Missouri Police Officer guns down unarmed 18 year old

[The Merg]

Here you go....just as proof that this can and does happen:

Link



Fact: Two cops resigned specifically to avoid charges.

Case Closed. You can apologize now for being a bunch of trolling assholes now.

Yes, they resigned to avoid charges, but charges related to civil rights violations. And those charges while related to their response to the domestic violence case were from a separate investigation.

Going back to the CHP officer, the courts have stated that excessive force is not necessarily a criminal act, but rather a violation of a person's civil rights. As part of the civil suit settlement, the CHP officer agreed to resign.

- Merg

 

[The Merg]

He did get off. No criminal charges and civil charges were against the CHP, not him. The government (which means the tax payers) paid the money, not him. He reisgned and keeps his pension and any other benefits he might have.

So strike 3, your out...thanks for playing. Maybe read and educate yourself before self-owning yourself.

The CHP officer was sued civilly along with his department. The civil suit settlement agreement was for the department to pay the money and the CHP officer to resign.

As for his pension, if he resigned, he wouldn't get a pension. He would have to either retire or managed to take early retirement if he didn't have the required 20/25 years. If you resign, you get back whatever money you personally put into the retirement system.

- Merg

 

[The Merg]

WHY WOULD DARREN WILSON OR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT EVEN WANT A RESIGNATION BEFORE THE GJ DECISION?!

What possible benefit would there be?

You're missing this simple fact: THERE'S NO EFFING WAY HE GOES BACK TO HIS OLD JOB. Either 1) he resigns after the GJ decides there will not be a trial (most likely outcome), or 2) he goes through the trial (unlikely that there will be one), then resigns after winning. If he loses the trial (extremely unlikely), there would be no need to resign because he wouldn't have the job anymore anyway. He would go to jail.

No matter what, the only way he remains with the department is in some new position that protects him from direct public exposure. Period. Even if he didn't do anything wrong, he's not going back to his old job. Not ever.

You're acting like the department wants him to resign and he's playing some hardball with his resignation. This case cannot possibly work like that. He claims to be 100% innocent. The department is not trying to settle with Michael Brown's family. The department does not want him to resign. They aren't negotiating with MB's family for his resignation or anything else. Do you understand?

Well said. Although the one minor correction is that if he goes to trial and loses, he will be fired.

But, I agree. There is no way that he can go back to policing the streets like before this all happened. Most likely, due to his "notoriety" now, he will never be able to work as a law enforcement officer anywhere in the country.

- Merg

 

[alkemyst]

Yes, they resigned to avoid charges, but charges related to civil rights violations. And those charges while related to their response to the domestic violence case were from a separate investigation.

Going back to the CHP officer, the courts have stated that excessive force is not necessarily a criminal act, but rather a violation of a person's civil rights. As part of the civil suit settlement, the CHP officer agreed to resign.

- Merg

Also in resigning you keep your benefits, if you lose a case / get charged you most likely will be terminated and lose any benefits you were entitled too.

Another loophole is to resign in order to collect benefits and then reapply and be rehired to earn while being paid your pension. Some do this more than once. It makes no sense to work longer than your full retirement credit needed if you can quit and come back to earn another full set of retirement credits.

They are cracking down on this as it's not in the spirit of the benefit.

 

[DCal430]

He shouldn't be in law enforcement. He should be on the gallows if we had justice. Cool it with the excessive trolling - Admin DrPizza

 

[Greenman]

He shouldn't be in law enforcement. He should be on the gallows if we had justice.

Shouldn't there be a trial first? Or are we embracing mob justice?

 

[Ichinisan]

He shouldn't be in law enforcement. He should be on the gallows if we had justice.

Is it possible that Darren Wilson is telling the truth?

 

[The Merg]

Also in resigning you keep your benefits, if you lose a case / get charged you most likely will be terminated and lose any benefits you were entitled too.

