Remember on the other blog you agreed that "words matter" and they do.
So when words are thrown around like "the murder of Ernest Duenez Jr." "no action taken by the MPD punish the officer that pulled the trigger" "Murdering its own citizens and refusing to investigate itself shows a lac of integrity.""shoot first ask questions two years later"
Your words are insinuating that you are privy to some unknown "facts" that the rest of the community isn't such as in your "opinion" Mr Duenez was murdered,there's no proof yet one way or the other to this,the investigation is still ongoing.Yet you seem to have no qualms about calling this act a murder,yet it is only your opinion not fact.The statements above are in my opinion reckless.
The statement that the MPD has a lack of integrity ,an murdering its own citizens and refusing to investigate is a wild accusation to say the least.The investigation is still being carried out,the length of time and why is not something we have knowledge of ,maybe it's frustrating to the Officer involved,the City,and the Family but nevertheless it has to run its course until all the evidence,all the facts are brought fourth.
You have a right to say what you want about this incident but remember "words matter" and the effect that they can have on others can reach further then you might imagine.
The Officer has been threatened,pictures taken of his son,so there are those seeking revenge ,and words of anger from any can incite problems towards the Officer his family,or cause problems for the deceased family.
It best to be very careful when hurling accusations of which there is NO absolute proof of anything yet.If the investigation hasn't been completed how could any person like yourself or I know the results.
Let the investigation run its due course ,wait for ALL the facts before passing judgement.
If you agree words matter then you might wish to rethink some of the words used in this blog.
How officer Moody can still be on the streets, with a gun nevertheless, while there are investigations over him killing somebody is beyond me.
I provided some links for you,because your question got me to wondering what is the standard procedures after a Officer related shooting for returning to duty.
It helped answer some of my questions,I hope you find the links interesting.
I think Officer Moody would have to have gone through certain protocol first and been found fit enough to return to active duty.Psychological
Accordingly, the IACP PPSS OIS Guidelines state
5.10 It should be made clear to all involved personnel, supervisors, and the community at large that an officer’s fitness-for-duty should not be brought into question by virtue of their involvement in a shooting incident. Post-shooting psychological interventions are separate and distinct from any fitness-for-duty assessments or administrative or investigative procedures that may follow. This does not preclude a supervisor from requesting a formal fitness-for-duty evaluation based upon objective concerns about an officer’s ability to perform his or her duties. However, the mere fact of being involved in a shooting does not necessitate such an evaluation prior to return to duty.
The reason is simple... The Manteca Police completed their internal investigation and determined that Officer Moody did not violate any laws or departmental policy. Their investigation was forwarded to the District Attorney along with all the evidence available for the DA to conduct its own review/investigation. Officer Moody is innocent of any wrongdoing until evidence is brought forth proving otherwise. It is the basic principle of innocent until proven guilty.
You should believe that if there was any doubt in the Chief of Police's mind, or on the part of the City Attorney, City Council, Mayor, or City Manager that Officer Moody's actions were unlawful or that he was a danger to the citizens of Manteca, he would NOT be working on the street and carrying a gun.
The blog is my opinion. I choose to use the wording the Duenez uses as they DO HAVE acces to privileged information.
Words have power, so do actions. The INACTIONS of the MPD in leaving the man who by all accounts SHOT AND KILLED AN UNARMED MAN out on the streets says more about the situation than my using the word "murder" as opposed to "shot 16 times."
By my definition, an unarmed person who is shot 16 or so time for no good reason by a person trained to carry and use lethal force was no doubt murdered.
Seems odd that Bull153 has no problem acting like he has firsthand knowledge of the investigation. One would think if my word choice was scrutinized by him, but, his unsubstantiated GUESSES AND OPINIONS seem perfectly OK to him to post.
Just a bit of hypocrisy ...
Seeing as others did not approve of the language I used in the above blog, I have changed it.
Too bad OTHERS here have no problem saying actual insulting or sexist language don't seem to care if other are offended and just demand that they were right all along.
I'll rise above that type of immature attitude and edit my blog to reflect a more neutral language.
as you said the blog is YOUR opinion.
And opinions are just that,they are not facts.It is indeed a good thing we have laws to live by,not opinions .
And the Family of the deceased are privy only to as much as the MPD,DA,and others that are directly involved,no more,no less.When the investigation is finished everyone will get the answers to the questioned being asked.
Until such time there's been much assuming going on,and assumption can be detrimental to the people,and the investigative process.
Let us hope that the answers to this tragedy will not be much further away for ALL that are involved.
I fear that with Manteca government being involved NOTHING will be solved. Manteca - along with the SJ County DA - seem to be doing everything in their power to try and make everyone forget about this and have it just go away.
Sadly, I think the only justice the Duenez family will get will be from the Federal lawsuit they have filed. Unfortunately, that is very, very ling process.
One thing is resoundingly wrong with this - no matter how you phrase it - Officer Moody should NOT BE ON THE STREET so long as this is under investigation. That to me shows more than anything that the MPD is not serious about getting the truth.
I'm not aware of any investigation by the MPD into this shooting. Frankly, I have no idea why the public is not OUTRAGED that the DA has taken two years to review a five minute video.
This is not justice, this is a farce. Again, it is no wonder crime is out of control in Manteca and San Joaquin County - The DA's office and MPD seem indifferent.
I was looking for any concrete statement from the DA about a timetable for getting this resolved. Is anyone aware of a link to an offical statement?
I did a little research myself but like you I haven't found any statements as of yet there must be some words from the DA somewhere you know how sometimes updates that are offered to media, etc
I join you in hoping the DA's investigation will soon be completed and released. A year, 18 months, two years is a long time to have to wait for answers. It is especially true if your son or your husband is one of the involved parties. There is no doubt many people have been affected by this incident, and many people will be glad when it is resolved.
Part of the frustration may be caused by a general misunderstanding of what is involved in such a major criminal investigation. People expect justice like they expect a fast food burger, I want it and I want it now. The fact is, real life is not a chapter of 'Law and Order' or 'CSI' - solved in an hour with commercial breaks.
If memory serves, there were two other officer involved shootings that the DA's office is investigating that occurred shortly before the Manteca PD shooting. With the decrease in staff, it isn't unreasonable to expect that it will take some time to complete these investigations. I noticed that the DA's office released to the public on July 11, 2012, their investigation of a Stockton PD shooting death that occurred a full two years earlier, in July 2010. They want to get it right, the public wants it and justice demands it. To help people understand what all is involved, here is the link to the report:
James Rivera Protocol Report - July 11, 2012
From the DA's website, here is an explanation of what the DA's Investigations Bureau is all about:
District Attorney investigators include both peace officers and non-peace officers who perform a wide variety of investigative tasks either independently, to supplement the work of another law enforcement agency, or as part of a multi-agency task force. Investigations can include homicides, complex frauds, officer involved critical incidents, elder abuse, welfare fraud, or insurance fraud. Investigators also assist prosecutors in preparing cases for trial by locating witnesses and obtaining witness statements, serving subpoenas and search warrants, preparing photographs, drawings, or other court exhibits, and transporting items of evidence to and from crime laboratories. Two lieutenants provide supervision over the various investigative functions. The Bureau is located in the Courthouse in downtown Stockton.
(209) 468-3620 Fax: (209) 468-3645
In an article in the Bulletin in June, when questioned on the length of time the investigation was taking, the DA indicated it might take another 60 days. It has been a lot longer than that - maybe a call to the Investigations Bureau could get an update? After all, it is quite an involved process, a process that involves much more than a review of a five minute video clip.
"Patience and fortitude conquer all things" - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Thank you for the post, but, this is not what anyone was asking for as this is all six months old or have nothing to do with the questions being asked. What about the MPD investigation into Moody's actions? Why is allowed to remain working while the possibility exists that he seriously abused his power?
I have worked for numerous police and sheriff departments across California, the country and world and I have never seen a law enforcement organization give such leeway to someone who killed an unarmed person - even if the shooter is one of their own.
Also thanks for reminding us what we already knew; The DA takes far too long for justice. Would the average citizen be given this leeway and be allowed to remain free and clear while the DA takes two years plus to get its act together? NO! The average person would be in jail and probably not able to post bail. That to me is a horrible injustice.
As before thanks but, without the timetable rozemist and I were asking about your post is fairly pointless.
Your information is interesting, thank you
I do understand that the process of any investigation has no timetable as ALL evidence, and facts must be collected, completely.
I know they certainly can't start out any investigation and say "I think this will be wrapped up in such an such a time. "
The process must involve so many things that I can't even begin to imagine.
And the point you brought up about less staff is a point well taken.
I had only wondered about if there might of been some update that was floating around by the DA or anyone.
I can tell you that no matter how long a process takes if it were about me or someone I know I'd certainly want ALL the I's dotted ALL the T 's crossed, nothing left out, nothing left undone.
What do you think about Officer Moody being allowed to remain on the job - and out of jail - for this when any other citizen would be in jail for years waiting for the DA. Just look at the Zimmerman case in Florida as a case in point. That DA had zero problem filling charges WITHOUT video evidence.
The whole thing seems like a huge double standard. The MPD shoots first and asks questions later with average citizens, but, one of their own is given an almost absurd benefit of the doubt.
Officer Moody would never of been returned to duty if they'd not thought he shouldn't of. And did you read the links I gave to capitalist _nightmare it explains how procedure is followed after a Officer related shooting.
And why would I think Officer Moody should be in jail it's never been proven he's guilty of anything, he's innocent until proven guilty, putting him in jail before the investigation runs its course or a determination there that there will be a trial is saying he's guilty until proven innocent.
The Zimmerman case is NOT the same thing, and how the DA in Florida handles things may not be how California does. We can't know everything or the why of it, I'm not a law expert
Your convinced there's some kind of cover up or conspiracy going on with the MPD, the City, the DA that's a whole lot of collusion if it were true don't ya think?
Remember the investigation is in the hands of the DA, I would imagine the MPD had to of already turned ALL there findings over to him some time back.
I'm going to leave it to experts who do these things for a living, and wait to see what their findings are.
I don't believe there is something going on that's trying to hide and manipulate the length of time its taking doesn't mean a conspiracy.
You're free to have your opinion let's just say we agree to disagree on this.
Words like 'I imagine' don't help. Where is the transparency?
I'm not saying Moody should be in jail, I'm questioning the fairness of letting one class of citizen - police - continue living their lives while the DA figures things out while anyone else would be arrested, booked and charged. Does every other shooting in SJ county take this long to investigate? It would seem not.
I'm not saying there is a conspiricy. What I am saying is there has been little to no communication from officials and what communication has been presented has been exceptionally vague or just outright wrong. How many moret
Words like 'I imagine' don't help. Where is the transparency?
I'm not saying Moody should be in jail, I'm questioning the fairness of letting one class of citizen - police - continue living their lives while the DA figures things out while anyone else would be arrested, booked and charged. Does every other shooting in SJ county take this long to investigate? It would seem not.
I'm not saying there is a conspiricy. What I am saying is there has been little to no communication from officials and what communication has been presented has been exceptionally vague or just outright wrong. How many more times will we be told 60 days?
It is a fact that crime is out of control in SJ county - especially Stockton. Looking at the SJ DA office it seems clear they are not up to the task of providing justice in reasonable time frames. It also does not seem to be a good decision to keep a questionable officer like Moody when there are many fine new applicants that could - and in my opinion should - take his place.
You are welcome. Good police investigations require detailed and thorough efforts and dedicated people, whether it is a traffic collision or a shooting. When the police themselves are involved, investigative procedures must be meticulously followed to eliminate the appearance of favoritism or impropriety. There can't be a time table for finding the truth.
I found it deeply disturbing to read a report from Florida indicating that some potentially damning evidence against Casey Anderson was missed by the Sheriff's computers forensics investigator. It appears that several hundred internet searches using Firefox rather than Internet Explorer were overlooked, including a specific search for suffocation on the last day little Kaylee was seen. It was reported that only Casey Anderson used the Firefox browser. It won't change the outcome since Casey has been found not guilty and she cannot be retried. It stresses the importance of attention to detail and thoroughness.
If you look at the DA's press release page, they are often very stingy in releasing information. As I noted, it took a full two years to release their report on the James Rivera shooting - which also was quite controversial. We know there are at least three officer involved shootings that occurred last year that the DA's limited staff is dealing with. It may be the middle or even late next year before the DA is prepared to release their report. As difficult as it is, we must all be patient. Some people don't get that the Ernest Duenez shooting is not the only case the DA is investigating.
"Never assume the obvious is true." - William Safire
What is a major travesty - as I keep saying - is the double standard that Police get the benefit of the doubt were as the average citizen does not. The truth is that if Moody was the average Manteca resident making under $40,000 a year and shot someone he would have been ARRESTED, BOOKED, and CHARGED. After arraignment, it could be possible that private citizen would be given NO BAIL and would have to wait in jail over TWO YEARS to wait for the DA to figure itself out.
Why let one type of person off so easy and not the rest of us? If anything, a Police should be even more scrutinized for using deadly force - especially against unarmed citizens.
Recall that the BART shooting where the BART officer "accidentally" shooting Oscar Grant after forgetting difference between his tazzer and his gun? He was sentenced to over two years in jail. The shooting was New Years 2009 and the conviction was August 6, 2010. The total time from crime to conviction was less for this than the basic DA investigation here in SJ County.
Seems that the crime situation in San Joaquin Country is being exacerbated by an inept DA and Police unwilling - or unable - to police themselves.
Just another FACT to consider:
Reynaldo Santos Dungo killed his girlfriend Lucinda Correia Piña in April 2006. Dungo was sentenced to 15 to life FOURTEEN (14) months later in June of 2007.
Again, seems wrong that when Police are the perpetrator, the DA's office seems to take the law allot more seriously than when an average citizen is accused of a crime.
Almost seems like "innocent until proven guilty - only if you are Police. Everyone is just guilty and must prove innocence."
I got a notice here that you posted something on my blog here. Unfortunately, it looks like the Manteca Bulletin is censoring your posts. I'm not sure why.
It's a shame that the MB staff is not letting your posts through; I would like to see what others feel about this very important issue.
"I have worked for numerous police and sheriff departments across California, the country and world..." (Posted by crimeriddendump)
I seriously doubt it - at least in any law enforcement or judicial capacity. Anyone who really has been involved with police departments and the judicial system would know that much of what this poor misguided soul posts is incorrect, misleading, or plain doubletalk.
For example, you cannot compare a case in which a civilian commits a murder, admits to it, and the judicial process is completed (except for the appeal that was filed) in fourteen months to a case in which a law enforcement officer shot an individual, and there is no evidence of wrongdoing. It is like trying to compare watermelons and grapes - both fruits but not nearly equal. You can't even compare the BART transit officer's case where the victim was accidentally shot with the Duenes case. In one, the officer admitted wrongdoing, in the other there has been no such admission.
Every case involving an officer shooting someone has to be investigated and the process followed on the merits OF THAT CASE ALONE. Some cases can be resolved fairly quickly, such as the Calaveras Sheriff's Deputy who fatally shot a man in Arnold. The circumstances of that case were clear - the suspect was armed, the suspect made a threatening move towards the deputy, and the deputy was within his department's policy and state law in firing his weapon. Calaveras does not have multiple officer involved shootings being investigated. It is much easier than when there are a number of witnesses, the facts are unclear, and there are multiple investigations going on.
Calaveras Deputy not guilty in shooting death
Here is a great article by the FBI that discusses officer involved shooting investigations:
Police Investigations of the Use of Deadly Force Can In*fluence Perceptions and Outcomes
While concerning the San Jose Police, this frequently asked questions page is pretty informative about a department's officer involved shooting procedures:
Officer Involved Shootings - FAQs http://www.sjpd.org/BOI/Homicide/OIS_...
People who really do not have the knowledge or understanding of police work in general and investigative procedures specifically, should actually do some research and educate themselves so they don't come across as uninformed, vindictive, and just plain silly.
“Wisdom is not acquired save as the result of investigation.” - Sara Teasdale
"Just the facts, Ma'am." - Sgt. Joe Friday
You above post is very hypocritical. You penned a whole attack blog against me because I simply doubted your military background and you took that as some major affront. You said "Simply because YOU don't want to believe it or because I've said I did serve? ...and YOU talk about being disingenuous... sheesh! " Now, you seem to be engaging in the same behavior. That is absolute HYPOCRISY!
For the record, I have worked with numerous agencies across the United States and the world including - but not limited to - Her Majesty's Prison Service , Corrective Services in New South Whales (coincidently), The Correctional Service of Canada, and numerous sheriff's departments and police agencies across the United States.
Now again Bull153, what give you the right to personally attack me here for stating my past experience? What makes your OPINION more important than anyone else's? How horribly hypocritical of you. Too bad that your problem with hypocrisy seems to be getting worse rather than better. Luck for me, I'm still not holding my breath ...
