PDA

View Full Version : CA - Couple plans to sue after cops open fire on home without cause.




Anti Federalist
06-21-2011, 07:07 AM
Couple alleges Long Beach police violated civil rights with shooting

June 20, 2011 | Susan Valot | KPCC

http://www.scpr.org/news/2011/06/20/couple-alleges-long-beach-police-violated-civil-ri/

A Long Beach couple says it plans to sue the Long Beach Police Department in the wake of an officer-involved shooting last month. Members of an activist organization made the announcement today outside the Long Beach Police Department.

On the evening of May 14th, Elizabeth Bustamante says she and her fiancé, Jonathan Cabrera, had returned home after a day of church activities. She says they heard a knock on the door.

"My fiancé answered the door," Bustamante says. "I heard the door slam. I said, 'What happened?' He said, 'The police are at the door.' I didn’t know at that time, they had pointed a gun to his face."

Bustamante says her fiancé told her to get dressed. That’s when she says Long Beach police officers opened fire on her home with no warning.

"I counted over 30 bullet holes in my house. At that time, there was the bullet holes... riddled throughout the whole house," Bustamante says. "There was no focus and it went through my window. There was never entrance to my home."

Bullets hit Bustamante’s fiancé, Jonathan Cabrera, in the torso and arm. He survived, but now he faces charges that he resisted arrest and didn’t comply with police officers.

Police say they responded to an anonymous domestic violence call and that Cabrera was not cooperative and threatened to kill them. Officers say they shot when they thought Cabrera was trying to pull out a weapon.

Bustamante denies that.

Doug Kauffman is with the Long Beach Campaign to Stop Police Violence. It’s working with Cabrera and Bustamante to overturn the charges.

"The problems with the Long Beach Police Department are entrenched and all you have to do is look at the statistics to know this," Kauffman says. "In 2009, there were 17 people shot by Long Beach police and a couple of years before that, there was 14. The average is 12 a year who are shot by Long Beach police, the majority of which are unarmed and innocent people."

Kauffman’s group started after Long Beach police shot and killed a man named Doug Zerby outside a home on Ocean Avenue last December.

In that case, police say they thought Zerby was coming at them with a gun. It turned out to be a garden hose nozzle.

Kauffman sayys he wants justice for the shooting victims.

"In particular, having all the charges against them dropped, having the people who are responsible for Doug Zerby’s death, the people who are responsible for shooting Jonathan and the people who are responsible for the tazings and beatings of the other victims we’re working with to be brought to justice," Kauffman says. "They should not be on the force. Really, they should be facing criminal charges."

Kauffman says he wants reform in the Long Beach Police Department.

The Long Beach Police Department says it won't release any additional information about the Cabrera case until its investigation is complete. The police officers involved maintain that opened fire in self defense, when they thought the man inside the home had pulled a gun on them.

specsaregood
06-21-2011, 07:12 AM
"The problems with the Long Beach Police Department are entrenched and all you have to do is look at the statistics to know this," Kauffman says. "In 2009, there were 17 people shot by Long Beach police and a couple of years before that, there was 14. The average is 12 a year who are shot by Long Beach police, the majority of which are unarmed and innocent people."

Yes, I too think it is safe to say there is a problem if the MAJORITY of people shot in your town by cops are UNARMED and INNOCENT.

Krugerrand
06-21-2011, 07:30 AM
Yes, I too think it is safe to say there is a problem if the MAJORITY of people shot in your town by cops are UNARMED and INNOCENT.


Hey, if you want to be safe, sometimes you have to accept being shot and killed to make that happen! :eek: ... or something like that. :confused:

Danke
06-21-2011, 08:23 AM
"its really just the bad apples that give the other 5% a bad name" AK

aGameOfThrones
06-21-2011, 01:32 PM
Police say they responded to an anonymous domestic violence call

Sheesh!


Bullets hit Bustamante’s fiancé, Jonathan Cabrera, in the torso and arm. He survived, but now he faces charges that he resisted arrest and didn’t comply with police officers.

So he decided to save his life and resisted getting more bullets in him, ergo charge him with a crime.


and that Cabrera was not cooperative and threatened to kill them.

I call bull shit on that^^^. In any case, this is what they are taught...