Another loophole is to resign in order to collect benefits and then reapply and be rehired to earn while being paid your pension. Some do this more than once. It makes no sense to work longer than your full retirement credit needed if you can quit and come back to earn another full set of retirement credits.

They are cracking down on this as it's not in the spirit of the benefit.

In some ways yes, although resigning means you don't have the time in to retire. It's retirement that usually gets you those benefits, such as your pension or healthcare coverage (although a lot of departments don't offer that anymore). But, yes, if you are terminated, you will lose out on any benefits you would have been entitled to. That's usually a bigger deal if you were eligible for retirement though.

With regard to retiring and then coming back, most government agencies don't allow that anymore. With a department near me, the retirement credit can now go over 100%, but it takes almost 35 years to get there. If an officer retires, they can come back and work for the department as a civilian after being separated for 30 days. The reason they can do this is because the police department has its own pension fund for officers and the County uses the state retirement system for all civilian employees so an officer coming back as a civilian is not putting back into the same retirement system. Many officers also retire and then go to the sheriff's department, but that is similar to what I described already as the sheriff's deparment also uses the state retirement system.

One way to look at it is if you are terminated, you lose out on all benefits and anything you put into the system. If you resign, you don't get any benefits, but you will get back any money that you personally put into the retirement system. If you retire, you get your pension.

- Merg

 

[werepossum]

He mad, Mike.

lol In every sense of the word.

It's also possible that Wilson is a member of the Lizard People Illuminati and is actually one of their leaders just hiding out in Ferguson to escape the Nibiru that are putting this on to discredit the Lizard people.

Prove that this isn't a 100% valid POSSIBILITY. Prove it.

lol

Shouldn't there be a trial first? Or are we embracing mob justice?

You're forgetting DCal's ideal society - North Korea. Once Dear Leader turns his pudgy thumb down, a trial is merely an offense against His Pompous Pulchritude.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

It wouldn't surprise if Darren Wilson becomes CIA or FBI officer.

 

[Thebobo]

If I ever get caught doing something wrong I am going to insist I have a grand jury decide if if I should charged with what ever infraction.

 

[werepossum]

If I ever get caught doing something wrong I am going to insist I have a grand jury decide if if I should charged with what ever infraction.

As opposed to . . . ?

 

[DrPizza]

You did read the initial article right?

Did you read the part where his resignation would be contingent on him NOT being indicted by the grand jury?

I explicitly stated that in my first post. Let me help you out.

(bold mine)

So not sure what point you are triyng to make. Hypothetically, the GJ would return no indictment concerning Wilson. Then he would resign. He would still have to worry about federal charges I guess, for civil rights violations.

But my point stands, do you dispute that people sometimes resign to order to avoid either charges or work-related sanctions in the US?

Then, apparently, you have very little understanding of the grand jury process. His contingency is NOT bargaining with the grand jury. The grand jury is completely independent. His contingency could have been "I'll resign if it doesn't rain tomorrow." It's not an offer in exchange for not indicting him.

 

[cubby1223]

I never claimed it a 100% fact, I said it was possible.

Again! Typing words as if you understand what they mean. Read:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Implies.html

Seems like you, cubby, and Ichinisan sure don't want to even admit the POSSIBLITY that the alleged resignation (if in fact he does not get indicted, and then does resign) would imply wrongdoing on Officer Wilson's part.

Along with the prior posts, you have actually been making the argument that if Wilson resigns, therefore he is guilty of murder. If that is not the argument you were trying to make, I suggest you read up on some of the links I have been providing for you.

Hmmm, I wonder why? Yet no of you will prove me wrong.

Because you are not speaking the same language as everyone else here. And rather than taking the 5 minutes to go over the provided links, you instead choose to get pissy and defensive. When you say resignation implies guilt, it's not a probability, this is a boolean operator. Either the statement is true, or the statement is false. The only thing I need to do to shoot down that argument is find one example of an officer who was not guilty of a crime and who did resign. Think I can't do that?

