wow. another one. good thing they installed those cameras, oh wait, they don't record. well then it's a good thing these officers have such sterling reputations, oh wait, 5 of them recently either pled or were found guilty of killing an inmate. oopsie!!!

Insert, "it was just an isolated incident" comment here.

Getting arrested can kill you. 

Homicide only means he died of something other than natural causes, Running from the police when you are high on meth and your heart explodes when they tackle you would probably be ruled a homicide, doesnt mean the cops beat the guy to death....

 and your heart explodes when they tackle you would probably be ruled a homicide,

Don't think so, unless (in your example)  the cops *WERE* beating.  Otherwise, accidental.

Homicide requires a killer and a victim.

"During restraint" sounds to me like a choke-hold situation.  Or possibly taser?

Lets see how blue we make this dude's face.

If that were the case the coroner would have ruled it to have been accidental Glad I learned something from watching "Dr. G Medical Examiner"...the cops had to have used some significant amount of force to be ruled a Homicide. So sad...a reason to be fearful of the people who are supposed to be protecting us. 

In a nutshell, homicide means death by the hands of another, as opposed to death by natural causes, or death by accident.  There are several types of homicide, including justifiable homicide.  This homicide, based on the facts as detailed in published news reports, appears to be justifiable homicide.

So, when can we expect these deputies brought to trial for 2nd degree murder?  Has anyone else noticed what a joke the Sheriff's Department has become since Sparks left office?  Wimbish and now Youngblood seem to be doing a fine job

StPaulSaint, you are an idiot. But that is just my opinion, based on your comment.

Thank God the coroner has some integrity! 

What the heck is wrong with these stupid KC deputy sheriffs!  I'm sure they probably tried to clean it up with their infamous "resisting arrest" excuse.  I hope everyone involved is investigated, and if guilty, prosecuted for their crime.

jewel, do you know who the coroner is?

An excerpt from the definition of homicide. Homicide is not always an illegal act, so although "homicide" is often used as a synonym for "murder," this is not formally correct.

I have lived in Kern County for 50 years and have never mistrusted or been in fear of law enforcement. If these deputies did wrong I am confident they will be held accountable. My opinion to this point is they did there job and it is unfortunate the suspect died. "You reap what you sow." Most of the comments here are obviously from the same bunch of malcontents that typically bash law enforcement and find it entertaining to go against society. I respect the job done by our cops and I am also aware of the difficult job they perform. Keep up the good work KCSO. To those of you who take pleasure in criticizing the good, I suggest you pull the plug on your computer and get out in the real world for awhile. Your opinions will likely change.

I have lived in Kern County for 50 years and have always mistrusted law enforcement.  I am even related to law enforcement, so I know from inside stories, that my mistrust is justified. I am not bashing true law abiding law enforcement officers because I know, and am related to some, but  I hate when officers of any department believe that they can take the law into their own hands. In this case, judge and executioner. The blurring of the line between law enforcement and criminals in Kern County is a common occurrence and this is just one more example. I'm sure the Blue Code of Silence is already up in full force. 

As usual, if this EVER does make it to trial, I'm sure the court seats will be filled with cops showing their full support for their fellow criminals. How lax must the law enforcement psychological exam be that there is a constant supply of unqualified officers on the street? Who is in charge of law enforcement over site? Why are our tax dollars used to hire these people? I agree that their jobs are difficult, but if they cannot handle that difficulty,  then they need to quit. Killing a person in custody, regardless of what you may think of him, is completely inexcusable and must be dealt with like any other similar criminal act. 

As long as law enforcement departments are charged with investigating themselves for criminal acts, these types of situations will continue. I am not a liberal, but I think that we need a Law Enforcement Czar to investigate and prosecute  all law enforcement related criminal acts. Each department is not capable of investigating itself. 

Well you must be telling the absolute truth if you are related to all those honest cops that told you stories.  I am sure you or they reported the incidents they told you about too.  Killing a person in custody is not completely inexcusable, it may be his or her own illness, drug abuse and or actions that cause their death.  And some times a person who is in custody does something that threatens the life of another and therefore must be stopped.  CIA, I have absolutely NO confidence in A SINGLE WORD YOU TYPE, no matter how many dirty or honest cops(you sure you diodnt mean guards??) you are related to. I'm not a name caller but it's hard not to call an ignorant person ignorant when they are so obviously proud of it.