Sorry, missed this quote from your immature attack blog:
"How can you possibly be aware of what I am aware of in the legal field? "
How about I ask you the same question? What gives you the right to make the same assumptions you say others have no right to make?
I think this is the crux of my post here - MANY POLICE FEEL THEY ARE ABOVE THE LAW. Wether that is the actual law of the land, or, just some simple social rules. Take your behavior here - you seem to act like none of them apply to you. You act like you have some charge to "enforce blog rules" yet don't seem to think any of the same rules you give other apply to you.
It is called hypocrisy Bull153 and right now, you are the embodiment of it.
Posting links to your arrogant, insulting blog here as opposed to directly responding seems incredibly immature and contrary to your prior comments that you are looking for reasonable discussion and debate. No, it would seem you only want to attack and insult.
The fact remains Bull153, you seem to have a major problem with thinking your opinions and observations somehow trump everything else - and I'm not the only one you has made this claim of you.
Feel free to respond to the post above here directly. I would very much like you to clarify what seems to be a very hypocritical postion of double standards taken by you above where you so quickly make the same unsubstantiated claims that you have said before people have no right making of you. So, what gives you the right to make the same types of claims you say others have no right to make? What makes you feel you are so special? As above, I - and many others - feel that people that associate with law enforcement - wether actual or perceived - seem to act like the normal rules of society do not apply. Your behavior here seems to support that hypothesis rather than contradict it.
Anyway, I look forward to a mature response from you here as opposed to your arrogant blog. As before, I'm still not holding my breath waiting for you to mature.
OK, based on my dealings with you over the past few years, it is my opinion that you are the one incapable of a reasonable discussion and debate. I am willing to give it a try, however.
So, let's wipe the slate (or etch a sketch) clean, as it were and start over. I'm willing to stick to the topic, answer questions directly, clarify between opinion and fact, and avoid being condescending and insulting.
Let's see if we are capable of a mature and fair debate.
"Don't take the wrong side of an argument just because your opponent has taken the right side.” - Baltasar Gracian
Good for you. Hopefully this time you will stick to what you say as opposed to the numerous times you have made this same assertion in the past only to fall back to your immature ways. I really do hope this time you will actually do what you say you are going to do.
It is not only local we have a National Justice problem
Just read this one today. Hong Kong China is better ranked than us as well as Korea and Singapore.
Being both patronizing and condescending does not foreshadow a positive outcome. It takes two to tango, it takes two to debate, it takes two to argue, but only one to be supercilious...
It hasn't even been 24 hours yet, and I'm beginning to think this is going to be a wasted effort...
It has been said that while not perfect, our justice system is better than anyone else's. Statistics can be skewed to reflect pretty much whatever one wishes. One might add that even granting that Hong Kong, Singapore, and Korea are better ranked than the United States, why do you think that far more people from those societies are trying to get in here while hardly anyone here is trying to leave?
“The law is the last result of human wisdom acting upon human experience for the benefit of the public” - Samuel Johnson
Odd how you seem to reject evidence and instead insist that your opinion is move valid then empirical data. Why is it that you feel your opinion on this matter is more valid than the scientific evidence provided in the article?
What is odd is how odd you find everything.
The World Justice Project is one non-profit organization. How scientific and accurate the data is may be subject to interpretation. In any case I never said I rejected their data. You keep putting YOUR spin and YOUR determination on everything I say. Read what I post and not what you think I posted. I never said my opinion was more important, in fact I never gave my opinion. I did ask a question. You ignored the question and just ranted on about my post.
I really don't think this is going to work as long as you insist on running backwards and not trying to compromise. It might also help if you would actually answer a question once in a while rather than ignoring them and asking your own question that completely avoids the issue at hand.
“Avoiding the topic doesn't help it go away.” - Unknown
You say "our justice system is better than anyone else's" which is almost the exact opposite of what the article posted by midwestgirl states. Do you have any evidence to suport your opinion?
I think your suggesting that the data presented by midwestgirl is invalid simply because of emigration is just silly. There are hundred of factors that govern the decision to move countries. For example look at yourself. You claim to be moving to Australia. Would that move suggest that Australia has a better justice system than the United States? No.
So again, you said above that "our justice system is better than anyone else's" I'm curious how you come to that conclusion when there has been evidence presented that clearly refutes that assertion.
A bit of diversity
Thanks from bringing some diverse opinions to this blog.
Your first article is a bit off given that in the article presented my midwest girl Italy - where hte Amanda Knox trial was held - was ranked BELOW the United States. The article there almost agree with the prior one in that the US justice system is better than Italy's but that does not somehow make it the "best."
Also, you bring up China where as the other article bringa up the Hong Kong SAR. Hong Kong uses different money, laws and overall regulations as mainland China and is overall FAR WEALTHIER than mainland China as well. Comparing it to Hong Kong is very much apples and oranges.
I think one fact trumps all others - The United States has more people in prison than any other country in the world. Period. There are 730 people in prison in the United States for every 100,000 residents. That is twice as many as the Russian federation and three times more than Iran and seven times more than China.
That is an incredibly telling statistic.
I read that on at least 3 different sites
that the US does have more people in prison then any other country.
Yes it's true. Now therein lies my concern - is it fair when the United States has no problem imprisoning some - seemingly indefinitely - while they await DA investigations etc while others are given the benefit of doubt.
If you are rich, white, or a Police Officer, justice is slow and just; if not, justice seems swift and harsh.
NO... read what I said, not what YOU want it to say. I said: "It has been said that while not perfect, our justice system is better than anyone else's." That is an opinion, an opinion offered by some other legal professionals and an opinion I agree with. Not everyone agrees, and I am sure that many other people whose criminal justice experience failed to meet their expectations would feel that our systems sucks.
It is a fact that statistics are only as good as the system used to collect them. You act like one organization's findings are the only ones valid. I simply point out that even if you grant that the rankings are valid, and they well might be, our system is still not so bad that people consider it bad enough to run away to other countries from, or to go to other countries to avoid it.
Immigration to avoid a bad justice system is but one reason for a move, and how important it is or is not will be determined by each individual. I am NOT suggesting a decision to move or not to move to a given country is or should be based solely on one factor. My choice to accept an assignment overseas has nothing to do with their justice system. DOD and civil service positions overseas are governed by treaties and status of forces agreements. Therefore my decision making process has nothing to do with how good their justice system is, who their Prime Minister is, or how strict the gun laws may be.
Having spent a vast amount of my life involved in our judicial system, and having been afforded the opportunities to travel and see many other nation's systems, I believe I am more than qualified to render a personal opinion on our judicial process. You are equally qualified to have an opposing opinion.
"Though force can protect in emergency, only justice, fairness, consideration and cooperation can finally lead men to the dawn of eternal peace.” - Dwight David Eisenhower
You said "If you are rich, white, or a Police Officer, justice is slow and just; if not, justice seems swift and harsh." Do you have any evidence to support your opinion?
Such an assertion is just plain silly, and your own posts contradict what you say. You commented how quickly the BART officer was tried and convicted for the accidental shooting of an unarmed individual.
Did you consider that the reason there are so many people incarcerated in the United States might just be that we have laws that are justly applied and enforced, a society that does not condone criminal activity, and a judicial system that, while not perfect, is fair and efficient? ... uh huh...I didn't think so.
“America is the land of the second chance - and when the gates of the prison open, the path ahead should lead to a better life.” - George W. Bush
Odd that you are chiding me for not presenting evidence yet you do the same here. Where is your evidence to say laws are applied justly? Who ever said the BART case was swift or just? I just said it concluded faster than the preliminary investigation of this case in Manteca.
Also Bull153, you language is rude and condescending in your comment. I would appreciate if you did what you said you would do and not use such language in your posts.
I would appreciate it if you would simply ignore me and any future posts. The people here are fed up with our stupidity and childish battles. I'm tired of it, and you are incapable of a reasoned and responsible debate with me on any subject... so don't even try.
I'm done with you, Hoffman.
“Men of ill judgment ignore the good that lies within their hands, till they have lost it.” - Sophocles
“In order to keep a true perspective of one's importance, everyone should have a dog that will worship him and a cat that will ignore him.” - Unknown
Odd that you would choose to use such rude and insulting language in your above post. I have asked for you to not use such language in other posts and I'll repeat that request here again. Feel free to post a rational comment and I would be happy to have a actual civilized conversation with you.
Again I received a message that you posted something on this blog yet cannot see it. Feel free to send me a direct message - if you can - and I'll repost what you write here.
The problem with too many laws, as in our case, we tend to give up liberty to gain security, and in the end we lose both. More than one founder echoed the same sentiment towards the restraints of government, and the rights we have to be individuals.
There are numbers of reasons why people go to prison, bad laws are a big contributor. The drug laws in the country has not made us any safer from crazed drug heads or the many levels of law enforcement we face. The war on drugs was just another government spending program that took innocent people who use recreational drugs such as marijuana and put them in prison. Rarely are the people coming out of prison as compassionate towards the community as they may have been when they went in.
Small government means less laws to enforce, and more liberty in their lives without government intervention. More social studies in public schools will improve the next generations as to how society works. You can't call yourself the land of the free if you have the highest prison population in the world.
Lets see, we have more people in prison than anywhere else in the world, our government passed the patriot act which gave the government more power while curtailing the citizens rights, we hold people in indefinite detention for committing supposed crimes in foreign land, so tell me again how we are the land of the free, and why China is evil?
Who determines there are too many laws, as you contend? Is it not the legislative branch of government - those worthy citizens we voted into office to represent us and do what's best for us all? Our founders believed in our rights, but as in all societies, there also have to be laws and restrictions on conduct as determined best for society. A society without law is anarchy.
How do you determine what a bad law is? People do not go to prison for bad laws - they go to prison because they were convicted of breaking the law by a legal court of law. Are mistakes made? Sure, we are human and so are those in the justice system. I dispute your contention that the war on drugs took innocent people who used recreational drugs and put them in prison. A recreational drug is a legal drug used for enjoyment - i.e. alcohol. Marijuana is a controlled substance and illegal to grow, possess, or use by Federal Law.
In California, which has pretty much decriminalized use and possession of marijuana, no one is in prison for the recreational use of marijuana. NO ONE. In order to be imprisoned in state prison, you must have been convicted of a felony and sentenced. Unless charged with sales or possession for sale, marijuana crimes are misdemeanors and any jail time is limited to county jail for a period of up to a year. Smoking some weed usually gets a fine and diversion into a treatment program. Even repeat offenders do not end up in prison.
Your contention that the US has the highest prison population is suspect. First, the US is open about their correctional programs - the statistics you used reflected prison, state facilities, county jails, and even those charged with a crime who posted bail and are not incarcerated, but because the were arrested and booked show as 'imprisoned'. You compare the US to other nations that are not so forthcoming with their true statistics, who lie, and refer to their 'reeducation facilities' as schools, not prisons. You can't compare our judicial system on an equal footing to every other one on earth.
We are the land of the free. What are you not free to do? You can travel across country and internationally. You can protest and speak out against your government. No one can take you from your home and put you in jail for no reason. The Patriot Act has saved countless lives. Those people being held indefinitely are 'enemy combatants' and we are at war. They didn't commit crimes, they tried to kill our soldiers. So, tell me how we are NOT the land of the free. While you are at it, tell me where any other country has more freedoms and rights than we enjoy?
“Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom.” - Albert Einstein quotes
“People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.” - Soren Kierkegaard
The founders had many concepts on how the Government can write and enforce laws. Someone like Jefferson felt that each generation should be able to start fresh and create their own laws relative to their culture and their time. So if one really thinks about it, the rejection of your generation's view of America is just the next generation starting to reshape America in a similar way to what Jefferson conceptualized.
Lincoln stated if you want to get rid of a bad law, enforce it vigorously, and as we see states voting to legalize Marihuana we see the end result of bad laws being enforced vigorously. We don't need a nanny state and we don't need laws protecting us from ourselves. We really need more laws protecting us from the government intrusion into our private lives, especially when it hurts no one else. We have seen from experience that prohibitionary laws don't work.
I can give you a bad law that has no significant relevance to the Government, that being the prohibition of growing commercial/industrial hemp. It has no intoxicating properties about it, and it doesn't look like its THC laden cousin, but you can't grow it because the Government supposedly cannot tell the difference between the two. Yet the Canadian goverment
Can tell the difference. It seems the Canadian government is smarter than ours. If that is the case, then we should follow their lead on other things that they are able to do that our government can't seem to do like providing the citizens with affordable health care.
I personally think that all laws should have sunsets on them so they could be regularly reevaluated for relevance to the people of the future decades. That way bad laws will just go away if the legislators do not have the spine to change them.
Why do you keep insisting that your opinion is superior to fact? The FACT is that the US has more people in prison than any other country in the world. That is not speculation, that is not manipulation by other countries. That is just fact, supported by experts, scholars, and just about anyone with first hand knowledge of the topic.
What about the case of Lois Ann Goodman, the tenis referee that was arrested for murder? Why is guilt automatically assumed for her but NOT Officer Moody? What give the justice system the right to arrest a poor widow before a proper investigation, yet an ACTUAL killer in Moody is allowed to be given a seemingly unending benefit of the doubt?
I'm sorry Bull153 byt what you seem to be describing is a land of double standards, fear, and country only Judge Dredd would be happy in. I like the idea of the United States of America where ALL CITIZENS are treated like Officer Moody has been treated by the justice system - INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty.
“Wise men, when in doubt whether to speak or to keep quiet, give themselves the benefit of the doubt, and remain silent.” - Napoleon Hill
You say you don't, but, your comments above tell a different story.
"Your contention that the US has the highest prison population is suspect."
It is NOT a contention or debatable argument or opinion, it is a FACT:
JUSTICE - NAACP
"U.S. prison population dwarfs that of other nations" - NY Times
"U.S. Prison Population Hits All-Time High: 2.3 Million" - ABC News
"U.S. Has World's Highest Incarceration Rate" - http://www.prb.org/Articles/2012/us-i...
If you would like more references, I have dozens given what you call "suspicious" is a well known fact. In the future, please try to not confuse your opinion with facts.
"The Patriot Act has saved countless lives" - maybe a competent President on 9/11 would have saved countless lives and our liberties in the aftermath as well. Why do we as citizens need to give up any rights or liberties that we possessed prior to 9/11? It was an incompetent Congress that acted emotionally and began limiting our rights so as to make their jobs easier by removing limits placed on the ability of the government, as opposed to acting responsibly as Congresses had before them. This wasn't the first attack on American soil, and we didn't lose our rights in those times prior.
This was just another example of a Conservative Congress growing government and further imposing its will on the free citizens. We hear them say "small government" but when in power they grow government, and typically a more oppressive government at that as well. Homeland Security is just another layer of government. Constitutionally, our homeland security is supposed to be our state militias, which have been basically abandoned for the National Guard, which has been off fighting dragons in foreign lands, against the principles of our founders and early leaders of our nation.
I am on the fence with gun laws, part of me completely agrees with the right to bear arms, and the other part says that regulations on guns were intended by the founders. They speak to a well regulated militia, so why would one not think that the arms that the well regulated militia carried were not to be regulated as well. Many of the founders, including Washington believed that the citizens of a free nations would be and should be the first line of defense of that nation. They believed that people will fight for their freedom against invading powers, and that armed citizens were the quickest way to assemble a defense. Maybe those who say the Constitution is out dated are on to something, since it was written at a time when people would actually fight for what they believed in, and not expect someone else to fight for them. People now days would roll over in submission if this country was ever invaded by a foreign country.
To say that the Patriot act somehow saved lives is like saying having the biggest most expensive Military Defense in the world is keeping us safe... except on 9/11.
I am just tired of lowering the bar for Congress just because their jobs are hard. I heard a statistic once that a Congressman with spend upwards to 90% of their time working at raising campaign funds. That just gives them 10% of their time for rescuing us from them.
9/11 would have occurred regardless of who was in the White House. The failures on 9/11 were not the President's, but the intelligence community who failed to work together, each keeping their little tidbit of information rather than sharing and working together.
I guess you forgot about the Japanese -Americans who were rounded up after Pearl Harbor. I'd say they lost their rights after an attack on American soil. Was it right? Hell, no. But it happened.
You've talked about the Constitution evolving - why can't it evolve now? IF the right to bear arms is no longer needed, why not change the Constitution with an amendment. After all, there are plenty of precedents for Constitutional change.
I personally resent your assertion that '..people would roll over in submission if this country was ever invaded..." For more than two hundred years people have stood up and fought for this nation when needed, they do so today. Maybe that is why this nation has not been successfully invaded since 1812.
The Patriot Act has saved lives. Since 9/11 how many terrorist plots have been thwarted? How many have been successful? If not for the Patriot Act - many more would have occurred.