Resignation does not imply guilt. Resignation does not imply innocence.

 

[boomerang]

I have to commend some of you guys for your patience. You are dealing with some highly biased, uneducated, truly ignorant, hard-headed people in this thread that have opinions based not even remotely in reality. Yet, you try to patiently explain to them the error of their ways and you do it over and over while none of it sinks in. I have absolutely zero interest in doing what you're doing but I commend you for doing it.

 

[Ichinisan]

I have to commend some of you guys for your patience. You are dealing with some highly biased, uneducated, truly ignorant, hard-headed people in this thread that have opinions based not even remotely in reality. Yet, you try to patiently explain to them the error of their ways and you do it over and over while none of it sinks in. I have absolutely zero interest in doing what you're doing but I commend you for doing it.

Dari/DCal/ivwshane/GarfieldtheCat will read your post and think you're commending them 😛

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Looks like the grand jury will continue deliberating tomorrow versus the initial reports they would be off all week due to the holiday.

http://news.yahoo.com/reports-ferguson-grand-jury-still-undecided-reconvening-monday-225350874.html

Reports: Ferguson grand jury still undecided, reconvening Monday

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

The CHP officer was sued civilly along with his department. The civil suit settlement agreement was for the department to pay the money and the CHP officer to resign.


- Merg

So he got off then..thanks for proving my point.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

WHY WOULD DARREN WILSON OR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT EVEN WANT A RESIGNATION BEFORE THE GJ DECISION?!

Let me help you out troll, since you can't read. IF you bothered to read anything at all about this, inclluding ALL my posts, you would have read that his alleged resignation was contingent on NOT being indicted. I stated it clear in my post.

Can you not read? don't know why you are going off on something I didn't even say. I posted it several times.

Your refusal to say anything logical at all, and instead to intentionally derail this with comments that are 100% speaks volumes about what you think.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

My point is that all of your "it is 100% possible" is utterly moronic. Of course it is possible, anything is possible. We can sit here all day and talk about possibilities and we can put up all sorts of fallacious arguments. However, what is PROBABLE matters. That is why I did what I did, to make fun of your idiotic "possibilities".

Except my possibility has been documented to have happened in other cases, as I have shown. You on the other hand, have presented no evidence about lizard men. Good luck with that one.

 

[The Merg]

So he got off then..thanks for proving my point.

He was sued civilly and he agreed to resign as part of the settlement. He didn't "get off". He lost his job. Yes, he didn't go to jail, but there weren't criminal charges to file against him as this was based on a civil rights violation for the excessive force.

If you want to compare it to a criminal trial, it's like he plead no lo contendre and received a fine only. That happens quite often.

- Merg

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

It's impressive at the amount of vitriol that 4-5 posters will throw at me, all the while refusing to admit that it is possible.

You all could just say.."it's possible, but I think highly unlikely" that would have been a reasonable response. Indeed, I said possible, I didn't say it had to be true, or even probable.

Obviously you all aren't reasonable. It's like the ZImmerman case..logical thought went out the window, and all the bigots came in outright claiming "good shoot" with religious fervor before they even knew the facts. Something you are repeating right now.

But this out right trolling and insulting when you have no logical basis to deny it just shows your outright bias in the case. We don't even know the full evidence, and yet y'all are outright saying it is impossible he did anything wrong, and there is no way this possibility could happen. How do you figure that? I don't think anyone posting here is able to listen to the GJ when they are working.

If I changed Officer Wilson to a Bank CEO, and death of a teenager to a insider trading, and a report came out that the CEO resigned and then the SEC announced no charges would be filed, you all would totally be saying he resigned to avoid charges. This happens all the time. No one denies this.

But a white cop? And a black kid? Hmm......All of a sudden it's impossible that he did anything wrong, it was totally OK, no problems, and you still don't know the evidence. Hmmmmmmmmm.