CA Penal Code Sections 195-196 all deal with justifiable homicide. I hate to get in the way of your little witch hunt here, but if you guys knew the law, you would know that just because it is a homicide does not mean the officers involved violated policy or did anything wrong.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/c...

195.  Homicide is excusable in the following cases:
   1. When committed by accident and misfortune, or in doing any
other lawful act by lawful means, with usual and ordinary caution,
and without any unlawful intent.
   2. When committed by accident and misfortune, in the heat of
passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or upon a sudden
combat, when no undue advantage is taken, nor any dangerous weapon
used, and when the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.

196.  Homicide is justifiable when committed by public officers and
those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, either--
   1. In obedience to any judgment of a competent Court; or,
   2. When necessarily committed in overcoming actual resistance to
the execution of some legal process, or in the discharge of any other
legal duty; or,
   3. When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have been
rescued or have escaped, or when necessarily committed in arresting
persons charged with felony, and who are fleeing from justice or
resisting such arrest.

197.  Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
   1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
   2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
   3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
   4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.

198.  A bare fear of the commission of any of the offenses mentioned
in subdivisions 2 and 3 of Section 197, to prevent which homicide
may be lawfully committed, is not sufficient to justify it. But the
circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable
person, and the party killing must have acted under the influence of
such fears alone.

198.5.  Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
   As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant
or substantial physical injury.

199.  The homicide appearing to be justifiable or excusable, the
person indicted must, upon his trial, be fully acquitted and
discharged.
 

So the guy's death was a homicide, but that does not mean that it was murder or manslaughter. The coroner does not make the determination if a crime was committed. They only determine the cause of death. Now it is up to the department and the DA to determine if policy was followed or if policy was not followed and whether malice was implied which would lead to charges of manslaughter or possible murder. 

Of course you would think people would understand this, but obviously not.
 

Websters Dictionary defines "homicide" as:

"1: a person who kills another
2 : a killing of one human being by another"

That is all. This is all it means. There is no "guilt" associated with the word. Please educate yourself before writing ignorant posts about how the coroner is a hero for noting it was a homicide.

Another example of homicide: 2 football players collide in a nasty tackle. One is injured and dies due to head trauma. The manner of death would be homicide because the actions of another human caused the players death. Certainly not murder though.

The media LOVES to use "homicide" and "murder" as synonyms, unfortunately, they are not. So all this does is get the public all worked up and thus, increase viewers/readers.

Unfortunately, "nasty tackles" do occur in football, MANLOVER, and players do occasionally die (though rare). I have watched plenty  football for many years and yet, have never, never, never  heard of one of these unfortunate accidents called a "homicide".  Nice attempt to  minimize the situation, but poor example.   I agree that a media organization will sensationalize a story to increase readership. On-the-other-hand, if you are writing a story that brings criticism to your own organization, it will be tremendously downplayed.  Go back to the top and read the original posting. This is not the media's use of the word "homicide" . This is  a KCSO news release, generated by the KCSO, so imagine what really happened for them to downgrade to the word "homicide". When the CHP officer ran the girl down in the crosswalk recently, the CHP "news" release was downplayed to the point, one would think that the victim was at fault : http://people.bakersfield.c...

Makes you wonder what REALLY happened t that prisoner and if the truth  will ever come out. 

HammeredHead, I am not writing so that you will have confidence in me, I am writing because I am concerned about the poor choices that are being made as to who is going to be an officer. There needs to be a screening process that actually works, and I am not just referring to this incident.

CIA... This is a perfect example. Please read it again. I am not saying the NFL would call it a homicide but the coroners report would. I don't think you understand. There is no conspiracy. I know you truly want one but it isn't going to happen. They didn't down play anything. This is something call the English language. Read the definitions again. They are exact quotes out of the dictionary. How else do you describe the killing of a human being by another human being. You are mixing the word "murder" with "homicide".

What is being reported is the coroners report. The KCSO has no control over what the Coroner puts in that report.

Its sad that all you want to do is get on here and talk from a completely biased and twisted view point. The good news is I am 100% certain that the vast majority of the people that read this post will even give your "conspiracy theory" a second thought. I assume this because most people have at least a little common sense... too bad you don't.