Lowering the bar for Congress? That's our fault - we are the people who put legislators like Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Henry Waxman, Maxine Waters, and Diane Feinstein in Washington. We are the ones who let them spend so much of their time doing their work instead of ours.
Finally, you make new arguments before defending your prior one. Why don't you respond to my previous questions? Who determines that there are too many laws? How do you determine what a bad law is? Innocent people have not gone to prison for using recreational drugs - have they? NO, of course not, just a scare tactic from the liberal left.
We ARE the land of the free...so what are you NOT free to do? Why are we NOT the land of the free? Why aren't millions of dissatisfied citizens fleeing this oppressive country for greener pastures?
“The government is merely a servant -- merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.” - Mark Twain
“Patriot: the person who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about.” - Mark Twain
Please stay on topic. The topic of this blog is helping to bring the killer of Ernest Duenez Jr. - Officer Moddy - to justice. I'm not quite sure what the Patriot Act, 9/11 or anything in you post has to do with a cop that shot and killed an unarmed man.
I would seem blind supporters of Police are just as eager as the MPD and DA to avoid talking about Ernest Duenez Jr.
Before telling me ANYTHING, you better talk to TheSovereign. He is the one who brought laws, confinement, and the Patriot Act to the table...
Dec 02, 2012 at 23:42 - TheSovereign:
"There are numbers of reasons why people go to prison, bad laws are a big contributor. The drug laws in the country has not made us any safer from crazed drug heads or the many levels of law enforcement we face. The war on drugs was just another government spending program that took innocent people who use recreational drugs such as marijuana and put them in prison."
"...we have more people in prison than anywhere else in the world, our government passed the patriot act which gave the government more power while curtailing the citizens rights, we hold people in indefinite detention for committing supposed crimes in foreign land, so tell me again how we are the land of the free..."
So, just to remind you: "I would appreciate it if you would simply ignore me and any future posts."
“Snow and adolescence are the only problems that disappear if you ignore them long enough.” - Earl Wilson
The point of this blog is that a Police officer ABUSED POWER and killed an unarmed citizen and how the very people who confine more people than anywhere else in the world seem to have no problems making excuses for themselves to violate the same rules they say they are upholding.
A bit coincidental , don't you think, given the "background" you wear on your sleeve and how you conduct yourself here. Easy for you to point your finger at others ,not so easy to point it at yourself. So far, my contention here that law enforcement types tend to hold double standards for their own behavior seems to be holding water.
Thanks for helping prove my point by example Bull153!
I didn't, but you are welcome anyway. Now...go away.
“Nothing sways the stupid more than arguments they can't understand” - Cardinal de Retz
"You've talked about the Constitution evolving - why can't it evolve now? - Who says it can't? There is a process laid out for it to "evolve" or change or add to. It takes a super majority to do so, but it has been done many times. Its not the Constitution that needs to "evolve", its all of the subsequent laws that need to modernize.
"IF the right to bear arms is no longer needed, why not change the Constitution with an amendment." - I didn't say it wasn't needed, I simply pointed out that we do not follow the Constitution any more when it comes to our defense and that of state militias. Now, if you read my sarcastic, out of the box view with a means to meet the Constitutional amendment providing the right to bear arms with a 21st Century way to meet that right as well as to protect one self and property without causing an avoidable death. Are you that extreme in your belief that you do not see reason in creating logical safe minded "evolved" view at arms? Nope, you shoot for the extreme of insinuating that somehow the only option is a complete ban on guns.
"After all, there are plenty of precedents for Constitutional change." - you would need to meet a specific threshold: "The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. "
The thing about you Bull, is you want to be seen as middle ground, but your arguments seem to be of extremes instead of moderate reason. If you read what those who desire gun control are saying, it is that they would like to see gun regulations, not take the guns away. But here you are talking about Constitutional amendments and banning guns. There seems to be no reasonable middle.
"Lowering the bar for Congress? That's our fault - " yes, look at recent history and look at who ran the congresses, and what policies they passed. You can blame the Nancy Pelosies and the Diane Feinstein's of the world for the policies of your movement, but in the end, it is the failings of the conservative policies in congress over the last 30 years that has caused this Congress to be the lowest approval rated of all time at 10%.
"We ARE the land of the free..." - We are whats left of the Land of the Free.... and the home of the brave. Keep your head in the sand and pretend that having more citizens in prison than any other country in the world is a liberal ploy.
Like here when you stated "Innocent people have not gone to prison for using recreational drugs - have they? NO, of course not, just a scare tactic from the liberal left." - Here lies why you will never be seen as anything but an extremest, you aren't capable of seeing things in anything but Conservative or Liberal. Personal liberties and being against drug laws has been a part of the Libertarian movement for decades.
"The liberal differs from the conservative in his willingness to face this ignorance and to admit how little we know, without claiming the authority of supernatural forces of knowledge where his reason fails him. It has to be admitted that in some respects the liberal is fundamentally a skeptic."
— F.A. Hayek
It is hard to have a rational discussion with someone that just says "Your wrong because I say so" or throws around "liberal" like it is some type of swear word.
The bottom line is Moody has been given FAR TO MUCH leeway. It is far past time for the DA to release the footage from Moody's car and start the PUBLIC TRIAL to get to the bottom of the horrible killing and try and find ways of preventing this type of tragedy in the future.
There need to be less people enforcing our laws that "shoot first and ask questions later."
In past discussions you've touted the forefathers and their insightfulness in drafting our Bill of Rights and Constitution. You have proclaimed how we don't need 'armies slaying foreign dragons'...basically saying they got it right. Now you want to appear as favoring changes. You claim I am an extremist. I say you change your position like a chameleon just to stay on the opposite side of anything I support.
I asked you "Why don't you respond to my previous questions? Who determines that there are too many laws? How do you determine what a bad law is? Innocent people have not gone to prison for using recreational drugs - have they?" No response. I really want to meet one person who was sent to prison for smoking Marijuana, just one!
You make a point, then when questioned fail to back it up. Twice I have disagreed with your position, called you on it, and you refuse to defend yourself. At least when you question my position I respond. You may not agree, but I don't ignore you.
I see things in many variations, you just choose to ignore them. Did you consider that the reason we have so many people in prison is that we are a land of laws and justice? If our system is so bad with so many people locked up - why are so many people trying to legally and illegally come here? I don't buy the statistics from that liberal think tank - they are skewed. Look at the columns - in the US they include people on bail, pretrial confinement, held for immigration or deportation holds. Most other countries only have one column - prison. They don't include 're education camps' etc. That's why your statistics are flawed and I don't buy into them.
I have my beliefs and I state my positions. You are free to disagree with me all you want. Just don't accuse me of being an extremist when it is quite possible in many other people's opinion I might be very moderate or middle of the road.
“I love argument, I love debate. I don't expect anyone just to sit there and agree with me, that's not their job.” - Margaret Thatcher
Are you saying no one has ever been sent to prison for marijuana? And you claim to be former Police?? Wow!
Here are two people for you to meet Bull153!
Meet Paul Free, 42235-198, USP, At*water, At*water, CA
Meet Craig W Frazier 09182-046 Victorville Med II FCI, Adelanto, CA.
Both these men are serving LIFE SENTENCES for using marijuana.
And Bull153, you can call yourself moderate or middle of the road all you want, but, that does not make it true. " I don't buy the statistics from that liberal think tank" is NOT A MODERATE COMMENT!! You saying the statistics are skewed just because "you say so" is also not very moderate or middle of the road. Did you actually look at the studies? Maybe they took your contention into account? Passing judgment on something you did not read - or simply do not understand - is bigoted to say the least.
On the same day that the Kansas City football player shot his girlfriend and then himself, somewhere else a man beat his wife to death with a baseball bat. Jason Whitlock and Bob Costas focused on our 'gun culture'. Most of the conversations here have been about our 2nd Amendment rights. What people should be talking about is domestic violence and stopping killing women whether by guns or pillows.
Yes, a gun was used in a horrific manner. Yes, two people are dead by gunfire. But the lady who was beaten to death with a baseball bat is just as dead as this football player's girlfriend. Shouldn't we be asking how our system failed BOTH?
From what I read, his employer was aware of the domestic problems this football player was experiencing. The team had even provided counseling for the couple. They must have recognized that football, being a violent sport, might be contributing to the issue. In California, there are laws that take away firearms from people involved in domestic violence. I'm sure other states have similar laws. What I would like to know is this. If the team knew the player was having problems, enough problems to get involved and get him counseling, why wasn't his potential for violence addressed and the guns removed?
This guy had friends. He was out with them the night before this tragedy. None of his friends, who must have known some of his problems, intervened. His mother surely knew the couple was having problems. She lived with the player and knew he had guns. Yet even she did nothing to intercede in the events that led up to the murder/suicide.
We talk about 2nd Amendment Rights. We talk about gun control. We talk about gun tragedies. We also need to talk about violence in the home. We need to address environments where people get so angry that they can shoot their significant other nine times, or beat her to death with a sports implement. Let us solve domestic violence. Then we can move on to other issues like the right to own and possess a gun.
There's an interesting MB article by Glenn Kahl on December 6th...
San Joaquin DA Jim Willett addressed a group in Ripon recently. One of the things that Mr. Willett was awed about was the lack of crime reported in Ripon by its police chief.
The DA went on to outline some of the issues both he and other law enforcement agencies have been dealing with, primarily budget cuts. Mr. Willett said "We had 97 attorneys and we are now down to 67. The 55 investigators are now at a level of only 20.” It is interesting to note the closures of court facilities in Tracy and Manteca. Willett has done some things to help ease the situation, like bringing back some of his people on a part time basis, but he is still short handed and understaffed.
Gee... You think maybe that could account for the slow pace of justice in San Joaquin County? I think so...
“Justice is the truth in action.” - Joseph Joubert
You are just grasping at straws now. How many crimes has the DA's office investigated this year? OF these, how many have been tried, prosecuted, and now serving sentence?
If the answer is higher than ZERO, then there is a major problem. Why does this issue of public safety where a sworn officer could have possibly gunned an unarmed man down for no real reason getting the back burner? One would think this would be one of the HIGHEST PRIORITIES, not one of the lowest.
It would seem people such as yourself blindly support the Police assuming they are the only one who are "innocent until proven guilty" and everyone else should go to jail first.
"In past discussions you've touted the forefathers and their insightfulness in drafting our Bill of Rights and Constitution. You have proclaimed how we don't need 'armies slaying foreign dragons'...basically saying they got it right. Now you want to appear as favoring changes. You claim I am an extremist. I say you change your position like a chameleon just to stay on the opposite side of anything I support." - you think to highly of yourself. i am not trying to stay on the opposite side of you, you are on the opposite side of the rest of us, you are a Conservative.
Its not about being a chameleon, its about not being a follower of someone else's opinion. You are a follower, you get in line, and you toe the line. I think it through, and I apply the processes. Not everything is black and white. I don't buy into "values" because they are someone's desires and not everyone's. For some reason your values always require forcing others to conform to yours. I look for solutions where you look for conformity of your political movement.
There is no question that you get in line, and I look for all of the possibilities. It is only wrong of you feel there is just one way of looking at things. I tend to look at all angles, even angles that I don't agree with to look for solutions.
While you wallow in your conservative-liberal paradigm, I invite you to listen to a podcast of someone I listen to. If for nothing else, listening to this person will bring history into the subject and open a view outside of the two main parties. The gentleman's name is Dan Carlin, and his PodCast is called Common Sense. You can download his podcast at iTunes or at his website: http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/cs. The latest cast is called "Cometh the Repo Man II".
Now this isn't like Foxnews or MSNBC, you wont be hearing which political movement is the correct one, you will actually see someone talk about politics without the hyperbole and the rhetoric, just looking for solutions if only conceptually.
So, instead of desperately trying to frame me and my point of view as fitting into the needed duopoly, put down your guard and take an hour to listen to this podcast. If you find it interesting, I suggest you go into his archives and listen to his show on Eisenhower, which is one of my favorite shows that he has done. Just go to the web site above and click on the show, its offered to you on the lower right hand side of the screen. Don't worry, my expectations are low that you will listen to it, but challenge yourself to open your mind.
So as far as your "chameleon" comment, I have options, you don't.
Really... I always thought this was about right and wrong. You consistently come up on the wrong side. You can disparage my conservatism all you want, you can belittle my core values, it just doesn't matter.
I'll make you a deal. I'll listen to your podcast if you answer these questions I posed three separate times now. Either you don't believe what you post or are incapable of offering any valid defense.
-1. Who determines that there are too many laws?
-2. How do you determine what a bad law is?
-3. Innocent people have not gone to prison for using recreational drugs - have they?
-4. Did you consider that the reason we have so many people in prison is that we are a land of laws and justice?
-5. If our system is so bad with so many people locked up - why are so many people trying to legally and illegally come here?
-6. What freedoms and liberties have you lost because of the Patriot Act? What can't you do today that you could do before 9/11?
I'll be waiting - still.
"Right is its own defense." - Bertolt Brecht
Your Patriot Act position is a complete "Straw Man" distraction. It is not about what we cannot do, it is about what the Government CAN DO!
Your recreational drugs comment has been answered already, you just choose it ignore it like you do so many things.
Really, what is the point in even mentioning any of this ...
Just stop with the disingenuous garbage Bull153. At least try and be honest.
"-1. Who determines that there are too many laws?" - That would be the citizens and whom they elect to represent them.
"-2. How do you determine what a bad law is?" - When it isn't relevant to the current generation, or when it infringes on citizens right to live their life as they see fit, regardless of what the majority desire.
"-3. Innocent people have not gone to prison for using recreational drugs - have they?" - Of course they have, even though we all know that "recreational" drugs that don't come from your doctor or pharmacist are considered illegal, so they would have been found guilty of a law. A bad law that is a part of the nanny state, protecting us from ourselves. Just more big government. Now, one can and will debate that those who do drugs are criminal by nature for the very fact that they are willing to break laws to do said drugs, there are such things as innocent people sitting around enjoying recreational drugs. Some of those people choose not to sit around and in turn they get caught with said recreational drug. Innocent doesn't mean smart, innocent is: "not involving evil intent or motive" and "not causing physical or moral injury."
"-4. Did you consider that the reason we have so many people in prison is that we are a land of laws and justice?" - I get the land of laws deal, but justice is subjective. Last I looked, both Russia and China are Lands of Laws, and they have less people in prison then the "The home of the Free" does.
"-5. If our system is so bad with so many people locked up - why are so many people trying to legally and illegally come here?" - Because there are worst places in the world, so what does that have to do with lowering the bar when it comes to freedoms from government, and liberties for all? Or even the liberties of the few from the many?
"-6. What freedoms and liberties have you lost because of the Patriot Act? What can't you do today that you could do before 9/11?" - Sec. 213 - "Critics say the provision allows the use of "sneak and peek" warrants for even minor crimes, not just terror and espionage cases." Sec. 805 - "Critics say the provision could lead to guilt by association." Sec. 206 - "Critics say the language of the act could lead to privacy violations of anyone who comes into casual contact with a suspect."
Since the Conservatives have done such a good job at convincing us that the US Government is incompetent, both by the examples fabricated while running to control the government, and then running it while controlling it, there is no reason to believe that they can be trusted with laws like the "Patriot Act" or that they can be trusted to do the right thing. Conservatives have done a great job at convincing us that the government is so dysfunctional that there is no way we are to believe that they won't misuse this supposed tool on its people.
Okay, so now go listen to the podcast I suggested, and not just Bull, but anyone else who reads these blogs. It will make for interesting conversation, pro or con.
I just wish some here would be intellectually consistant. I have no problem with conservative ideology. I do have a problem with someone who applies a set of thinking in one case - such as the Patriot Act- and then completely dismisses that sam thinking in terms of another - gun control.
Constant hypocrisy does not help the conservative cause at all.
1) OK, simple answer. So, if the citizens and the electorate determine if there are too many laws, I guess we are OK where we are now.
2) Relevant to the current generation? I guess the same citizens and electorate determine what is relevant... but - when it infringes on citizens right to live their life as they see fit, regardless of what the majority desire? You are kidding - if a group of citizens want to abuse children because it is their right to live their life as they see fit? I know you don't mean that. Society depends on the laws and morals of the majority. The majority does matter...
3) This is a good one. I still want some proof there are people in prison for smoking marijuana and nothing else. It just isn't so, and I can't find any court case, historical record, or any substantiation of one case where 'innocent' people are in prison for smoking weed.
Innocent means not guilty - and if they break the law, they are guilty regardless of their intent.
4) So, you want to open the jail cells and turn everyone loose? There have already been some tragic cases where felons released under the new laws based on overcrowding have offended again with fatal results. We, the people, created the laws that have incarcerated those in prison. Letting criminals and illegal people roam our streets does not make for a land of the free, although it is the home of a lot of the brave.
