very good example to use.

n/t

working?

"If justice is ultimately served however, then isn't it best not to use this as an example of the police getting away with murder but rather an example of the system actually working for the people?"

The murdered man, and his family, may not see the system actually working here, even if the murderer is eventually convicted and sentenced.

How so?

I'm not following your logic.

Cuimhnigh orm, a Dhia, le haghaidh maith.

The man is dead

The man is dead. If the system worked one might expect him to still be alive. On top of that we have the police officers protecting the miscreant, the DA filing reduced charges just for the start... who knows what will happen to that case by the time it is resolved? But regardless, the man is dead and he's staying dead, and even if his murderer does wind up convicted on a lesser charge and spending some time in a prison (under protective custody, even a cop who goes to prison for life is still protected and treated differently from the main population,) I cant imagine anyone amongs the victims family and friends is going to see this as a system that works as it should.

Police Gun Control Advocate

What if the police did not carry guns? What if the people are allowed to be armed and the police were not? The British police do not carry guns, its just a thought.

The brit pigs carry guns! But

The brit pigs carry guns! But the serfs don't, can't!

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

Thanks but they still have

Thanks but they still have tasers and clubs, which the serfs can't carry. I think even knives are outlawed to the slaves

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

Thanks but they still have

Thanks but they still have tasers and clubs, which the serfs can't carry. I think even knives are outlawed to the slaves

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

Something really ironic about

Something really ironic about the police union...

They are "supporting their officer" as the union guy said.

But what about supporting the officer witness who told the truth about the incident?

By bailing out and supporting the bad cop aren't they at the same time NOT supporting the good cop / witness?

It's almost as if they stand behind (bad) cops charged with crimes but do not stand behind good cops who are witnesses against the bad ones.

...