You write "Makes you wonder what REALLY happened t that prisoner and if the truth  will ever come out". It doesn't make me wonder. The truth is out. The wife called the cops. The cops developed enough probable cause to make an arrest. They attempted to make the arrest and the suspect resisted.

The suspect created this situation. Its not like the cops just stopped, knocked on the door and started beating this poor innocent man. Come on CIA, you gotta be smarter than that!!

Oh, and very creative what you did with my user name... I am impressed (Idiot).

CIA = tool. Sorry, but we don't know anything about this incident other than it was ruled a homicide, which means he didn't die of natural causes. Once the facts of the case are out, then we will evaluate them and see if they are credible.

Also it is kind of hard to talk about conspiracy theories and suggest we  might never know the truth when obviously the KCSD just recently had 5 deputies get in trouble for murdering a person in custody. If there were a conspiracy, then we would have never heard about the convictions because there wouldn't have been a case.

Second of all, until we determine if anyone did anything wrong, how can a serious adult relate this incident to a lack of vetting or training by the KCSD? Answer: no serious adult could jump to that conclusion. Assuming that the deputy(ies) involved did something wrong because they were improperly chosen or trained is beyond foolish. People sometimes make severe mistakes in judgment. It doesn't mean they aren't a good cop or that they don't get good training, they just screw up. This also doesn't mean they get out of jail free either.

It completely amazes me just how ignorant the public is about the duties and policies of law enforcement. Yet they are always the first to whine and complain. I guess that just is a reflection of some people's intelect and mental capabilities.

ManLover, I do not see how you can drawn the conclusion that because I do not think that officers should be above the law, that now I wish for a conspiracy? What a fantastic illogical leap! You have no idea if anything is being downplayed or not, nor do know what any of the facts are, yet you paint such a rosy picture as if you did.  And you accuse me of being biased and having a twisted point of view.  

 ElJoto14 - "People sometimes make severe mistakes in judgment. It doesn't mean they aren't a good cop or that they don't get good training, they just screw up."  - Are you serious? If a cop makes a mistake in judgment and kills someone, you do not think that that makes him a bad cop, or at least a poorly trained cop? You write it off that they simply "screwed up"???? So then, they are properly chosen, properly trained, and they then kill an unarmed citizen? How many citizens have to be killed before you actually think that they should not be a cop? This is exactly what I mean, I think that there should be a better screening process. If the officer cannot handle the difficulty of the job, he should not be there; in fact, he never should have been allowed to be there in the first place.

I know that your law enforcement union will be proud of you ManLover and ElJoto14, but contrary to your wishes, I do not think that the general public believes that just because you have a badge, thatrpnz you are a saint, your actions cannot be questioned, that you are above the law, or that the public owes you some sort of gratitude that they will close their eyes if you break the law. I don't care what you and your law enforcement buddies think, the public does not support criminals...badge or not.

So tell me CIM, what better screening process should be put in place? California has some of  the most rigid standards for background investigations for new hires there is. Please share your expertise.

CIP, you have no idea what you are talking about, you have probably never been in a fight, much less fought with someone who is out of their mind on meth, PCP or crack.  Leave your protection to the professionals, you couldn't protect your chihuahua.  Kern law enforcement professionals put thousands of people in jail with no use of force and of the ones that have to be taken into custody by force very few are seriously injured.   Find a thread you have at least a little knowledge about so you don't come off looking stupid, I'm just looking out for you :)

MMALOVER...Thank God the KCSD doesn't have control over what the coroner publishes!  Why is it that every time some scrutiny is placed on law enforcement it provokes such antagonism?  Aren't law enforcement officers human beings subject to error just like everyone else?  Didn't we just lose a couple deputies for drinking and driving, and another to child pornography?  Bottom line, everyone should be held accountable for their actions regardless of your career choice, status, etc.  Maybe these officers were performing their job in the line of duty.  Maybe the deceased did expire because of unknown adverse circumstances.  Either way, a little scrutiny shouldn't provoke such animosity.    