5) OK, you admit then that there are far worse places. We have 300 million plus people here - we have laws - so people who don't obey the laws are going to be incarcerated. It is what a free society wants, otherwise you have anarchy.
6) The Patriot Act. So you are upset NOT that the act restricts your freedom, but that it might maybe perhaps cause an issue. That is stupid just on the face of it. That is like saying I am not going to drive my car because there might maybe perhaps be a police officer that could pull me over for a taillight out. Sheesh...
...and we can trust the liberals who refuse to negotiate and work on fixing our problems? The Patriot Act has done much more that is beneficial than any 'wild boogeyman' misuse people try to come up with. Give me one verifiable example where the provisions of the Patriot Act have illegally cost an American his or her rights.
... Didn't think so...
“Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgment that something else is more important than fear.” - Ambrose Redmoon
“FEAR is an acronym in the English language for "False Evidence Appearing Real" - Neale Donald Walsch
As I promised, I listened to the pod cast. I only listened to the Repo Man cast, an hour is a lot to absorb.
I enjoyed listening, actually. I found that we agree on a lot of what he had to say, in particular getting off the party lines and doing what needs to be done. I liked how he described the USA as a rich guy living beyond his means. I don't necessarily accept all of his reasoning on how we got here, that Jimmy Carter was the wise old frugal patriarch, and Ronald Reagan was the JR Ewing of America. I also noted and agree that we can no longer be the world's policeman, and major cuts in the military are needed.
There is much that needs to be done, and harping on this fiscal cliff nonsense isn't going to help. We need to take drastic measures, and as he pointed out, even if there was an agreement to raise taxes on the rich and cut Medicare and all the things being fought over, all it does is make a small dent in the growth of the deficit! It isn't a solution and won't be until we take a real hard look at the needed austerity measures that no one wants to make, but must be made if we are going to survive.
Everyone will be affected, and everyone needs to do their part. A Band-Aid will not stop this bloody mess... and I fear we are headed for far worse times before our leaders "get it".
We need to cut spending, cut borrowing, and devise a workable budget. Like he said, you know how much you have, so you pay for the most important things, and when you run out, that is it. No borrowing money we can't afford to pay back.
It took a long time to get where we are, it will take a long time to get healed. But we need to take the needed first steps, and then stay the course. That will be the only way we can return to the greatness that is the USA.
“As human beings, we are endowed with freedom of choice, and we cannot shuffle off our responsibility upon the shoulders of God or nature. We must shoulder it ourselves. It is our responsibility.” - Arnold Toynbee
It seems you want to talk about anything other than the topic of this blog - how a police officer killed an unarmed man and has had zero accountability in almost two years.
Also, " The Patriot Act has done much more that is beneficial than any 'wild boogeyman' misuse people try to come up with." again solidifies a very hypocritical position you hold on handgun control where all you can comeup with is 'wild boogeyman' stories of your own to defend handgun violence.
Without "shoot first and ask questions later" that is supported by handguns, Ernest Duenez Jr. would probably still be alive today.
With all that has been said by people about Officer Moody " long before the investigation was ever concluded " about what happened that day , I do hope a lesson has been learned somehow and that its best, no it's right to wait for an investigation to do what it's suppose to do look at All the facts, and evidence before passing judgment.
And for some who will want that video released to the public I hope its never shown it would be a disturbing thing to see.
I'm sure it'll be used in any potential Lawsuits that are being sought since it's evidence , but it's something the public should never want to view
It is a FACT that Officer Moody shot and killed an unarmed man. That is a simple fact. Under what circumstances should a police be allowed to kill?
Further, you miss the point; would a private citizen be allowed to continue working AND not be under jail bond? No. Look at other shooting cases in SJ county. These cases are investigated, tried and sentenced in far less time than the simple preliminary investigation has taken. And it would seem all the DA has to do is watch a simple video.
What if it were YOUR son who was shot and killed by MPD? Would you still be OK with two years with no accountability?
Glad to see you listen to the show, and I am glad to see what you took away from it. I didn't expect you to agree with everything he said, since I don't, but then the truth hurts and is hard to take sometimes.
Take the time to listen to the Eisenhower show that he did, I am sure we can have a conversation on that as well.
As to your responses, you stated "You are kidding - if a group of citizens want to abuse children because it is their right to live their life as they see fit?" - This is an extreme up there with forcing children, and adults to participate in the supernatural where people suffer at the hands of preachers and church leaders. Both are extreme examples, and do not represent the general public.
"This is a good one. I still want some proof there are people in prison for smoking marijuana and nothing else." - This is a "gotcha" you didn't frame the question, nor did I frame the answer around pot. The majority of drug use today is with legal prescription drugs. Just ask Rush. BTW, why didn't he go to jail for breaking the law? Oh yeah, the justice system at its best.
"So, you want to open the jail cells and turn everyone loose?" - Another extreme from you. Why is it that you can only see things your way or a complete extreme opposite? I live in a world where there are many shades of grey between the black and white that it appears you only see.
"The Patriot Act. So you are upset NOT that the act restricts your freedom, but that it might maybe perhaps cause an issue. That is stupid just on the face of it." - You have established that you do not refer to historical insight from the founders or you would know that some of their biggest concerns was what too much power in the hands of the Government (not just the Federal government) can and possibly would do.
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
"...and we can trust the liberals who refuse to negotiate and work on fixing our problems?" - This isn't true, the Liberals aren't the ones who have stated that "compromise is doing what we want" that is what the Conservatives have said. Until the right stops building straw men there wont be constructive negotiations. They lost the last election, its not for the Conservatives to lead, that isn't what was decided, but they should contribute. As we see in the "Fiscal Cliff" negotiations, the right is holding a gun to their own head threatening to shoot. January 1 is not a deadline, we can go past it and be alright.
You listened to the show, you are a man of your word.
You stated, "And for some who will want that video released to the public I hope its never shown it would be a disturbing thing to see." - I tend to agree that there are things that a person can and should look away from, but I also believe that people need to be disturbed so the public can determine for themselves if we as a society want to allow disturbing things like war, torture and executions, or simply the mistreatment of one's civil rights to continue. The more it is hidden from us, the more it perpetuates.
It has been stated by the government during the last wars that they did not want the general public to get the same view of the wars as they had for Vietnam. There are many who believe that its constant showing on the news of actual fighting and the consequences of that fighting is what forced the government to end it. Because we are insulated from these views, we end up with wars that take a decade to end instead of a short and swift action.
We need transparency, from the government, and not protection from disturbing views of its actions. As is the case with any civil servant job, its not easy to do, there are all kinds of restrictions and rules, but they chose that line of work, they need to accept that its complicated and hard. If the officer shot an unarmed man, then he did not do his job to its fullest. We should not fear our government or those who work for it.
Once again you bring reason and common sense to the table. I am amazed at the experts who crawl out of the woodwork and 'know facts' not in evidence. There are only two facts that are indisputable - Officer Moody shot Mr. Duenez and Mr. Duenez is dead. EVERYTHING ELSE has yet to be determined. The California Penal code is very clear on the circumstances in which a police officer may used lethal force, only someone with an agenda would continue to stir the pot while an overworked and understaffed DA's office deals with MULTIPLE cases involving police shootings in the county.
I want the truth as much as anyone. As for the video - people will see what they want to see. Experts from both sides will dissect the police dash video frame by frame, that is fine. At least they are experts who know what they are doing. The public simply wants to see it for their own blood lust - and to fortify the conclusions they have already drawn.
It doesn't matter if Mr. Duenez is a stranger or a family member - the truth is what matters. It may take months or years to find it. ANYONE who says this case rests on simply watching a video is either completely clueless on the procedures of an officer involved shooting investigation or has watched too many crime dramas on TV. Officer Moody deserves a fair investigation and our justice system demands it!
“Justice, sir, is the great interest of man on earth. It is the ligament which holds civilized beings and civilized nations together.” - Daniel Webster
“Justice is the truth in action.” - Joseph Joubert
"The public simply wants to see it for their own blood lust - and to fortify the conclusions they have already drawn." - This is an opinion and not a fact. This isnt to say that there isnt people who get off on this type of action, there are plenty who watch horror flicks for the same reason.
If you are a mature adult, then one should be able to watch the video, if they so choose, and make their own determination of the events.
"Justice is subjective" - TheSovereign
"Officer Moody deserves a fair investigation and our justice system demands it!" - He does deserve a fair investigation, but the justice system doesn't demand it, justice is a by product of people opinion, and does not apply equally. At best, it demands results, whether it is the correct result is not relevant as long as "justice is served."
Good Morning crimeriddendump
It's obvious we will Never agree on this subject,I have a very low tolerance for unfounded accusations ,I'm a firm believer in letting the facts come to light before ever passing judgement,I always have been,and I always will be.
Its easy to sit back and be the judge and jury on people by speculation and assumptions ,but the people who do that have no idea how far reaching the consequences of those actions are.False accusations have ruined lives.
We have laws in this land to find out the truth and it should be left to such people that do this for a living.
I could ask you why you have so much trouble accepting any facts in this case,I could ask how it is that you believe an Officer (in the line of duty)related shooting is the same as a citizen shooting someone,and why do you believe that this Officer should have been behind bars or under bond during the investigation.I could ask "how long do you want an Officer to wait to defend himself if he perceives his life is in danger before he acts,you can't answer that in facts because you or (we) were never in that situation.
I can ask these questions and still the response from you is always the same so its only unproductive to keep going over and over it.
And I could add in response to your callous question regarding my OWN SON that if my son had been shot by an Officer (in the line of duty) I would feel devastated ,I would feel an indescribable pain, but if he had been involved in that scenario and wasn't following an Officers commands ,then I'm afraid that the end results would have been one persons fault ,and not the Officers.This 2 years of unaccountability you keep referring to is something you believe , I don't.
You said the DA only had to watch a video ,that is another innuendo that borders on assumption again , that is precisely what I keep saying about accusations without Facts.
Do you really believe that the District Attorney only set there and watched a video and didn't take into account ALL the evidence in the case which must of been staggering in volume,because they collect everything ,not just witnesses but every little scrap of physical evidence as well.
Your going to believe what you believe and that is your right.
One thing tho you can be sure of is that we have a system in place ,it may not be perfect as nothing is,but its there for everyone as much as you protest that it isn't.
Watch the video or not is up to the people I suppose ,just one more gruesome thing to be released by the media to capitalize on.
Maybe it can be seen as transparency but everyone will draw their own conclusions from that video and each will be different depending on what they believe.
Seems cruel to the family to have that thing out there to be played over and over again.
I still hope its not released ,but it probably will be.
It's sad that it has taken almost two years for the actual story story to come out.
Also interesting how the conclusion from the DA is almost completely different than the "FACTS" submitted in the Federal Lawsuit. Here is n excerpt:
"right foot was tangled in the seat belt. Mr. Duenez's hands were up and it was clear that he possessed no visible weapon."
Lucky for the rest of the community, none of the FOURTEEN SHOOTS fired by Moody did not hit anyone else as seemingly less than half hit Duenez.
This contradiction is curious. Again, why would it take almost two years to spot a knife in the video? I really don't get if this is how they say it is, why this was not cleared up a week after the shooting.
Of course it is my opinion - I never said it was a fact. I also never said the video should not be released to the public, but I would advise that it not be released until after the investigation/trial/litigation is over so that potential jurors are not unduly in*fluenced. The video has been given to the family and their legal representatives to view - for now, that should be enough.
You and I disagree about justice. It is an imperfect system because people are a major part of it - and people are human. They make mistakes and they have their own in*fluences and beliefs. But the system is better than anything else out there - and it is applied equally although the outcomes may not be equal.
“The administration of justice is the firmest pillar of government” - George Washington
“Sir, I say that justice is truth in action” - Benjamin Disraeli
I wonder if it's legally possible for Officer Moody to seek civil litigation against the individual using the screen name crimeriddendump for publically posting these comments,
"A full year and a half after MPD Officer Moody killed an unarmed Ernest Duenez Jr. by "[shooting him]multiple times in the body and face".
a. defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.
b. the act or crime of publishing it.
c. a formal written declaration or statement, as one containing the allegations of a plaintiff or the grounds of a charge.
2. anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents.
According to crimeriddendump's blog, MPD Officer Moody shot and killed an unarmed suspect. This did not happen and crimeriddendump's comments have possibly defamed MPD Officer Moody. I certainly hope that when all is said and done MPD Officer Moody will consider taking civil action againt the individual posting under the name of crimeriddendump. If a monetary civil setlement results, I would suggest donating some of it to local Manteca charities that could help better our community.
Why would someone WANT TO RISK defaming a law enforcement professional prior to the factual findings that result from a legal investigation?
Unlike you, I source all my information, In my case, I used the facts as provided by the still pending Federal Lawsuit Duenez et al v. City of Manteca et al. Here is the link to the full document :
Also, you should try and know the definitions of words before you use them. This is especially true after explicitly defining them in a post. Again, here is the quote from the FACTUAL BACKGROUND section of a Federal Lawsuit:
"Mr. Duenez's hands were up and it was clear that he possessed no visible weapon."
Next time try to know what you are talking about before personally attacking someone. Try it next time, go on, "you can do it!"
It is possible for anyone to seek civil litigation for just about anything. That's why I am a proponent of tort reform. If the loser had to pay all the court fees of the prevailing party, most of these ambulance chasing dregs of humanity would crawl away and the number of frivolous and ridiculous lawsuits would dramatically drop. Whether it is prudent or not is a whole different argument. Police officers are held to higher standards and given the public's trust, wrongfully being called names comes with the job. I doubt when Officer Moody is found justified in his actions he will give a damn about anyone who stood on a corner holding 'Officer Moody is a Murderer' signs or someone's unsubstantiated accusations in a newspaper's blog section.
People do ridiculous things - it is human nature. There are many reasons why someone might defame a professional law enforcement officer. Maybe they couldn't be one. Maybe they had a bad experience with one. Maybe they watch too much TV crime drama. It could be anything. In my opinion the best thing is to ignore stupid claims and false assertions. The truth will win out.
As for all this claim of fact - more misconceptions and false statements. Anyone who has worked in law enforcement or in the judicial field understands evidence and fact. Simply put, evidence proves or disproves facts. A video is evidence, what it shows is fact. A statement in a court document prior to trial is not evidence - is not fact. Testimony in court is evidence. A coroner's report is evidence. A trial transcript is fact. A verdict is fact.
The Federal trial will determine IF "Mr. Duenez's hands were up and it was clear that he possessed no visible weapon." - NOT the claim filed by the plaintiff's attorney. It would be nice if everyone 'knows what they are talking about'. From all that I've read it is clear that at least one person here doesn't.
“There's a world of difference between truth and facts. Facts can obscure the truth.” - Maya Angelou
“Facts are many, but the truth is one.” - Rabindranath Tagore
Allegations in a Factual Background section of the federal lawsuit are "taken as true for purposes of this
motion only." See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct.
Until you backtracked and grasped at thin air in your above post, when and where did you EVER source or indicate your claim that Officer Moody shot and killed an unarmed suspect was taken from a factual background section in a federal lawsuit which is based upon allegations?
Looks as if now you attribute your comments about Officer Moody, to allegations rather than facts within a federal lawsuit. Do your homework...FACTS are FACTS. ALLEGATIONS are ALLEGATIONS until proven to be true.
I believe that your blog comments about Officer Moody killing an unarmed suspect meet the legal criteria as libelous. I will do what it takes to ensures that you will be held legally accountable for your blog comments.
@Bull153, Excellent comments. My above post is intended for crimeriddendump. As you can see I believe that the person using the screen name crimeriddendump has libeled Officer Moody and I agree that his being a law enforcement professional Officer Moody most likely doesn't have the time to deal with all the moronic comments directed at him.
I agree 100% that "a statement in a court document prior to trial is not evidence". However, crimeriddendump called it FACT and used it in a harmful way.
It's a real share that some here care more about "my team" coming out on top than the actual human experiences that were involved in this. My hearts still go out to the family of Ernest Duenez Jr. and ALL victims of violence.
Also, some can attack me all you want. Doesn't change that the only "facts" in this case were labeled as "facts" in legal document. I guess shame on me for reading the actual material instead of basing my comments on imagination.
This whole "me first" atitude is just sad. I guess this is just the true character - or lack thereof - of some here.
If by 'my team' you mean truth and justice, for once you are right. My heart goes out to all who were touched by this tragedy - including Officer Moody, his family, and co-workers.
I've spent most of my life dealing with victims of violence. For all your protestations about what I know, what I believe, and what I say, I've had to deal with tragedy many times over.
Your 'facts' are labeled as facts for one purpose. I've read the court documents on the Federal lawsuit - my comments are based on what the documents are, not what you want them to be.
The only sad thing is, what you label ' true character - or lack thereof' applies equally to you. The 'me first' attitude that you refer to... is truth and justice for everyone, not just who YOU think it should apply to.