"If you see something that just looks like a gun, you're going to shoot," Smith said after the Glassell Park shooting. "That's what you're trained to do. Your mind doesn't have enough time to process whether it's a real gun or a fake gun."
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?297220-LAPD-wants-stricter-regulations-on-...-toy-guns

youngbuck
06-21-2011, 02:09 PM
An encounter with a cop is far more dangerous than with the criminals that the cops are supposedly protecting us from.

FreedomProsperityPeace
06-21-2011, 05:42 PM
Even if he was resisting arrest and going for a gun, they shouldn't have just opened fire randomly into a house. They didn't know if there were children in there. They should have drawn back to their cars and treated it like a hostage situation IMO.

HOLLYWOOD
06-21-2011, 05:54 PM
US Citizens are collateral damage... after we take their tax money.

enjerth
06-21-2011, 06:19 PM
I have a problem with police pointing their guns at people in the first place, especially before the "suspect" has show any aggression.

You don't point a gun at someone unless you have good reason to believe you may need to fire on that individual, to protect yourself and/or others against the threat of grave bodily harm.

If an officer can be charged with murder for shooting and killing an unarmed person, wouldn't it be fair to say that, rewinding the events to just before the officer opened fire, the individual has a right to self defense against the threat posed by that officer? If so, then isn't it true that at any time an officer points a gun at anyone who is not posing a threat of grave bodily harm to someone else, that person also has the immediate right to defend themselves against the officer's unjustifiable show of deadly force? And if anyone has that right, then shouldn't it be counted as an offense for an officer to ever point a gun at such an individual?

A firearm should never be used as leverage in a confrontation that poses little or no threat of grave bodily harm. It is unjustified and may cause the confrontation to turn deadly.

Krugerrand
06-22-2011, 06:04 AM
I have a problem with police pointing their guns at people in the first place, especially before the "suspect" has show any aggression.

You don't point a gun at someone unless you have good reason to believe you may need to fire on that individual, to protect yourself and/or others against the threat of grave bodily harm.

If an officer can be charged with murder for shooting and killing an unarmed person, wouldn't it be fair to say that, rewinding the events to just before the officer opened fire, the individual has a right to self defense against the threat posed by that officer? If so, then isn't it true that at any time an officer points a gun at anyone who is not posing a threat of grave bodily harm to someone else, that person also has the immediate right to defend themselves against the officer's unjustifiable show of deadly force? And if anyone has that right, then shouldn't it be counted as an offense for an officer to ever point a gun at such an individual?

A firearm should never be used as leverage in a confrontation that poses little or no threat of grave bodily harm. It is unjustified and may cause the confrontation to turn deadly.

This post should be required reading. I hope it brings you lots of REP.

Jake Ralston
06-22-2011, 06:17 AM
Some great comments here so far. Enjerth you bring up an especially good point.


Police say they responded to an anonymous domestic violence call and that Cabrera was not cooperative and threatened to kill them. Officers say they shot when they thought Cabrera was trying to pull out a weapon.

Bustamante denies that.

What disturbs me about the above quote (not that its anything new...) is that the Cops word is ALWAYS taken over the Mundanes.

Krugerrand
06-22-2011, 06:25 AM
Some great comments here so far. Enjerth you bring up an especially good point.



What disturbs me about the above quote (not that its anything new...) is that the Cops word is ALWAYS taken over the Mundanes.

For a start, it would be nice when video evidence obviously shows police to be wrong that they get prosecuted for falsifying a police report and perjury if under oath.

Luciconsort
06-22-2011, 06:31 AM
I'm so glad the cops here are underfunded and lazy... I used to complain that they we underfunded and lazy... boy was I uninformed lol

Jake Ralston
06-22-2011, 06:34 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_affairs_(law_enforcement)

Do they operate under an umbrella of secrecy? Or do they just sit on their asses all day and avoid cases?

Seraphim
06-22-2011, 06:49 AM
This is riddled with truth.

So sad...


US Citizens are collateral damage... after we take their tax money.

Luciconsort
06-22-2011, 08:05 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_affairs_(law_enforcement)

Do they operate under an umbrella of secrecy? Or do they just sit on their asses all day and avoid cases?
sit on their asses and try not to shoot themselves in the foot... and stop you for seatbelts.
My bro has 2 warrants and everyone knows it... he walks around town all day. been doin that for months. it's priceless :)

osan
06-22-2011, 09:21 AM
US Citizens are collateral damage... after we take their tax money.

Until we begin taking unequivocal steps to stop police, the situations will continue to grow in numbers and severity.