HammeredHead, I have been in plenty of fights in my time ,but that is not relevant . Is this what you call professionals? What a low standard you set for your well being. I'm not talking about injuring someone while being taken into custody, I am talking about KILLING someone while being taken into custody! It's a homicide! That is unacceptable. I think you are mistaken, as usual, when you assume that I am against all law enforcement. There are a few  topics that certain people who lack reason, logic, and intelligence should avoid discussing with others. Those topics are politics, religion and abortion, but for you HammeredHead, I would also add law enforcement to your list. That probably goes for ManLover as well.

SpellCheckMate- my old nemesis. I hope you can stay on topic this time and not be worried about if I misspelled a word. Why is it SpellCheck, that everyone who disagrees with me claims that I have no knowledge of what I am saying, yet they are the All Knowing Experts? California has some of  the most rigid standards for background investigations for new hires there is. So please, tell me SpellCheckMate, What is your statement based on? And even if they are the most "rigid" standards, that does not equate them to being sufficient, it only means that the "standards" need to be revised. 

Yes, Jewel, law enforcement is a sacred cow to many of our law enforcement relatives. It's like I told HammeredHead, we might as well be talking about abortion or religion. They will not see the logic or reasoning behind what people are saying. They are controlled by emotion rather than intelligence.

There is nothing wrong in questioning if the use of force was justified. Society should be free to question the actions of their cops in order to make sure the cops stay within the boundaries of the law. Blindly trusting or not trusting cops is not the way to keep society and police in balance. Reviewing questionable cases and punishing cops who take the law into their own hands is society's way of keeping the police in check. There's nothing wrong with this. It's something any democracy should do to prevent it from becoming a police state.

As for this case, it's too early to tell if force was justified or excessive. It should be investigated further.

I am not surprised CIA that your reading comprehension is lacking. You are making the assumption that when police officers violate policy, they do so out of a lack of training or being improperly chosen. Again, that is a broad assumption not supported with any sort of citations by you. I have stated that it is possible when an officer violates policy, it could simply be because they screwed up. I then stated they don't get a pass on it. 

If you violate policy and bad things happen, you should be held accountable. If you kill one unarmed citizen outside of policy, you are done with police work. It really is that simple. Obviously if a cop cannot handle the job, they shouldn't be a cop. However, even the best cops can make mistakes and if they do, it does not imply, as you state, a lack of training or being improperly chosen. It just means you made a mistake. 

So please tell us what specifically are police doing wrong with their training procedures and which procedures you think will strengthen our law enforcement officers and their performance of their duties? Or do you just like to make generalizations and assume you know what in the hell you are talking about? It seems to me the only thing you are good as it changing people's screen names. What stunning brilliance. (I hope you understand sarcasm)

I don't support criminals either. I also don't support witch hunts by the ignorant public. You seem fast to think that this incident indicates there is some sort of policy violation absent of any facts other than the determination there was a homicide. You further go on to speculate this incident was caused by a lack of training and improperly chosen law enforcement. You are clearly not the sharpest stick in the bunch. 

We don't even know the specifics of this case yet. How can we possibly know the circumstances of this death let alone make such horrible speculative arguments that there is some greater cause? I guess only if we are so dim our only way to back up our statements is by changing around people's screen names in some clever fashion. I really wish mommy and daddy would keep the kids off adult websites. 

Thank you to the rest of the forum who understands there isn't enough information to make a judgment yet and that we need more information here before we can hold people accountable for their actions. 

El Joto14- "What stunning brilliance." , Yes El Joto14, I am brilliant..thanks for the compliment. Now back to the issue.  Jeez, El Joto, you sure do ramble on. I think we all got the point the first time you mentioned that the Homicide was not due to lack of training or choosing the right people to be an officer. You and the others are now just going in circles...and circles....and circles.  I'll repeat myself again....Why is it that you, Hammered Head, and Spell CheckMate constantly ask me for "citations", etc. for any little thing that I say, yet you never offer anything in terms of that which you request of me? In any of the ramblings by all of you, nothing is backed up, cited, proved, etc. ...it's just your opinion. You all claim that I have no knowledge of what I talk about (I do however), yet all of you speak as if you are "All Knowing" and should have the final word on the subject. Such blatant hypocrisy!