I will now return to my policy of ignoring you. It does wonders for my blood pressure.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer
"In matters of truth and justice, there is no difference between large and small problems, for issues concerning the treatment of people are all the same." - Albert Einstein
You have yet to even acknowledge the actual victims here. Instead, you seem to think the person who pulled the trigger is victim.
What if the tables were turned? Would you have been ok with someone that shot a police officer being allowed to carry on with their lives like nothing happened for almost two years? I don't think so.
As before, all I ask is for some consistency.
Maybe instead of Cherry Picking specific sentences within the lawsuit for puposes of intentionally distorting their factual meaning and their legal application you should try reading the entire Federal Lawsuit Duenez et al v. City of Manteca et al and comprehend and understand the motivation behind it's filing before making anymore stupid comments. You owe Officer Moody an apology. You never ever cited the fed lawsuit as a source and you are now backtracking and trying to claim that allegations in this fed lawsuit are proven facts that will absolve you of current and past libelous comments made before the fed suit was ever filed.
I'm sorry you had to reprove my prior point. A shame you seem to either not care or understand any of this and instead are choosing to just personally attack me. If your goal is to apear petty and shallow you are succeeding.
As I said before, it is a shame that this took so long for the public to begin getting straight answers. Hopefully, the full events will become more transparent.
I feel great sorrow for ALL involved and affected directly and indirectly by this incident.
However, I am pointing out that you have posted comments having no basis in fact regarding Officer Moody. You decline to answer my simple question but instead prefer to evade providing a truthful answer by posting an irrelevant response. It's not a personal attack as you claim because you in fact posted stupid comments concerning Officer Moody's legally justified actions. Seems to me you are the master of personal attacks towards a law enforcement professional who did what we pay and expect him to do under extremely difficult and stressful circumstances while we demand at the same time that his actions be lawful and justified. Well he did and he was and you lamely attack him because you can't handle the results of his professionlism and his ensuring our public safety with which he is entrusted.
It's a good time now for you to reflect upon the unjust comments you leveled against Officer Moody's lawful actions and exactly what motivated you to post them.
You post is a bit ironic given the name you are addressing me as.
Again, you turing this around and making Moody into the victim is absurd. He is alive, Ernest Duenez Jr. is dead. I think who the victim is here would be plan for any reasonable person to see.
Also, I quoted directly from the FACTUAL BACKGROUND of a legal document. You acting like I invented this dialog is obtuse at best.
Obtuse is being unable to clearly understand that the factual background section consists of allegations as it clearly states in the factual background section. What is sickening is the fact that you seem to enjoy providing instigation to such a serious life ending incident.
So then making statements substantiated by that document is libelous how? Speaking of instigation, what would you call yourself making pointless accusations for the sole purpose of attacking me personally?
Again, grow up.
You were not making statements substantiated by that document until you were taken to task...and even then what you are painfully avoiding is the fact that even if you genuinely sourced your statements from that document you would be making statements unsubstatiated by allegations in that document. Stop playing games. You wouldn't know a fact if it walked up to you and kicked you in the leg. Wise up.
Again, very hypocritical for you to talk about unsubstantiated comments given how you choose to address me. Made me laugh a bit.
Again, it would seem you don't care about the victims here - the whole point of my blog - and instead are just trying to personally insult me - which is not really working. All your comments re doing is PROVING the point of my blog, that the majority of people in Manteca don't care about the the victims of crime. Keep it up! The more you post, the more examples I have!
Unless the point you are trying to make with your comments that you are petty and shallow - as I said; go ahead! Otherwise, for the third time, grow up.
you stated " the majority of people in Manteca don't care about the victims of crime "
Wrong, just because people may disagree with Your opinion doesn't mean the Majority of Manteca citizens are a unfeeling, uncaring lot.
Manteca is a large community, a majority would indicate you think many of us are as you described in your statement to Friendo
We do have many citizens that care, so your assumption isn't fact.
First, I never said it was fact, I said it was a hypotesis that was supported by some people's attacks here. Actually. you caring more about my statement than the victims also helps support that hypotheses.
Let's just go with math: tell me how many people do you know that were upset by another shooting in Manteca? How many were asking for answers? How many cared at all?
Show me the numbers. So far, it would look like apathy and the "shoot first ask questions later" crowd far outnumber the people who would have liked there to be less violence. If I'm wrong, please show me different.
I guess in your world assumptions and unsubstantiated allegations are considered to be proven fact. Whatever works for you...
Do you know what the word "unsubstantiated" means? How can my statements here be "unsubstantiated" if they were supported by the whole Duenez family and the published reports of the contents of the police video?
Oh, right, you don't care about reality at all. You only seem to care about your pointless, juvenile attacks.
Keep it up, your posts don't bother me in the slightest and helps prove my point as I keep reminding you. The more you try and attack me, the more it proves you don't care about this case or violence in Manteca.
"actually you caring more about my statement
than the victims also helps to support my hypothesis "
And that one statement sums up nothing but your opinion, and a assumption
Your assuming that you know someones "feelings"even tho you don't even know them. Just as your opinion that the Majority of Manteca doesn't care ,that's a whole lot of assuming.
Since you are within your right to speculate and assume and Hypothesize I will leave you to do just that,but sometimes I wonder do you think your words through carefully before clicking that post button I have formed an opinion that you don't and you've just hrlped support my hypothesis .
I think all my posts through rozemist. I base my opinion on what you said, if I missinterpret then feel free to correct. But it is true, since your first post in this blog, you have but more focus on my words than the message.
And it is a hypothesis and I ask were you see evidence of people in Manteca taking a proactive stance against violence. Frankly, I don't see any and only see apathy and inaction just like the reactions - before and after the DA decision - here. Again, if I'm mistaken, please show me where I'm mistaken, I would be glad to listen. But this bullheaded "Your wrong because I say so" approach is not helpful for discusion.
I welcome reasonable discusion. Your bit above reads very agressive.
The fact that a judge refused to dismiss the Duenez family's lawsuit would seem to suggest that the case has some merits, otherwise the case would have been thrown out, never to see a courtroom. In my opinion, there are two versions of what happened and differing opinions with their own contentions and interpretations of the tragic event. Common sense tells us that even though the DA claimed the shooting was 'legally justified', the video probably isn't all that clear, because the family says Duenez was unarmed while the police insist he had a knife. Perhaps the video only shows that he was holding SOMETHING in his hand. Yesterday's article about the 'justified' shooting only raised more questions for me. At one point it is stated that a knife was clearly visible, but another section notes, "It is the opinion of the video analyst that Duenez had a knife in his right hand as he got out of the pickup". OPINION? That would seem to imply that there could be other possible interpretations. Here is another part of the article that struck me as odd: "Duenez then jumps toward the ground and turns his body into the pickup reaching forward and downward with his left hand as Moody fires the first shot within less than a second. The officer fires the remainder of his shots (13 more!) within 4.2 seconds". "Jumps toward the ground and turns his body into the pickup"? How does that make any sense? To me, that would appear to support the family's contention that Duenez got his foot tangled in the pickup's seat belt, which caused him to fall. This is only speculation, but doesn't it stand to reason that his left hand movements MIGHT reflect his efforts to free himself from the constraining seat belt? Also, 14 shots fired within 5 seconds seems excessive to me. I can see why the officer fired the first shot, given the information that he had at the time (suspect was assumed to be armed with a knife and possibly a gun) and the FACT that Duenez did NOT obey the officer's command not to move. But I don't understand shooting 14 times at a man ON THE GROUND. Also disturbing is that, with less than 10 feet separating police officer and suspect (according to the article), many of the bullets did not even hit the target. Where did they go? There were others in the car who might have been inadvertently injured. As I stated earlier, this is just my opinion or interpretation. I am not taking sides here, but want to point out that there are troubling questions that remain unanswered. Perhaps we will not get the unvarnished facts until the case goes to trial and is decided. One thing that is certain and should not be open to dispute is that it is a tragedy for all involved. Sincerely, Karen
Thank you for bringing up actual discussion points! I mentioned all these items above and have seen no one else make any comment toward them. The whole thing is a convoluted mess and I wish there was more transparency from all parties. As with many things, like the civil OJ Simpson case for example, things in the civil litigation might bring to light new perspectives and realizations into this tragedy. I still can't believe MPD/Manteca has continued to treat this like "business as usual" or "job well done" when there seem to be more questions now than answers.
And my statement as before; odd thing to me that none of the questions you bring up seem to to be answered directly in any official capacity and ignored by most people here and around Manteca.
I would very much like to continue this conversation. Hopefully others are too.
After 18 months, the San Joaquin DA completed their independent investigation into the shooting of Ernest Duenez Jr. and determined that based on ALL the evidence, the shooting was legally justified. Officer Moody has been exonerated of any criminal wrongdoing.
Just because the case in Federal Court is being allowed to proceed does not necessarily suggest it has merits, only that it meets the legal requirements to go forward. It is no different than many frivolous lawsuits that are filed by inmates because their peanut butter sandwiches had too much jelly. If there are merits to the case, they will be brought out at trial.
I said earlier people should wait until the DA published their investigation findings. They have, and as I had expected, Officer Moody was found to have acted legally when he shot. I take no personal satisfaction in this, a man is dead and another's life is forever changed. But I am satisfied the legal process works as it should. I doubt it, but maybe some who persist on claiming Officer Moody committed murder will finally stop.
Opinion? Yes, opinion. Expert witnesses are allowed to have opinions and have them entered into the record. There are some things, like what caused death, or what caused a collision, that are opinion based on evidence since the expert was not physically there at the time of the event.
The DA's report is very clear and substantiates the finding. Like everything else, different people will have differing opinions. There were 13 rounds fired. 11 struck Mr. Duenez. Two other people in close proximity to him were uninjured. I would say two of 13 is not 'many'. Officers are trained to continue taking action until the threat is stopped. Officer Moody fired until he was sure the threat had stopped.
This is my opinion based on the DA's report and my own experience. What isn't my opinion is that Officer Moody did what he was trained and expected to do - and he was legally justified. The DA investigation is proof.
The most telling thing I noted in the investigation came from the driver of the truck. He identifies who was the person most responsible for the tragic outcome. "Camarena indicated that he questioned Duenez on his actions, to which Duenez responded "I don't care, I got to get out". Camarena stated that he warned Duenez that he would be shot if he did not listen to the officer.... ...Camarena stated that if Duenez had sat down, the officer wouldn't have shot him."
"Doubt, indulged and cherished, is in danger of becoming denial; but if honest, and bent on thorough investigation, it may soon lead to full establishment of the truth.” - Ambrose Bierce
Good Morning crimeriddendump
From my first posting on this blog I have brought focus on your words ,but NEVER forgetting the subject of the blog NOT ONCE.
You have to remember the words that anyone uses to present their opinion are also going to be the subject of focus.
You're very passionate about your beliefs and one can certainly understand that,but it appears (in my opinion) your emotions sometimes have overridden your sense of propriety which will often times come across as offensive to others which I don't think you mean to do but that is the how it is often perceived.
I'm a person who feels very strongly as well about letting the truth come out , ALL the truth ,along with ALL the facts and believe that know one should accuse anyone without absolute facts.
The words initially in your blog (which you so kindly reworded) were what led me to post my first comment.
Each comment as you can see from that point on has been linked in some way or another to letting the "truth come out" as it should and about people not making accusations and assumptions.
We all have our suspicions ,and our opinions but they are not facts.And we should be mindful of the way we present our opinions.
Look at the way Karen presented her comment ,she was able to put her thoughts out there in such a way as to leave a door open to a discussion ,and not one time did she accuse anyone ,she didn't assume ,she simply brought up some points she finds troublesome in this case and questions them,and she did it without offending anyone .
Of course we all have our own way of commenting but I do believe it can be done by each of us without being offensive to others.
When you respond with statements that the "Majority of Mantecans don't care about crime victims",or that "I" care more about your statements then a "crime victim",that leads me to question if you thought these statements through to the fullest.You said you have ,so I accept that you did.
I'm never going to understand why you make such comments,because nothing I said would suggest that I'm a person who doesn't care about victims of crime ,but it's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But you can't be surprised that people find these types of comments rash and abrasive .
I have known many Mantecans for over 40 plus years and I know that many care about this community (deeply) and care about all crime and all victims of crime.The apathy you perceive might be true with some people ,but not the majority.
You want me to show you the "numbers" of how many people care how many don't ,neither of us can do that crimeriddendump ,I base my "opinion" on what I've seen,how many years I've lived in this community,and the people I know,have known,have just met.You don't live in a community this long without having a connection to it and the people who live in it.
There are good and bad everywhere ,but Manteca is still a good community and most of us are all effected when crime strikes or tragedy befalls our town.It would be hard to not feel that this event was a tragedy for "every single person" involved.In my heart I believe this is how many people here feel.
You said "this bullheaded "Your wrong because I say so" approach is not helpful for discusion." and "I welcome reasonable discusion. Your bit above reads very agressive."
Whether I'm bullheaded or aggressive is in the eye of the beholder crimeriddendump,first time tho I've ever been called aggressive,that's a first.
I think we have reached an impasse ,I don't think it's possible for us to discuss this subject further .
But I look forward hopefully to future discussions on other issues.
Hello rozemist and Bull153,
Again, it would seem the two of you have no interset in actually discussing the topic that both I and KarenPearsall and I have brought up and instead prefer to nitpick semantics.
13 shots in 4.2 seconds! Most missing the target at a suposed range of less than 10 feet! (Bull153 re-read page 5 of the report you provide where it says only SEVEN of THIRTEEN hit! Please get the facts correct!).
Moody says he was holding a knife, yet the only knife found at the scene was in the bed of the pickup truck.
Also, I have seen the VIDEO! Anyone who has seen the video can see that Duenez is getting out of the car - in a hurry - and looks like he is about to make a run for it directly out of the passenger seat to the right. There is absolutely no knife visible in his hand. How could there be when he used BOTH HANDS to prop himself out of the truck!!! If anyone would like the str*eaming link to the video, let me know and I can provide it.
There is this bit "The gunshot wound to the head was in the rightcheek with trajectory down,left and forward." Sounds like he was shot in the face while he was on the ground. Looking at the video, Moody definitly shot Duenez at least THREE TIMES while he was on the ground. He is rolling on the ground after getting shot FIVE times and is shot in the HEAD while clearly incapacitated on the ground. It is plain as day watching the video.
After watching the VIDEO, I fail to see how this was justified. in anyway. It is clear to me that this was overkill in every sense of the word.
There was a TRIAL of OJ Simpson, yet many people insist he was guilty of crimes he was exonerated of in criminal court. I feel this case will take a similar path.
Again, sad that few seem to care about the facts here and instead seem to want to just forget all of this.
Also, I forgot to mention the PICTURES at the end of the DA report published here by Bull153!
Look at that report and it is clear that shots #5 -> #13 were ALL fired while Duenez was ON THE GROUND!
In the report it says at 18:45:20.733 "DUENEZ's foot is caught in the seatbelt, and Officer Moody is unable to pull him." Which also further supports the family's contention that he FELL out of the truck and brased himself. Again, this is supported by watching the video.
So far, it looks like Duenez was killed not because he HAD a knife but because he MIGHT have a knife. A knife that was later found not on his person but in the bed of the truck! If the video tech can see where the actual bullets hit in the video, why can't they see the knife? Why can't they see the knife falling into the truck after Duenez was shot? He can track all the bullet casing out of the gun but not a 4 inch knife?
This looks very much like a "SHOOT FIRST AND ASK QUESTIONS LATER" style of law enforcement. Why was non-lethal force used? Again, it would seem MANY in MANTECA simply do not care or else there would be more people asking questions rather than attacking the person asking them.
Hello Bull153, Thank you for your clarification of the number of bullets that actually struck Duenez. I was going by earlier newspaper articles and even the official report of the video investigation states, "Seven of the shots appear to be correlated with striking Duenez", "three shots appear to completely miss Duenez", and "Video analysis was unable to correlate four shots to any particular placement". So one can see the reason for the confusion. It is not until the autopsy findings detailed later in the report that it is made clear that Duenez was struck by 11 bullets. The report also noted that although the video made it seem like 14 shots were fired, after examining the weapon it was concluded that the number of shots was 13 and that the additional one heard in the video was an echo.