I've shown that it can and does happen. Fact. So it is possible.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

He was sued civilly and he agreed to resign as part of the settlement. He didn't "get off". He lost his job. Yes, he didn't go to jail, but there weren't criminal charges to file against him as this was based on a civil rights violation for the excessive force.

If you want to compare it to a criminal trial, it's like he plead no lo contendre and received a fine only. That happens quite often.

- Merg

Like I said. He "got off". If that had been you or me, we would be in jail for (most likely) assault (but IANAL). If you were videotaped beating someone like that, do you think you have have been ciminially charged?

He gets no jail time, no penalty. He is free to work at another police dept. Since we resigned, I'm not sure what CHP could even say about him when applying for another job.

So yeah, he got off. You are all for punishment of police that break the law, so where are the charges against the officer? Or are you saying no law was broken when he beat the crap out of her?

And I'll ask you directly.....is it POSSIBLE that IF the GJ returns no indictment, and IF Officer Wilson does indeed resign, could it be possible that this is for other reasons then he claims?

Does it ever happen in your experience that cops are asked (or told) to resign "for the good of the dept", or to prevent either internal (dept level punishment) or external (criminal/civil charges). Can you deny that it never happens?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

What a game of twister we have going on in here. Trying to equate non-relevant cases to the reasoning behind potential resignation of Officer Wilson should a "No Bill" decision be reached by the grand jury.

As for the Zimmerman case, it was painfully obvious that it was a case of self defense to all but those that wanted to bring race into the situation. John spoke to local reporters the day after it happened stating Trayvon was assaulting Zimmerman just prior to the shot being fired.

I think in the end we will find out what the witness in the background of the video taken moment after the shooting stated is what transpired and Officer Wilson was justified in shooting to protect his life.

 

[The Merg]

Like I said. He "got off". If that had been you or me, we would be in jail for (most likely) assault (but IANAL). If you were videotaped beating someone like that, do you think you have have been ciminially charged?

He gets no jail time, no penalty. He is free to work at another police dept. Since we resigned, I'm not sure what CHP could even say about him when applying for another job.

So yeah, he got off. You are all for punishment of police that break the law, so where are the charges against the officer? Or are you saying no law was broken when he beat the crap out of her?

And I'll ask you directly.....is it POSSIBLE that IF the GJ returns no indictment, and IF Officer Wilson does indeed resign, could it be possible that this is for other reasons then he claims?

Does it ever happen in your experience that cops are asked (or told) to resign "for the good of the dept", or to prevent either internal (dept level punishment) or external (criminal/civil charges). Can you deny that it never happens?

Yes, if we were videotaped doing that, we would be charged with assault. As for going to jail, well, that would be determined by our prior record and what kind of deal our lawyer could work out, if we opted to take a plea as opposed to going to trial.

The difference here is that since the officer was working in their capacity of being an officer, it is not criminal. It was determined that she did resist and the officer was justified in using force in taking her into custody. The problem was that he then used excessive force to do so. It IS NOT CRIMINAL. While we might not like that, that is what the courts have stated. Since it is not criminal, he cannot be charged with assaulting her.

Is it possible that there are other reasons than what Officer Wilson claims as his reasons for resigning if there is no indictment? Sure. But, looking at the situation, I try to view things as what is most probable. It's probable that he will never be able to work as a police officer again, especially in Ferguson. So, even if he is not indicted, it makes sense that he would then resign. It makes sense that he won't resign until the GJ makes their decision, because if they do indict him, he would then have the department's legal team and his union assisting him throughout his trial.

With officers resigning for the good of the department, I'm sure that does happen. Obviously, it would prevent internal punishment and it would save them their contributions that they've made towards retirement. As for avoiding criminal charges, I suppose it's possible that it has happened before, but I'm sure it's happened in all sorts of professions where the government states that it will not come after a company as long as they pay a fine and the offender resigns.

- Merg