As others have posted, Kern County Law enforcement is not a sacred cow to the public. It may be to you, but for the general public it is not. If we want to question the actions of officers, we have that right. In case you don't know it, they work for us... the public. That means me, and that means you , and that also means the family of the person who they just recently killed. It's sick and pathetic that you and some of the others, without any knowledge of the situation,  want to immediately make excuses for the officers like: "people make mistakes"; they are only human"; "everyone makes mistakes"; "no one is perfect"; etc.  Why don't you go and cry these excuses to the family of the person that they just killed? Sadly though, I don't think that would actually bother you, or Hammered Head. It might even give you two pleasure so you could taunt the family by saying, " He was probably on meth or was resisting arrest so he deserved it !".  

El Joto14 -"I also don't support witch hunts by the ignorant public."  In all reality El Joto, it doesn't matter what actions you support or not by this "ignorant public". We do not care if it was a mistake or not, whether it was a lapse of judgment or not. When law enforcement kills someone while they are in custody, we want answers and we want justice!

El Joto14- "we need more information here before we can hold people accountable for their actions."  Are you typing from Mars? Here's the information that we do know:  His cause of death has been determined to be "Sudden Death During Restraint By Police".  The manner of death is Homicide. How much more information would you require before you would allow the "ignorant public" to ask questions about the incident????? Fortunately for society, you are not in charge as to when the "ignorant public" is allowed to ask questions about the incident or not allowed to ask. We want  the officers who committed the HOMICIDE to be accountable.

And finally, if it was not faulty training or lack of proper psychological screening that allowed this to happen,  what other choices are there? They did it on purpose?

CIA, I'm pretty sure changing ElRojo's name into a Spanish swear word is stll a violation of the "do not swear" blog policy. It would also fall under the personal attack realm. Perhaps you should go back and edit your comment.

Better yet, just keep them...

Thanks for the language lesson Swine, but I do not  speak Spanish. This is The United States and the official language is English (though one may not know that sometimes). I am not going to worry about all the languages of the world and avoid using words that may possibly be translated into something else. 

I am constantly being "personally attacked" by Hammered Head, Spell CheckMate, and El Joto14. In English for that matter, and you are now sounding off because my words can be somehow twisted into something else in a foreign language????  I don't know what to say so I'll just laugh in bewilderment. My guess is that the rules of the blog only apply to the English language. 

PS- the attitude you have in addressing me in your post is considered a personal attack in Bangladesh.

Nice try at a deflection and redirect against me there CIA. Too bad it fell short of anything resembling logic. Of course you know what the word means. You chose it when you used it for ElRojo. And of course I didnt email you. You're being facetious. And I didn't click report violation... until you reacted like a small child. Jason can handle this and you when he comes in to work tomorrow.

"I'm going to run to mommy (Jason) and tell on you!" ...And who's acting like a small child?

Swine, you really shouldn't be putting up these immature posts, and bringing up irrelevant  topics because you are distracting away from the real issues. Play "Hallway Monitor" on another post. Unless you have something relevant to say regarding this post, I'm not going to respond to you anymore. You'll have to fill your pathetic need for attention from someone else..

Could it be maybe he just had a past history of heart problems. Not everything has to be the obvious all of the time. You know there are such things as good cops out there. They do most of the time do there jobs the right way.

Animalluvr, we already have covered this earlier in the posts. We all agree that there are good cops out there, and the majority of them are for the most part. What we are talking about is that some of them have committed a HOMICIDE. We just want answers and an understanding of who, what , how and why. If there was a crime committed, we want it prosecuted and not swept under the rug. We also want to know how to prevent this in the future.

I tried to focus on the real issues in my first comment CIA. You're the one that turned this into something personal against those who did not agree with you and against me, even though I agreed this called for further investigation, since I pointed out that you were violating blog rules. You're the one that is derailing this discussion by your constant lashing out. And you're the one that is likely going to get this blog locked once TBC staffers come in for work. What a way to focus on the issues.

Well I' m talking about this, is that alright with you CIA. Shwaine is right your making this personal and have some serious issues and acting immature.

"MMALOVER...Thank God the KCSD doesn't have control over what the coroner publishes!"

I'll try again.  DO YOU KNOW WHO THE CORONER IS?  Look it up.  It's your homework assignment for today.