You mentioned Camarena's interview statements, but you left out the part where he says "he did not see anything in the hands of Duenez". His wife noted the same thing. I mention this because what appeared in the video (14 shots) later turned out not to be accurate so it IS POSSIBLE that what APPEARED to be a knife in Duenez's hands was not actually a weapon. I do not know the real truth of what happened , but am raising questions about the report. In a follow up article yesterday, Jason Campbell wrote that the video clearly shows Duenez's feet being untangled from his seat belt before medical personnel arrive. All I am saying is that everything isn't as cut and dry as it may seem and the waters are still muddied as more video footage becomes available to public view. This was obviously a very tense and stressful experience for the officer involved as well as the victim and passengers. It still is troubling to me that it took 13 shots fired before the officer felt that the threat had been neutralized. I would characterize that as excessive, in my opinion. Sincerely, Karen
Hello Bull153, I also want to make it clear that I recognize that Duenez does share some responsibility for his own death because he did not follow the officer's command not to move. This failure along with reports that Duenez was allegedly armed with a knife and possibly a gun both colluded to spark the tragic events that followed. As I have stated previously, this is a sad, unfortunate situation, all around. Sincerely, Karen
You are correct about the autopsy numbers later indicating 11 shots hit over the 7 seen in the video. Video could not see because Duneze was already rolling on the ground at that point.
And KarenPearsall, I know it would be difficult but, watching the video gives a very distinct impression of what happend.
Hello again KarenPearsall,
My worry is that the decision to not prosecute here enforces this decision as "shoot first, ask questions later" and "job well done." As you say, I think there are just as many questions now as before.
I still don't understand why non-letal options of ending this are not even discussed. And it frightens me that just THINKING you have a knife is reason for Police to shoot someone 11 times including once in the head while on the ground.
You are welcome. I tend not to rely so much on newspaper articles and in this case, because of the emotion and fervor of the incident, believe the DA's report is the best source for what happened. There will be confusion in any case because we both can watch the video, and yet we will see what we expect/believe/want to see.
Yes, I did leave that part out about Mr. Camarena and his wife both claiming not to see a knife. In my opinion, their statements may not reflect what actually happened and they certainly may be more inclined to side with the Duenez family than the authorities. I base this on his initial refusal to provide DNA as well as his changing his statement regarding who handled and who gave the knife to Mr. Duenez. The jury in the Federal trial will be able to determine the veracity of Mr. Camarena during his testimony.
In an officer involved shooting things will never be cut and dried. There have been cases where officers have been mistaken and shot people holding cell phones. Video evidence can be helpful, but may not always settle the issue at hand. That is why the investigation is based on the totality of the evidence, and not just a single aspect. You can see the knife sheath on Mr. Duenez' belt. There was a knife found in close proximity. No other items that were similar were found close by, the 'glass pipe' people said he was holding was removed from his pocket. Officer Moody was moving forward and to the side to take Mr. Duenez into custody. Officer Moody was in a better position to see what, if anything, Mr. Duenez was holding.
One final point. I can understand that people might feel that so many shots is excessive. As I said, officers are trained to fire until the threat is stopped. It is not 'shoot to kill' as some might claim. People under the in*fluence of illegal drugs often are shot multiple times before they cease resisting. Mr. Duenez was not compliant even after being shot. Experts will say that so many shots are justified. The autopsy determined that Mr. Duenez was under the in*fluence of methamphetamine and amphetamine at the time of his death.
People who claim Officer Moody was wrong have the advantage of 20/20 hindsight and time... time Officer Moody did not have. Like every police officer on duty, he had to make a split second decision based on what was happening right then and there. In my opinion, he did exactly what he was trained to do, and what the citizens of Manteca would expect him to do. The DA has determined that the shooting was legally justified. Even so, it does not make it any less tragic for those involved and for those affected.
"My heroes are those who risk their lives every day to protect our world and make it a better place - police, firefighters and members of our armed forces." - Sidney Sheldon
You clearly have not seen the video or examined the pictures. The threat was stopped at shot #1. Center mass, dropped him instantly.Why 12 more shots were necessary after the first is beyond me. But that is beside the point - why the lack of non-lethal options in the discussion?
Why no discussion of the actual knife? How did Duenez 's knife get into the bed of the pickup if he was holding it? How did he pull himself out with two hands while holding a knife?
Oh well, I guess we will have to wait for a ful Federal Civil trail before getting full closure to this tragic loss of life.
Why didn't he shoot his wrist?
Why didn't he shoot his ankle?
Why didn't he shoot his knee?
Why didn't he shoot only once?
Why did he follow departmental policy and procedure?
Why do people think TV shows and Motion Pictures are real?
Why are Police Officers aware of the capabilities of ballistic knives?
Now after reading the seventh question above, Chumley is overheard asking the following..."DUHHHH GEEE Mr. Whoopee, What exactly is a Ballistic Knife? DUHHH?"
Your lack of actual experience in law enforcement, firearms training, and officer involved shooting investigations is clear, and understandable. I have watched the video, I read the entire DA report, and unlike you, have my facts straight. I'll try and give you the benefit of my actual experience as opposed to your lame attempts to label Officer Moody what he has been shown NOT to be.
First - it is just your opinion that the threat stopped at shot #1. "Center mass, dropped him instantly." The investigation states otherwise. From page 4, in dash video: 'Officer Moody fires shot No. 1 at 18:42:52:000. Duenez does not react.' Even the autopsy cannot determine which of the 11 hits was first. There has been a lot in this investigative process that is beyond you, but that is understandable given your lack of investigative skills.
Second - why were non-lethal options not discussed? Simple, the video shows clearly Officer Moody with his sidearm drawn as he approaches the truck during the high-risk stop. He sees Mr. Duenez getting out of the truck and failing to obey commands. Officer Moody starts to holster his weapon to go hands on and take Mr. Duenez to the ground when he sees the knife and takes aim at the deadly threat. Mr. Duenez is well within the establish lethal zone officers are trained on for edged weapons. When Mr. Duenez continues to refuse to obey commands, say anything about 'I give up', or drop the weapon, he is shot.
Third - I did discuss the knife and the report addresses the knife. I'll try and clarify. The knife is visible in the video. The knife sheath is visible in the video. Mr. Duenez was struck 11 times, and the autopsy states 'The gunshots to the extremities were as follows: 1) in right arm with trajectory forward, slightly up and left.' The knife was in the right hand. There were NO other items found in the vicinity that could have been mistaken for a knife, and a knife was found in close proximity to the victim. (truck bed). While there may not be clear evidence how the knife ended up in the bed of the truck, at the time of the shooting Mr. Duenez was armed with a knife and Officer Moody was in range of that lethal threat.
Finally, the legal analysis is very clear and is supported by the evidence. The Federal trial may or may not bring full closure to some people, but the DA's investigation does factually clear Officer Moody of any criminal liability.
“The truth is rarely pure and never simple.” - Oscar Wilde
You accuse me of now having any experience when you take such offense when the same is suggested of you? I have listed my credentials before and my qualifications are as valid as yours and your take there is very hypocritical.
Also, how hypocritical for someone who was all "wait for the full investigation to make judgement" making judgement before the full FEDERAL investigation. Again, OJ Simpson was also "factually [cleared]of any criminal liability."
Again, double standards and hypocrisy do not help you nor the MPD/DA in this case. And quickly changing "absolute" convictions between sentences does not make for useful discusion.
I watched the video. I am still disgusted by the extreme use of force in a seemingly preventable death. Again, why were non-lethal alternatives not being discussed then or now? Moody played judge, jury and executioner. Seems Moody just THINKING you have a knife is reason enough for him to shoot you 11 times including once through the face while laying on the ground.
As before, I don't see how anyone can watch that video and think we need more of that in Manteca.
Don't you hate when people are condescending? I know I am...LOL.
You have not listed credentials, you simply stated you worked with Australian, English, and US correctional agencies. Providing canteen services for inmates is hardly law enforcement experience. I have provided expert testimony in Federal and State courts. I have completed law enforcement academy training in both the military and California. I've carried a firearm, enforced laws, and arrested people. Have you? How many criminal investigations and police reports have you written? How many times have you been certified as an expert witness and testified in court on a criminal case. How much certified training have you had in evidence collection, use of force, firearms, patrol procedure, interview and interrogation, or criminal investigation. Are you California POST certified in anything?
Now, you can believe what you want about my credentials, but your own asinine conclusions and assertions belie your alleged 'experience'. Not only can't you walk the walk, you fail to talk the talk.
There is a Federal lawsuit that has been filed. There is no Federal investigation because no Federal charges are pending although the Duenez' are asking for a Federal probe. There is a difference between a civil lawsuit and criminal charges. I waited for the DA's investigation before I made my judgment known - it's not my fault you don't like the findings. If you want to accuse me of something, be clear. What 'double standard?' Your statement "And quickly changing "absolute" convictions between sentences does not make for useful discussion." makes NO sense. What are you implying?
You can be disgusted all you want, and you are entitled to your opinion. If you had any real experience and training in law enforcement, you wouldn't be asking about non-lethal alternatives. I have explained twice, if you don't get it you never will. If you read the DA's legal analysis it is clear that Officer Moody was threatened by a knife, not the thought of a knife. Why do you insist Duenez was unarmed when the video clearly shows a knife in his hand, a sheath on his belt, and a knife was found at the scene. You're like an addict in denial.
You are a complete moron if you think ANYONE would think we need more officer involved shootings. I watched the video and I damn sure don't think so. How many have there been since June 8th, 2011? ZERO! Let's all hope because of this tragic incident and well-trained professional police, there are no more.
"Nothing matters but the facts. Without them, the science of criminal investigation is nothing more than a guessing game." - Blake Edwards
Come on Hoffman, when and where did you receive your POST certification(s)?
Allow me to correct you. Every word you post..."does not make for useful discusion."
You are out of your league here and your ignorance concerning the subject is painfully obvious. So tell us all about your POST certification.
I find the police report to be unconvincing in their findings. The whole justification is that he has a knife in his hands. I read the police report before I watched the video. It says you can clearly make out a knife in his right hand. For the love of God I can not see it, it looks like they zoom in on the picture and just circle where a knife would be if he was carrying one on a really blurry picture. They catch the images of the shell casings going extremely fast and point that fact out yet don't catch him throwing the 8 inch knife into the back of the truck as they say happened.
After watching the video I can not see a knife in his hand or see him throw anything after the barrage of bullets by Moody. What I do see is a man getting shot multiple times as he already lies wounded on the ground from the previous shots. What's even more disturbing is reading the police report and seeing that Moody kept pulling the trigger after his clip was already out of ammo. Which means if he could have he would have continued to shoot Ernest more times then he already did even though he obviously can't be considered much of a threat at that point. and he sits there and yells get on the ground get on the ground when Ernest is obviously on the ground before his Moody ever catches sight of his wife. I found that strange too.
After watching the video I think it might give some validity to what a member of the Duenez family had told me which at the time I had mostly dismissed. That being that Moody knew Ernest and went into the situation holding a grudge of some sort wanting an altercation to happen. You get a call that Ernest has a knife on him and is known to carry a gun and what does Moody do? He runs in calling him "Ernie" screaming "don't move or I'll shoot you" yet only moves in closer and closer as Ernest is stepping out of the car. Now I'd think that if someone told me a suspect was armed and dangerous weilding a knife that I would stay back, maybe step behind my vehicle, draw my gun(or taser which it seems cops use liberally today in all the wrong situations), and tell him to step out of the vehicle. It would also seem like if I felt like my life was in danger because I thought someone was weilding a knife and disobeying my orders to not move that I would not get closer and closer to the suspect as Moody does. This guy is a 12 year veteran and presumably knows that if he does what he did he can get away with killing someone. Watching the video and knowing the information that the officer knew beforehand it looks like he went into this itching for a fight, a fight that ended up being a cop shooting an unarmed man 11 times(and more if only he could).
Amazing how you get so offended when anyone questions your background, yet you personally attack me and make insulting allegations about mine. You are just a hypocrite!
"your own asinine conclusions and assertions belie your alleged 'experience'. Not only can't you walk the walk, you fail to talk the talk." Why can't I say the same for you! ESpecially odd since several people here including KarenPearsall and Capitalists_Nightmare and any people around the area, seem to agree with my and the Duenze's family's " asinine conclusions and assertions" as you call them.
"Providing canteen services for inmates is hardly law enforcement experience." Again, why can't I ay the same for you! Why can't I just say maybe you just read too many "Jack Reacher" novels?
"If you had any real experience and training in law enforcement, you wouldn't be asking about non-lethal alternatives." I do have real experience Bul153 and I AM asking the question. This seems like it could have been handled with pepper spray. Police and military pepper spray have an effective range of 20 feet. More than enough for this case with Duenez. I know for a FACT that NYPD procedure calls for non-lethal force for knife-wielding suspects at a distance. Curious what the MPD's official procedure is with peper-spray and other uses of non-lethal force as I could not find any online and I have no experience with the MPD.
Bull153, my qualifications are just as valid as yours - maybe even more valid as I have been involved not just blindly enforcing police policy and procedure but also creating it and improving it. I have also worked with Law Enforcement in several countries as you mention. This gives me a broad perspective on crime and laws and the different challenges facing different countries and even counties and states here in the United States.
If you insist on insulting and belittling my past experience, I fail to see how you can demand respect for your unverifiable experience. It is just HYPOCRISY here from you Bull153, plain and simple.
Stop with the personal attacks. It is making you seem petty, shallow, and overall hypocritical.
You hit the nail right on the head! Like I said, how can they see each individual shell casing but NOT THE KNIFE! How did Duenez pop himself out the truck WITH BOTH HANDS if in one hand he held a knife?
Also, he PULLED THE TIGGER AT DUENEZ'S WIFE!!! Seemed a bit "tigger happy" to me. As you say, if he assumed the suspect was armed, why not wait for more people or stay at a distance? This does, as you say, look like Moody went to the house looking for a figh - trying to act like some kind of cowboy. The whole thing was a fight Moddy could have avoided, but, at every chance Moody escaladed the confrontation until he shot someone 11 times including once in the face while the suspect was on the ground.
I agree with you 100% Capitalists_Nightmare ! Moody is lucky because I have the feeling that 12 random San Joaquin Country residents would agree with us and the book would have been thrown at Moody. The video tells the whole story.
To repeat - "You have not listed credentials, you simply stated you worked with Australian, English, and US correctional agencies. Providing canteen services for inmates is hardly law enforcement experience. I have provided expert testimony in Federal and State courts. I have completed law enforcement academy training in both the military and California. I've carried a firearm, enforced laws, and arrested people. Have you? How many criminal investigations and police reports have you written? How many times have you been certified as an expert witness and testified in court on a criminal case. How much certified training have you had in evidence collection, use of force, firearms, patrol procedure, interview and interrogation, or criminal investigation. Are you California POST certified in anything?" You do this EVERY time someone tries to vet your 'creds'... We all know you are Hoffman, et. al. and you get all upset about it . YET while you never admit it, you NEVER DENY it!
It is the same here. You can claim whatever you want - but I provide specifics while you can't even answer simple questions. The evidence speaks for itself - and you can be condescending, but you hate it when someone is equally condescending to you. The fact remains I can back up my credentials and experience, you can't. What real experience do you have? What police policy have you created or improved? Name just one! Otherwise you will remain just a bitter, uninformed know-it-all who really knows nothing.
Other people may agree with part of what you may say, but from what I see and read, they are NOT as convinced as you are. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and belief of what happened, but skewing the evidence or creating it to suit your position does not prove the truth.
You are a joke - I've held my tongue for 18 months waiting for the investigation to conclude. Now that it has and Officer Moody is exonerated, YOU can't accept you were wrong. That to me is hypocritical, cowardly, and factually incorrect. Then again, as long as I have dealt with you, you always have been. As you have told others... GROW UP!
“It's essential to tell the truth at all times. This will reduce life's pain. Lying distorts reality. All forms of distorted thinking must be corrected.” - John Bradshaw
Hoffman, I think Mark Twain had people just like you in mind when he said,
"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." - Mark Twain
Hoffman it's essential that you understand the facts before you attempt to distort them.
Having some experience with video evidence it isn't as easy and as clear as TV shows like CSI would like you to believe. There are so many factors involved such as the resolution and frame rate, distance from the camera, and speed of the objects.
I think the expert's opinion makes it pretty clear as to what happened. If you check the report, you will find the examiner did not determine how the knife got from Mr. Duenez' hand to the bed, but he offered an opinion.
People will see what they expect or want to see, and often not what is actually there. As is often the case, there are some disparities between what one part of the evidence shows and what another does. The fact is that 13 shots were fired, yet the video analysis claims 14 were fired. The video analysis stated that seven rounds struck Mr. Duenez but the autopsy confirms 11. The claim that Officer Moody kept pulling the trigger after the weapon was empty is disputed by the fact that there was one round in the chamber and one left in the magazine. Sounds echo, there are many things an officer has that are metallic, so there is some question as to whether there were trigger pulls or not. The forensic examination does not say anything about the weapon jamming or firing pin parks on the round in the gun, only on the expended shell casings.
Everyone has 20/20 hindsight. You say Officer Moody held a grudge and ran in to kill Mr. Duenez because he knew he could get away with it. I'll be polite and state that there is simply nothing that verifies any of that. Officer Moody was told Mr. Duenez was armed with a knife, possibly a gun, and he knew there were other people in the vehicle. When he saw Mr. Duenez moving around, he may have approached to get Mr. Duenez under control to protect the people in the truck. The evidence shows the female was pinned in the front seat against the dash - helpless - and subject to severe injury or death from the knife.