It's sad that a few of you interpret my wanting justice as a personal attack of some sort. I'll repeat, yet again for those of you who have not read this entire post (and some of you who have), Law Enforcement is not some sacred cow that cannot be questioned. If we turn a blind eye every time law enforcement breaks the law, they'll be no better than the criminals that they go after. We have a history of bad apples in Law Enforcement . Why is it that there is a movie about to be made describing Kern County Law Enforcement going nuts on a witch hunt for child sex-rings???? You all know the story. Law enforcement personnel broke rules, laws, and procedures. A CHP officer just ran a girl down in a crosswalk, and we just recently had FIVE officers found guilty of murder! I'm sure some of you made excuses for that group of five as well. I'm sure you also were insulted that anyone would question the actions of that Five when the news first broke. So here we are again. Here's another group that it was determined committed a HOMICIDE! 

I'm not afraid to question the actions of law enforcement.  I may be in the minority on this blog, but I know that the general public supports the questioning of any action law enforcement does that seems shady. They work for the public which means they work for us. We are the boss (and that includes me to the shock of many of you law types). If they don't like their actions being questioned by the public, then they should quit...as simple as that. If you take our money, you play be our rules.

This was a HOMICIDE committed by officers and the public wants to know who, what, where, how, and why. I also want to know what the records are for all those involved. Did they have a history of brutality? How many complaints have been filed against them? What actions were taken to follow up on those complaints? Were there any warning signs before this happened and if so, who was responsible for letting the problem progress? These are questions that should be asked, which I am sure they will. Responsibility needs to be taken. If everything turns out okay after the investigation, then great. The public feels that nothing is being covered up and we have a little more confidence in law enforcement.

CIA, you'll find the corruption and coverups everywhere, not just Kern County.  One of the biggest molestation ring trials happen in the Southland, not in Bakersfield. 

There are numerous cases of the LE here policing their own and NOT covering up.  Every time a prisoner dies in custody the forst thing people say is "they killed him" when there's nothing to back it up other than bias toward all LE.  It never fails.

Is there ANY proof that this man was mistreated in a way that would cause him to go into cardopulmonary arrest?  Or are YOU on a witch hunt?

Nancy, Nancy, Nancy...Try to understand this time. I am not saying, nor even hinting,  that Kern County LE is the only organization in the world that has corrupt officers and coverups. I am simply stating that we are not immune to it and that no one should assume that just because someone carries a badge, that  they are a sacred cow and their actions can't be questioned.

Like the others, you accuse me of a witch hunt just because I am asking about the details of the incident. Is this how you would answer the family of the dead man when they ask what happened, or if they ask for an investigation?

CIA, how do you know there is no investigation?  Why do you feel YOU should be privy to an ongoing investigation?

The actions of LE are questioned all the time.  In addition, I did NOT accuse you of being on a witch hunt, I ASKED you if you have any proof of wrongdoing OR are you on a witch hunt.  Note the quesion mark and not the period at the end of the sentences.  You didn't answer the first question.

CIA states, "Like the others, you accuse me of a witch hunt just because I am asking about the details of the incident."

No CIA, we are not accusing you of a witch unt for asking about details of the incident. In fact, where did you ask about details of the incident? I never saw you make that request. Here is what I saw.

"As usual, if this EVER does make it to trial, I'm sure the court seats will be filled with cops showing their full support for their fellow criminals. How lax must the law enforcement psychological exam be that there is a constant supply of unqualified officers on the street? Who is in charge of law enforcement over site? Why are our tax dollars used to hire these people? I agree that their jobs are difficult, but if they cannot handle that difficulty,  then they need to quit. Killing a person in custody, regardless of what you may think of him, is completely inexcusable and must be dealt with like any other similar criminal act. "

No where in there do you ask about the details of the incident. In fact, you claim killing a person in custody is completely inexcusable. Obviously we can give examples of where a person in custody produces a weapon and is threatening to kill someone and a law enforcment officer might have to use deadly force to stop the threat. That would make your statement false.  However, I digress as you never asked about the incident.

"This is  a KCSO news release, generated by the KCSO, so imagine what really happened for them to downgrade to the word "homicide". When the CHP officer ran the girl down in the crosswalk recently, the CHP "news" release was downplayed to the point, one would think that the victim was at faultt.

Makes you wonder what REALLY happened t that prisoner and if the truth  will ever come out."

I guess that might be you asking about more details of the incident at the end of that post. However, you already showed your clear bias that you think there is a cover up and that even if we get an official investigation, you won't accept those facts and will automatically wonder what really happened. I am mixed on if that qualifies as a simple, "asking about the details of the incident".

I could go on and on about your insinuations and generalizations. You seem to think that my name being a Spanish name makes me hispanic or even a Spanish speaker. You are wrong again. You think because I want to see the facts of the case I am with the police unions. Wrong again. You think because there was a homicide in jail that proves we need a better hiring and training process? Speculative to the extreme and without reference.

You specifically stated that this was a case of poor selection and poor training. I answered that it might have simply been a mistake or worse yet, someone just decided to use malice against a subject in custody. Either one of those cases disproves your statement that it was improper training or poor selection. That is the reason I made those statements. Of course you then improperly jump to the conclusion that I am using that as an excuse. It is no excuse. An officer that kills a person in custody outside of policy will be fired and should be rightly tried in a court of law. My point is that your original statements are wrong and cannot be supported. Of couse you don't want to acknowledge that because you are too busy rampaging about what I really think and what I really want so it fits into your world view. And you said you aren't a liberal.

Then you harp about how we never cite sources to back ourselves up. We don't need to! We are responding to your comments. You stated that this incident proves that police are not picked correctly and how they are improperly trained because there is no excuse to kill someone in custody. We don't even know what happened in this case yet! We have no idea if it really was an act of the wrong person in the wrong job or improper training.

I don't have to cite common sense. You do need to cite your sources for this being an unjustifiable homicide. You do need to cite sources that this could have been prevented. You do need to cite sources that this is an indicator of a larger issue of police misconduct. You need to clearly outline your ideas of how to prevent this in the future. Sorry, but I won't just take your word that police training is inadequate and I certainly am not going to believe you that this incident stemmed from poor training since we have no idea what happened other a man died as a result from being in custody.

If you weren't so busy being insulting and being so dense and obtuse, you would understand that we are on the same side here. I do question police authority and conduct. I am a civil rights minded person who knows the polce can and will abuse their power if we let them. I would love to hold the police accountable for their actions and remind them that they work for us.

I am just not so stupid to assume that this incident is necessarily a violation of policy. Until I have more details, I will not make a judgment on this case. You clearly have no problem doing so as is evident by your not once asking about the details about this case, but jumping to conclusions about what happened and attempting to make a correlation between this incident and a CHP officer hitting a pedestrian. Talk about the most vague evidence possible.

However, I will give you credit for this statement.

"This was a HOMICIDE committed by officers and the public wants to know who, what, where, how, and why. I also want to know what the records are for all those involved. Did they have a history of brutality? How many complaints have been filed against them? What actions were taken to follow up on those complaints? Were there any warning signs before this happened and if so, who was responsible for letting the problem progress? These are questions that should be asked, which I am sure they will. Responsibility needs to be taken. If everything turns out okay after the investigation, then great. The public feels that nothing is being covered up and we have a little more confidence in law enforcement."

That was an excellent way to sum up the way I feel too. I want to know more details about the incident. I wish you had just stated this in the beginning. We are in agreement at this point in time. It is too bad you had to be so insulting and dense at the start. Even though I have no problem looking past your previous errors in judgment and your complete lack of an initial, supportable point, you might have already damaged your credibility with others beyond repair.

Sorry for being away for a short period of time but, unfortunately, I do have to work every so often.

Nancy, I think you bumped your head. You did imply that I was on a witch hunt. I don't want to be the one to teach you the English language, but you make implications when you emphasize words like "YOU" . " Note the quesion [sic] mark and not the period at the end of the sentences." - You seem to know the basic punctuation quite well but once you get past English 101, you will learn that you can imply certain things by the way you put an emphasis on certain words (this would be known as tone in the spoken languages), etc.

I absolutely think I should be privy to an ongoing investigation because I am part of the public and this Homicide was committed by public employees. Not only do I think that I should be privy, but I think everyone should be. These are public employees, paid by our tax dollars, so when they commit a Homicide, I want to know the details of the investigation. This isn't complicated. 