It is easy for you to say what you would do. I can only speculate as to Officer Moody's thought process. Officer Moody was alone, Mr. Duenez was trying to flee and a threat to others. Officer Moody acted in accordance with his training and experience, and was found justified in his actions.
You stated your opinion, I just don't agree with you. The evidence doesn't support it.
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd.” - Bertrand Russell
Regarding you comments to Capitalists_Nightmare, I disagree that he hit the nail on the head. The facts do not support it.
'Tiggers' are a wonderful thing, I think there is nothing wrong with being 'Tigger-happy'... Spell check is a wonderful thing, don't you think? You do this consistently, the madder and angrier you get the more your spelling and sentence structure go haywire. A classic Hoffman trait.
Officer Moody is indeed fortunate, fortunate that the truth has prevailed rather than your perverted idea of justice. Maybe now you can get hired as an expert in Somalia's or Bosnia's judicial system!
We are truly blessed to have an expert of your stature here that knows so much better than an in-depth eighteen month investigation including forensic experts, the coroner, and unbiased professional investigators. Thank you - bless you!
“Don't accept your dog's admiration as conclusive evidence that you are wonderful.” - Ann Landers
Your complete hypocrisy is noted. Again, you are personally attacking simply because I'm stating my qualifications and you choose not to believe them. Seems incredibly hypocritical given how you react when anyone questions anything about you.
It is also hypocritical of you to use such agressive and attacking language in your post directed at me. It makes your prior posts where you claim to want reasonable debate look incredibly disingenuous.
Feel free to blindly attack me all you want Bull153. All you do is continue to prove my points about your hypocrisy.
I'll be glad to give you another chance; please reword your comments in a less insulting and more discussion worthy tone and I would be happy to respond to you.
It's sad when there are some here that insist their opinions are superior to anyone else's.
Both you and I watched the video and very much saw what the family saw. Regardless of the outcome, it is sad that everyone else in the prison system does not get the same level of "pre-trial" investigation.
Also people like some here who distort the facts such as "The evidence shows the female was pinned in the front seat against the dash" making it sound like Duenez was being violent as opposed to try and get out of the middle seat of the truck. This amplifies the suggestion you make of not only Moody but some Police types "itching for a fight."
As before, lucky that Moody got the buddy treatment from the DA that he did. Otherwise, he would be looking at an uphill battle to prove this was anything other than police brutality at its worst.
It really is AMAZING how now that this has national attention the difference of opinion one sees the further we get from Manteca. The comments in stories published by ACTUAL news sites show an overwhelming support for the Duenez Family.
It really is shocking to me how few people in Manteca seem to care about this extreme act by the Police.
Mr. Hoffman, please state your point.
"By my definition, an unarmed person who is shot 16 or so times for no good reason by a person trained to carry and use lethal force was no doubt murdered."
I see, and what qualifies you to make this assertion?
"I worked with Her Majesty's Prison Service , Corrective Services in New South Whales, and The Correctional Service of Canada..."
Yes, but this shooting occurred in the United States.
"Well, I worked with numerous sheriff's departments and police agencies across the United States."
In what capacity did you work with these US agencies?
- Silence -
OK, what training and experience in firearms have you had?
- Silence -
Alright, what training and experience have you had in lethal force and the circumstances when a police office may use such force?
- Silence -
Have you read and are you familiar with California Penal Code sections 830, 832, 187, 196, and 197?
- Silence -
Have you had any specific training in ANY law enfocement procedures such as patrol tactics, criminal investigation, interview and interrogation, laws of arrest, self-defense - IN FACT have you ANY experience at all relevant to this assertion you've made?
"I watched the video."
OK, do you have any experience in evidence collection and preservation, forensic sciences, or video/audio reconstruction and interpretation?
- Silence -
Have you ever appeared in court and testified as an expert witness on any law enforcement matter?
- Silence -
Then, Mr. Hoffman, by what possible stretch of the imagination do you think you are remotely qualified make such assertions in the face of the DA's 18 month investigation and finding by recognized experts?
"I slept at a Holiday Inn Express..."
You see, I believe you worked for those agencies...I do! Just in no way, shape, or form, in a law enforcement capacity. That's the difference, my friend, that is the difference.
“For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert; but for every fact there is not necessarily an equal and opposite fact” - Thomas Sowell
First, calling me by anything other than my screen name and especially using "Mr." shows how wrong you can be about many things.
Again, you take an insulting tone here for no reason other than to attack me. I'm not sure why you cannot take my assertions at face value as you hypocritically seem to insist others do with yours. And frankly, I won't tell any more as you seem obsessed with me and I refuse to give you any personal information as your obsession with what you think you have is unhealthy to say the least.
My opinion on this is just as valid as yours. You continuing to insist otherwise and attack me is bigoted and hypocritical.
Trust me, I have been calling you a lot of other things besides your screen name.
A Hoffman by any other name is still a Hoffman. I asked you directly several times in the past to refute that you used the tag mhoffman, you refuse to deny it. That is good enough an admission for me.
I have withheld no details of my qualifications and have provided my credentials. You simply claim to have worked with these agencies. You claim to have been involved in writing policy, yet can provide nothing to substantiate it, for example the contents, the name, or the agency.
Hell, I worked with NASA while I was in the Air Force, it doesn't make me an expert on space travel or astronauts. All of the things you claim to have experience about are things I've done for years. Your credibility is zero when you can't even answer a simple question like 'What certified training in weapons and firearms have you had?" How can you honestly say you wrote policy and your sole claim of expertise is 'I worked with these agencies." I hope you are either gainfully employed or retired because that kind of experience on a resume' or in an interview won't get you a job as a ditch digger.
Your opinion is just as valid as anyone's, it is your level of expertise that is suspect. You are your own worst enemy - you whine and cry because you CAN'T defend your position. You can hide behind 'my personal obsession' crap all you want. The fact is, you are a liar if you claim that you have any valid law enforcement experience germane to this debate. You can provide substantiation without divulging 'personal information'. No one is asking for your name or license numbers. It is easier to hide from the truth than to acknowledge you are full of bull and the sole source of your expertise is what you can read and research on the internet.
You are a fool if you think anyone buys into your 'experience'. Doing laundry and stocking candy bars does not constitute valid law enforcement training and experience - we all know it.
“Credibility is like virginity. Once you lose it, you can never get it back.” - Unknown
“The more you are willing to accept responsibility for your actions, the more credibility you will have” - Brian Koslow
You stating "you refuse to deny it. That is good enough an admission" shows extremely backward logic.
Also you insulting AGAIN with the "Doing laundry ... " comment is sexist and immature given the context of my prior post. I asked before for you to refrain from personal insults. It is a shame you lack the integrity to have a conversation without insult. It shows a shameful lack of character.
You make claims you can't (or won't) substantiate and you say I lack integrity. Being responsible for correctional laundry and stocking prison canteens is not sexist - many men do it. It also isn't law enforcement experience. What is insulting is your lack of character in not admitting you are no more qualified by experience in law enforcement than I am in nuclear physics.
Ignoring the points of my post also does nothing towards improving your credibility - which is less than zero but easily corrected - if you wanted to.
Congratulations, you have officially become the 'Sheldon Cooper' of the MB blogs - Bazinga!
“How often it is that the angry man rages denial of what his inner self is telling him.” - Frank Herbert
Seems you have nothing to say to the many, many people who watched that video and saw horrific, preventable violence.
You continuing the incessant confrontational language and attempted insults along with your obsession getting anything you think is personal information about me is strong evidence to support my above theory.
You can attack me all you want. It won't change who I am, it won't change what I saw and it won't change my wanting to make as many people aware of the preventable death of Ernest Duenez Jr. as possible.
Hoffman in your ignorance you claim sexism as it relates to jail or prison laundry service performed by males and females. Why do you look at the world through sexist lenses?
Why don't you just come clean Hoffman? Your have nothing of worht to contribute to the concluded investigation. Grow UP!!! Hoffman,... You Can Do It!!!
Yes, yes I do have something to say. That horrible preventable violence would not have happened if the victim had DONE WHAT HE WAS TOLD AND SAT DOWN!
Personal information my ass. You can't substantiate your ridiculous claims of having valid law enforcement experience so you slink away and hide. You are a joke, you have no credibility, and you can whine about it all you want.
Ernest Duenez' death was preventable, and he was responsible for it!
“It is the duty of every citizen according to his best capacities to give validity to his convictions in political affairs” - Albert Einstein
I don't think standing up is a reason to shoot someone 11 times and then again through the face the drop to the ground. Perhaps you feel that is justified. I do not and feel we as a community deserves better. That police should be protecting our citizens not killing them. You claim to be an expert on police training; what part says to shoot a suspect though the face while they are on the ground?
Also again you are being hypocritical seeing as you chided me for a simple typo while you make a similar mistake here and personally attacking me and using foul language simply because you refuse to believe my background. The more you obsess, the more you prove your hypocrisy in thinking people should blindly believe your claims while others need to meet your seal of approva? That is absolute hypocrisy!
Finally, you saying that Duenez was responsible for his own death fails to acknowledge that Moody pulled the trigger. He did it 11 times and kept pulling until his gun wouldn't shoot any more.
Lucky for this family, an overworked DA in a crime ridden dump is not the last chance at at least some justice.
You are a complete moron if you think Mr. Duenez was shot 11 times for standing up. He was shot in self defense! When a police officer trying to take a bad guy off the street is confronted by an armed individual who refuses to obey commands to cease and sit back, then I and any rational person expects the officer to take the steps necessary to protect the public. If that means shooting a suspect until resistance is stopped, then that IS what I expect.
Chide my ass, your 'tigger' mistype - not once, but twice - was cute. Too bad your years of correctional experience didn't include having a sense of humor. What is hypocrisy is claiming something then refusing to provide one iota of substantiation.
Yes... Duenez IS responsible for his own death. The in-depth professional investigation done by the DA's office proves it. You obviously failed cause and effect classes. For example, if you drive too fast, then you cannot stop in time. In this case IF you don't sit back, have a deadly weapon, and lunge at an armed officer, THEN the officer will shoot you to stop you from getting away and hurting someone else.
Lucky for Officer Moody that professionals handled the investigation that exonerated him, and not an 'expert' like you.
“Nature abhors a moron” - Henry Louis Mencken
It seems all you can do now is attack me personally and cling on to typos. If that is what you are grasping on to that would seem incredibly shallow and desperate of you.
If you can't deal with the reality of my experience, but insist everyone except yours then YOU are the hypocrite Bull153. That is the definition of the word "hypocrisy" Bull153.
"and lunge at an armed officer" See, again you are just making your assumptions more important than others. Many, many other did not see Duenze "lunge" at anything.
Lucky for me -and many others - the FEDERAL justice system will now handle this and hopefully bring more answers to this use of violence.
Perhaps you would actually like to have a conversation about this without your insults and personal attacks. Unfortunately it would seem you are incapable of civility.
The only one incapable of dealing with reality seems to be you. Just like in the Rodney King case, you only want to believe your 'truth' even though Officer Moody has been proven justified.
A number of experienced professionals dispute your contentions. So just like I was told after Mitt Romney lost the election, 'Get over it'.
OK, we'll wait for the Federal case... you just might discover that in spite of your inexperienced conclusions, Officer Moody did exactly what he was trained to do, what he was expected to do, and what he was legally entitled to do.
You, sir, are the one who began this wave of insults and attacks - if you don't like my comments, don't read them.
“Nature abhors a moron” - Henry Louis Mencken
How hypocritical of you to say "if you don't like my comments, don't read them." when you can't seem to follow your own advice and attack my professional qualification simply because " you don't like" them.
Also hypocritical of you to have talked in the past about "waiting for investigations" yet completely dismiss a pending FEDERAL investigation.
I would very much like to have a real conversation and discussion here, but, your rampant double-talk makes such a basic conversation very difficult.
I dispute your 'qualifications' for two reasons. You refuse to provide ANY substantiation (citing privacy concerns - LOL) and when you do express your 'professional expertise' it is clearly apparent to anyone reading you comments you DON'T know what you are talking about.
Here is a classic example. There was a valid profession unbiased investigation by real professionals that took 18 months. I waited until it was released before making comments on the incident. There is a Federal civil suit pending - but at this time NO Federal investigation. There is no investigation, so nothing to dismiss, therefore you show your complete ignorance for all to see.
If you really want to have a real discussion and conversation, quit being an ass, quit whining, and make a comment that is really germane to the discussion.
“Investigation may be likened to the long months of pregnancy, and solving a problem to the day of birth. To investigate a problem is, indeed, to solve it.” - Mao Tse-Tung
Before ANYTHING, you seem to think Police shooting a person 11 times for getting out of a car - including once through the face while on the ground - is OK. I find both the incident and your nonchalant "business as usual" attitude disturbing to say the least.
Now onto responding to you childish post:
First, Privacy is a real issue, especially given you continued obsession with information you "feel" is my personal information. It would seem from a psychological perspective you are not handling the notion that I worked many Chiefs of Police, Sheriffs and Law enforcement Officials all over the world is impossible for you to accept. Amazing hypocrisy given that you claim to have so much law enforcement experience yet seem oblivious to aggressive people demanding personal information. Look in the mirror Bull153, wold you answer similar questions if I asked? I seriously doubt it.
Second, seems you are just unilaterally saying "you don't believe me" and that is good enough for you. How would that be any different than saying your military and police qualification are invalid because you are not providing the districts you worked for and your direct supervisor? I recall you FLIPPED OUT when I questioned your move to Australia. How is that going by the way?
Third, the above is more evidence of complete hypocrisy on your part.
Fourth, Two words about civil cases : OJ Simpson
Fifth, Your continued use of foul and aggressive language toward me supports my privacy concerns from my first point and also supports my prior statement that you don't want to have a conversation you want to get personal. That is just very low of you and you keep on proving me right with each of your aggressive posts.
Aggressive Police hubris and the simple answer guns provide is a major part of the reason Ernest Duenez Jr. is not still alive today. The "shot first ask questions later" mentality is the reason for allot of wrong and very little right. Why were non-lethal approaches - such as what is SOP for NYPD - how this situation resolved? Why was it OK for Moody to pull the trigger Duenez Jr. wife?
As before, luckily there is an independent investigation for the Federal case. Hopefully we will see more answers then the pile of questions left by the San Joaquin DA.
You obviously DON'T have a real understanding of police use of force or you wouldn't keep spouting this crazy 'business as usual' nonsense. If it were 'business as usual', explain why there hasn't been a shooting in Manteca since!!! You act like the police pull their weapons and shoot in every incident they have! Your prejudice is what is disturbing.
Now to your ridiculous rebuttal:
First, I doubt there is a single shred of personal information I have asked you for. I asked you in what capacity you worked for these agencies. I have answered that question. In the military I held every law enforcement position the Air Force has except for K-9 handler, although I did supervise K-9 teams and was involved in their training and certification for drug and explosive detection. In the civilian world I worked as a correctional officer, deputy sheriff, patrol officer, and investigator. Now, why can't you answer a simple question like that? Is it because you were not directly involved in law enforcement, and you were not a patrol officer, investigator, or deputy, but a nurse, counselor, or vendor?
Second, what is good enough for me is your refusal to provide any proof. Your statements about law enforcement are stupid on their face and demonstrate a lack of fundamental knowledge. You said you wrote a policy for one of the agencies, but won't even divulge what it was about! I wrote training manuals, training plans, and procedures for Air Force police officers while assigned to training and quality control sections. I certified street cops on how they did their job and tested their knowledge. You can't even say what your 'policy' was about.
Third, hypocrisy is not the issue. Posing as some kind of expert without any background is.
Fourth, civil cases and criminal cases are apples versus spinach. I have two words for you - doesn't matter.
Fifth, if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. YOU are the one who started this crap, don't try and act innocent now. It's not a matter of right and wrong, it is a matter of the truth versus your falsehoods.
The major reason Ernest Duenez is dead today is he was a hopped up felon who thought getting away from the officer was more important than the welfare of the two people he was with and even his own life. You can try and invoke NYPD procedures all you want, but this isn't the NYPD. It is always easy for you 'Monday Morning Quarterbacks' to condemn someone's actions without ever having the training or experience required to really understand police work.
Just to remind you - again - there is no independent Federal investigation, just Duenez' attorneys trying to find their own experts to muddy up the water so they can get a huge payout.
“The truth, of course, is that a billion falsehoods told a billion times by a billion people are still false.” - Tra*vis Walton
I'll prove you wrong buy playing your game in the same level you have responded and await your hypocritical response:
1) I never claimed to be a sworn officer. That is something your IMAGINATION inserted into the conversation. I have consulted with Police Chiefs around the world including and around the country in a variety of public safety contexts involving pretty much every area of public safety from dispatch, sentencing, incarceration, and post release. I am very qualified to discuss Police procedure as I have helped implement procedure in many organizations around the world.
2) My claims on my background are just valid as your claims. It would be very hypocritical of you to assert otherwise. My background has exposed me to many aspect of Police. Actually, my position as a civilian working to help shape police policy and procedure perhaps gives me a greater scope of view than a myopic officer. Especially true given that Police have been shown to be so bias in trials that they are one of the few groups outright exempted from jury duty in California.
3) Hypocrisy has ALWAYS been the issue with you Bull153. You continue to show that here by obsessing over my personal history as easily as you promote your own.
4) OJ SIMPSON. Also, if you don't think a $25 million hit to the MPD budget 'matters' you care less about Police than you lead on.
5) Again, foul langue and insults get you nowhere.
Feel free to apologize to me for insulting my background in your next post.
The reason Ernest Duenez is dead today is because Moody shot Duenez 11 times. Moody acted as judge, hurry and EXECUTIONER.
Just to remind you again, there was no "investigation" for the OJ SIMPSON civil trial. How did that work out for him?
1) I never claimed you were claiming to be a sworn officer - that you are not is readily apparent. I just wanted to know what relevant experience or training you have to make such ridiculous assertions as to what a highly trained and experienced police office should have done or wrongfully did. As I suspected, you don't have any.
You are simply a civilian consultant who thinks he knows more about proper police procedures that those who have had to use them for almost forty years.
2) Your claims are crap. What training and experience have you had to be able to shape policy and procedure? How can you say with a straight face that you have a greater scope of use of deadly force than an officer who completed an academy and receives constant firearms training and instructions on the legal use of force? By the way, if you really had any experience with real police work and the judicial system you would know that police officers are exempted from California jury duty NOT because of their bias, but because they already serve their civic court duty by being required to appear in court many, many more times than the average citizen. In Federal court, members of the military on active duty, members of police and fire departments, as well as 'public officers' of federal, state or local governments, who are actively engaged full-time in the performance of public duties, may NOT serve on Federal juries. Are they all biased, too?
3) I couldn't care less about your personal history. What I do care about is your portrayal of an expert in matters of which you really have had no experience nor training.
4) You don't get it, do you. The $25 million doesn't come from the police department. The city has insurance, they wouldn't take a $25 million hit even if they were to lose, and I'm pretty confident that at best they'll prevail, and at worse settle for a lot less than $25.million.
5) The truth hurts, doesn't it, Hoffman.
When there is something to apologize for, I will. Your alleged qualifications are insufficent, anyone can be a consultant without knowing squat.
Mr. Duenez is dead because he was stupid. You don't bring a knife to a gun fight. OJ Simpson was not a professional police officer acting lawfully, so for him, it sucked.
“We can teach from our experience, but we cannot teach experience.” - Sasha Azevedo
"Mr. Duenez is dead because he was stupid. You don't bring a knife to a gun fight"
That shows such ARROGANCE on your part is it absolutely disgusting! I would say you should be ashamed of your self but it is clear you have no empathy.
Also, your attack against me here proves you are a complete hypocrite. How can you dismiss my experience while insisting your baseless claims of experience are true and valid? What makes your opinion more important?
Another thing, your OJ Simpson quip proves my point about your DOUBLE STANDARDS. OJ was proved NOT GUILTY IN COURT! Yet, public opinion - yourself included - presume he was GULTY! So why can you rightfully have that opinion on OJ, yet I am wrong for having a similar opinion on Moody? Again, seem you have no problem do in yourself what you attack others for doing. That is also HYPOCRISY!
Seems you want to continue to try and attack and insult me to distract from this act of what I and other see as police violence and wrongful death. y not just say yo are lying about being Police? You have no "evidence" to support your claims.
Lucky for the families, the Federal case is still pending. Hopefully we can get rid of the police violence that people like you Bull153 seem to not only condone but advocate.
I hope you don't run out of stupid pills, or your posts will become far less entertaining.
It is the truth and you can't handle the truth. Trying to blame Officer Moody for what Mr. Duenez is totally responsible for is not going to work. I will never be ashamed of the truth.
Your experience is inadequate. Your consulting with law enforcement agencies with no valid training or experience shows how low some agencies will go to appear to be politically correct and appease the liberal mind set. You make the term 'consultant' so meaningless.
I could consult for a think tank on space exploration beyond Mars, but without any education, training, or experience in space travel, I wouldn't know thing one about what I was talking about - just like you. My comments are based on factual experience and anyone reading what I post can clearly see that I know what I am talking about. In your case, they clearly see you are an ill informed fool.
Again, you just can't stop yourself from lying! I never said OJ Simpson was guilty - he was proven innocent beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. The civil action only found him responsible for the deaths by a preponderance of the evidence - 50.01 percent. And you claim to be a professional consultant for police agencies. My goodness did they get taken...
You can have any opinion you like about Officer Moody - it's just the facts prove you wrong. I'm not distracting anything, I'm simply pointing out the truth to you poorly misinformed people. You should really consider spell check, really. You are getting so flustered your piss-poor posts are becoming even more difficult to follow. Or does your I-phone not come equipped with that function? Must suck to be banned and not be able to use your computer to post...
“The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity” - Andre Gide
Your whole attempted personal attacks here are again just a distraction from the horrific killing of Ernest Duenez Jr. It is also an amazing example of hypocrisy. On many, many levels.
If you continue to insist my qualifications are irrelevant simply because "you say so" then you really have proved my point about your rampant hypocrisy given you insist yours - and your post election travel plans - are valid at face value. Seem you think there are double standards; ones you apply to yourself and a completely different set you apply to everyone else.
Keep it up. The hole you're digging yourself in here just keeps getting deeper and deeper and deeper. Your negative, agressive attitude can only be fixed by you Bull153. Give maturity a chance.
Right... You are an excellent example of hypocrisy. On many, many levels.
Your qualifications may well be valid - just not for discussing anything meaningful in regard to police procedure and use of deadly force. You provide the proof every time you say something that is so patently wrong a rookie in a police academy would know it. My post election travel plans are proceeding nicely. It just takes time for the required security clearances, travel documents, and other arrangements to be finalized. It may be as late as the end of January or early February. Thanks for asking! Of course an expert on foreign travel and Australia should already know that...
The only hole digging here is by you - every time you spout off like some expert and end up sounding like a fool. That attitude can only be fixed by you, Hoffman. Give common sense and reality a chance.
“Never become so much of an expert that you stop gaining expertise. View life as a continuous learning experience.” - Denis Waitley
I'm very qualified to discuss police procedure and use of non-lethal force. I have been parts of profesional conversations discussing as such with Chiefs of Police and Sheriffs around the country and around the world. Your continuing to attack my qualifications just makes you seem like a hypocrite and a fool. You insisting that my opinion is not valid further suports my position that police - such as yourself - have a major problem with hubris and assuming that you - and only you - are right.
As for giving reality a chance, seems hypocritical you ask me to do what you absolutely refuse to do since you continue to insist I have no qualifications when you have no idea what you are talking about, don't know me and don't even know the real scope of my work. You just make blind ASSUMPTIONS - present them as fact - and the demand everyone believe your OPINION as fact. Again, just look at the name you call me. YOu INSIST you are right without any evidence aside from your own OPINION.
You attitude here actually gives insite as you sound ALLOT like this Moody case here where he ASSUMED Ernest Duenez Jr. was holding a knife and shot him 11 times for it. The investigation even leaves open the whole "MAGIC KNIFE" bit saying it can track each of the small bullet shell casings but cannot figure out how the knife got into the bed f the truck. MAYBE its because it was there ALL ALONG and Ernest Duenez Jr. never had a knife. If the knife went flying through the air after Duenez was shot, why can the video see the shell casing but not the knife?
Oh well, it is obvious to anyone reading this that you are so heavily biased toward Police your judgement is clouded.
Keep dreaming, Hoffman. You just keep reinforcing that you're the Sheldon Cooper here... book smart but reality challenged. I ask again what makes you qualified to have 'professional conversations' with these esteemed law enforcement leaders? Did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express? In order to discuss 'professionally' anything, you have to be qualified... and from what you are posting and claiming, you couldn't hold a professional conversation with the local dog catcher! To discuss use of force and police policy - you HAVE to understand something about use of force and police policy. You clearly DO NOT.
Scope of your work? Ok, Hoffman, educate me. What specific qualifications do you have? What courses of instruction or training make you qualified to dispute what well know experts in the law enforcement field contend? You have no experience, we established that when you admitted you were never a sworn officer so you have no clue what an academy teaches and what officers encounter on a daily basis. Doing internet searches does not make you any kind of expert...
My attitude? What about yours? For 18 months you spouted garbage about how Officer Moody was a 'murderer' and the DA was incompetent and lazy. Now that Officer Moody has been cleared of any wrongdoing by real professionals, you have the unmitigated gall to claim those experts don't know what they are talking about and you are right. The report clearly explains about the discrepancy on seeing the knife in the video. Of course, you are so much smarter than an experienced video expert who is qualified to not only testify in court, but to train others in the skills of video reconstruction and analysis. I have evidence of my opinion, you have your warped sense of reality... from the Hoffman Zone.
My 'judgment' is just fine, honed on many years of dealing day to day with the very issues you claim to be experienced in. Tell me again, Mr. Expert - what makes you more qualified?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." - Red Adair
"Fairness is not an attitude. It's a professional skill that must be developed and exercised." - Brit Hume
You are proving your hypocrisy here.
Your imagination might not like the reality of my past experience and qualifications, but, that just proves me correct again that you are a complete hypocrite.
You seem to have an unhealthy obsession with my personal information. Proves me right AGAIN that giving the same vagueness of qualifications you provided would not be enough for you. Again, hypocritical double standards from you where you don't have to meet your own criteria but everyone else does.
You say "I have evidence of my opinion" yet you can just summarily dismiss my opinion simply because "you say so?" Again, seems hypocritical.
Also, you continuing to address me by any name other than my screen-name is not proves you as a hypocrite - assuming your opinion as fact where other's cannot - but also proves my concerns about your obsession with personal information.
Now, get over your ego and stop being a hypocrite.
OK, the people here must be getting tired of the repetitive diatribe and your blatant falsehoods. So, let's make it simple, I'll just summarize the truth and we can dispense with further tit-for-tat stupidity until you actually have a true and valid point to make.
1) Officer Moody acted within the law and departmental policy and is innocent of any wrongdoing.
2) Mr. Duenez is dead because he was under the in*fluence of illegal narcotics, was armed, and failed to obey Officer Moody's instruction.
3) I am an experienced and qualified law enforcement professional with actual training and experience in the use of lethal force, police procedure and policy, and the criminal justice system.
4) You are a consultant - and are not.
5) I have always been Bull153 since I started blogging here.
6) You were Hoffman when I started here and have used a variety of identities including, but not limited to, biased, unbiased, abides, centralvalleymonitor, stop_ plagiarizing, try_thinking, and your latest - crimeriddendump. Hoffman you are and Hoffman you shall be!
7) I have shared my qualifications in detail to verify my professional credentials.
8) You haven't.
Yep, that about sums it up. Let me know when you ready to stop your silliness and focus on some reality and not your incorrect and false assertions.
"...you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - Jesus
1) You have a two part statement there: a) fine b) no he is not! There is a Federal trial still pending that could find him personally liable in a wrongful death.
2) Him being armed is questionable and non-lethal force was unvented for this very situation. Knife closing ranges are a key aspect to use of tazers and pepper spray.
3) How is your qualification superior to mine? Your whole obsession with your qualification is pointless ince our bases of proving yours is you simply "saying so." Hypocritical of you to dismiss other's qualifications as baselessly as you promote your own.
4) Many people who supervise law enforcement are not law enforcement. They - like me - are very qualified to make the same. Further, JURORS make the final decisions regarding trial cases. Are they qualified? How do you know that I'm not a Attorney just like the DA? Or are you saying the DA is not qualified too - which would prove my point? Again, hypocritical of you to think you have any more qualifications than I without any actual knowledge of what you are talking about.
5) Prove it. That is unless you are a hypocrite.
6) Prove it. That is unless you are a hypocrite.
7) Can't verify without more detail. Feel free to provide your full resume if this is so important to you. Frankly, I'm not sure why you are so obsessed with your alleged background. Who cares? I know I don't. I just see another NRA/Fox News Copy cat.
8) I have just as well as you.
It does sum it up: Your standards are fine when applied to other people, but, you refuse to apply the same standards to yourself. That is the definition of hypocrisy.
As before, you can attack me all you want. It won't change who I am, it won't change what I saw and it won't change my wanting to make as many people aware of the preventable death of Ernest Duenez Jr. as possible.
Crimeriddendump, If you are not HoffHole, Why then when posts are directed to Hoffman do you respond and reply to them? Answer: Because you are one and the same.
Read your own post!
Your salutation is "crimeriddendump" but the you use names that are not my screen name!
Why the obsession with identity here? Seems like a failed attempt at ignoring the issues by attacking the messenger.
Also, your post is crude and disrespectful. But, I guess this is what people of "The Family City" are all about ...
OK, I've presented the facts, you have presented your 'rebuttal'. Time to move on. The people here have seen enough and read our posts long enough to make their own judgments. Continuing to rehash the same arguments over and over does nothing to further the discussion or shed light on the truth.
The people here are smart enough to know who is viable and who is full of crap. They can believe you are 'qualified' if they choose, and they can believe I am not if they choose. But based solely on content and common sense, there doesn't seem to be much doubt that when it comes to this matter, you are far outclassed by any standard.
I find it amusing that you finally bring up being an attorney. I suspected you might be from the beginning of your inane rants on many subjects over the years. It explains a lot - your alleged qualifications, your lack of understanding of real police procedures (attorneys hire 'experts' to support their side of the issue), and your dislike of lawful and legal police procedures.
What would you get if you chained 100 lawyers together then dropped them off the Golden Gate Bridge? A good start. Do you know why a lawyer has never been attacked by a shark? Professional courtesy. Yes - I don't like lawyers. One of my best friends is a lawyer, and he hates them more than I do, go figure.
You have already failed the informal internet DNA test - You are Hoffman. Your actions and posts over the years are ample proof. One can try and hide, but no matter what name you go by, you posts all read the same. You simply can't change your writing style, there are things that are identical in almost every post you make. Your constant and consistent typos - my goodness. Your favorite overused phrase - "Odd how ..." Your obsessive use of 'hypocrite' and 'hypocrisy'. It is like a Morse code operator's 'finger'.
I wish I could pull up posts from your past, but seeing how you've been banned under every nametag you ever used by the MB and they deleted the content, I can't do it. But YOU know... YOU 'member! It is like a Morse code operator's 'finger'.
So, answer a simple question - have you ever posted on the Manteca Bulletin blogs using the ID mhoffman? Yes or no, simple response.
“It's discouraging to think how many people are shocked by honesty and how few by deceit.” - Noel Coward
PS - This has now descended into the abyss of absurdity, therefore I am putting you on time out. I'll be ignoring you and your insane comments until such time as you actually have a valid, debatable point to make. Enjoy the break.
The answer is simple... The 'greeting' is to crimeriddendump, but the content refers to Hoffman. What is more telling is he only defends himself by stating the obvious - Hoffman is not his screen name. DOH!
He has yet to simply state 'I am not and never used the screen name mhoffman. He is content to lie about many things, but for some inexplicable reason refuses to lie and say he is not Hoffman. Go figure.
“The identity of one changes with how one perceives reality” - Vithu Jeyaloganathan
“If you wake up at a different time, in a different place, could you wake up as a different person?” - Chuck Palahniuk
Your whole post absolutely prove my point about your hypocrisy and your OBSESSION with my personal information. Seems you have a major, major problem Bull153 are are starting to read like a cyber stalker.
Also, amazing how I maturely responded directly to your enumerated comments without any aggressive language and all you have to do to respond is try and personally attack and obsess over my identity. Again, this proves you lack the maturity to carry out a reasoned discussion with someone who does not share your views. In other words - BIGOTRY!
About your hypocrisy - I say I'm not this person and what would you do? You would just attack just like my qualifications that you can't seem to accept. Why would I continue to play your disingenuous game when your major ego problem prevent you from ever admitting you are wrong.
No, you live in a world of double standards and hypocrisy. The only opinion your seem to care about is yours, the only person you care about is you. Your selfishness is palatable both here and in your posts attacking 10-year-old sisters of murder victims. Attacking a 10-year-old to try and support your gun agenda is about the most COWARDLY thing I have ever seen.
Again, you seem DESPERATE to distract from the Duenez case As before, you can attack me all you want. It won't change who I am, it won't change what I saw and it won't change my wanting to make as many people aware of the preventable death of Ernest Duenez Jr. as possible.