Hello "EL" . Your big sister Swine just got the Rosetta Stone Language System for an early Christmas present and must be on the Spanish lesson. She seems to get her panties in a bunch whenever I post in response to you.

I am glad that we see eye-to-eye EL!  Hallelujah!!! I am not going to pick apart your last post and discuss what I disagree about it. If you are in agreement with me...I am a happy camper, and I don't want to turn you to the Dark Side. I feel like I've given birth!!  LOL!

I will say this about your last post, however. I disagree with you as far as damaging my credibility. The people that have disagreed with me on this post never gave me credit in the first place. They are so biased that they would attack anyone who questions the LE sacred cow. It doesn't matter what I say. how I say it, or who I am. If I post anything that would question LE, then they will be against me (or anyone else). These are the same people who, I'm sure, supported and made excuses for the five officers that committed murder..they will never see straight if you question LE.

CIA..were you gone?  I hadn't noticed.

You certainly learned blog insults very well.  You're right about one thing, you shouldn't be teaching anyone English.  The emphasis on "you" was deliberate but not an accusation.  There were, in fact, two questions.  Neither of which were answered.

"Is there ANY proof that this man was mistreated in a way that would cause him to go into cardiopulmonary arrest?  Or are YOU on a witch hunt?"

Do you think, without all the spite, that you might answer the first one at least since you find the second so objectionable.  I find it reavealing that you honed in on the second and refused to answer the first.

Nancy, I was gone and not only did you notice, you actually missed me. 

I hate to be the one who is constantly giving you language lessons, but here we go again (you really need to take a class). You stated- "The emphasis on "you" was deliberate but not an accusation." I already explained  that it was deliberate when you emphasised "you" and I am glad you agree. By using the word "Or" as in - "Or are YOU on a witch hunt?", you are ACCUSING me of being on a witch hunt. Follow closely....the word "or" is a conjunction, which means a connector. More specifically a connector of "alternatives". Typically it is used as : Either this.....Or that.", but there a many variations such as yours. Either there is "ANY proof".....OR, "...are YOU on a witch hunt?"  Your statements only give me two choices (alternatives). Translated...you are effectively saying, Either there is proof, OR I am on a witch hunt. It is not up to me to find the proof. I'm sure there is proof of some sort one way or another. If for instance, the proof was covered up and never shown to the public, by default I would be accused of being on a "witch hunt" according to your statements...even though proof existed.

I think that I answered your two questions with this post, but if you didn't catch it, I can repost with a simpler explanation.

From CIA "I will say this about your last post, however. I disagree with you as far as damaging my credibility. The people that have disagreed with me on this post never gave me credit in the first place. They are so biased that they would attack anyone who questions the LE sacred cow. It doesn't matter what I say. how I say it, or who I am. If I post anything that would question LE, then they will be against me (or anyone else). These are the same people who, I'm sure, supported and made excuses for the five officers that committed murder..they will never see straight if you question LE."

I don't think that is true. I will assume you are a rational adult that can think critically until you prove otherwise. So saying you want more information and you think that officer review should be done outside of the department being investigated makes sense to me. I might generally support law enforcement, but what you says makes sense.

Your initial jump into saying that this incident is a glaring example of what happens when cops aren't hired right and aren't trained right was wrong. With as little information as was posted, a rational person can't make that conclusion. Here I disagree with your reasoning for the incident, but I agree that police should be held accountable and that allowing independent parties to be part of that process will help alleviate the common perception that police protect their own.

I am sophisticated enough to differentiate between these varying situations. I can agree with you when I think you are right and I can disagree with you when I think you are wrong. I don't take any of this personal and evaluate each situation on its own merits.

Additionally, if we are to believe that no matter what I am going to judge you as a police hater, then I guess no matter what I judge you as an irresponsible, unemployed liberal who thinks that the police are oppressing you and you blame them for your misfortune. You will always be a cop hater no matter what the police do right or wrong.

That can't be true can it? There are decent law enforcement officers out there aren't there? Just like there are bad cops out there. Not every situation implies the police did something wrong no more than assuming the cops are always right.

I believe it is important to evaluate each specific incident for the facts of the incident. I don't like to jump to conclusions, especially when the media is involved.

And here I thought you were banned!