Pericles
06-22-2011, 09:30 AM
Until we begin taking unequivocal steps to stop police, the situations will continue to grow in numbers and severity.
The one advantage US citizens have over most of the rest of the world is that much of the "collateral damage" has the capability of shooting back.

pcosmar
06-22-2011, 09:50 AM
The one advantage US citizens have over most of the rest of the world is that much of the "collateral damage" has the capability of shooting back.

Capability,
but as yet, lack the will to do so.

Americans need to take the streets back. And the courts.
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

flightlesskiwi
06-22-2011, 10:21 AM
I have a problem with police pointing their guns at people in the first place, especially before the "suspect" has show any aggression.

You don't point a gun at someone unless you have good reason to believe you may need to fire on that individual, to protect yourself and/or others against the threat of grave bodily harm.

If an officer can be charged with murder for shooting and killing an unarmed person, wouldn't it be fair to say that, rewinding the events to just before the officer opened fire, the individual has a right to self defense against the threat posed by that officer? If so, then isn't it true that at any time an officer points a gun at anyone who is not posing a threat of grave bodily harm to someone else, that person also has the immediate right to defend themselves against the officer's unjustifiable show of deadly force? And if anyone has that right, then shouldn't it be counted as an offense for an officer to ever point a gun at such an individual?

A firearm should never be used as leverage in a confrontation that poses little or no threat of grave bodily harm. It is unjustified and may cause the confrontation to turn deadly.

this is solid, rational, logical thinking. therefore, it must be rejected at all costs!!

(although i enjoyed reading it. +rep)

osan
06-22-2011, 01:06 PM
The one advantage US citizens have over most of the rest of the world is that much of the "collateral damage" has the capability of shooting back.

And it means nothing if we do not use it. The situation is difficult - a bunch of cops shows up to your neighbor's door and a ruckus ensues. Do you rush to their aid? You risk getting shot or being dragged into "the system" - as if that were not bad enough... you may not know whether the cops have a legitimate purpose doing what they are doing, not that I deem them ever to be legit, mind you.

But there appear to be definite circumstances when cops are clearly in the wrong, yet it seems nobody ever comes to the aid of the victims. Bearing arms means nothing if we sit idly by and allow the tyrants and their lapdogs to run roughshod over us and our neighbors.

Krugerrand
06-22-2011, 01:11 PM
And it means nothing if we do not use it. The situation si difficult - a bunch of cops shows up to your meaighbor's door and a ruckus ensues. Do you rush to their aid? You risk getting shot or being dragged into "the system" - as if that were not bad enough... you may not know whether the cops have a legitimate purpose doing what they are doing, not that I deem them ever to be legit, mind you.

But there appear to be definite circumstances when cops are clearly in the wrong, yet it seems nobody ever comes to the aid of the victims. Bearing arms means nothing if we sit idly by and allow the tyrants and their lapdogs to run roughshod over us and our neighbors.

I think it most practically boils down to forcing the police administrators and the judges to not let law breaking cops off the hook.

Pericles
06-22-2011, 01:55 PM
And it means nothing if we do not use it. The situation si difficult - a bunch of cops shows up to your meaighbor's door and a ruckus ensues. Do you rush to their aid? You risk getting shot or being dragged into "the system" - as if that were not bad enough... you may not know whether the cops have a legitimate purpose doing what they are doing, not that I deem them ever to be legit, mind you.

But there appear to be definite circumstances when cops are clearly in the wrong, yet it seems nobody ever comes to the aid of the victims. Bearing arms means nothing if we sit idly by and allow the tyrants and their lapdogs to run roughshod over us and our neighbors.

True If you are the object of the raid, you are likely to have a bad day. To come to the aid of a neighbor is a much better situation. Anybody in the combat arms can tell you what effect it has on an attack to get fire from an unexpected direction, and even more disruptive if the fire is accurate and powerful.

These SWAT guys seem not to look around very much .... :D

[You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.] < Bummer that <

flightlesskiwi
06-22-2011, 02:19 PM
True If you are the object of the raid, you are likely to have a bad day. To come to the aid of a neighbor is a much better situation. Anybody in the combat arms can tell you what effect it has on an attack to get fire from an unexpected direction, and even more disruptive if the fire is accurate and powerful.

These SWAT guys seem not to look around very much .... :D

[You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.] < Bummer that <

i would like Pericles for my neighbor.

speaking of neighbors, this article popped up as a front page earlier today. (disclaimer: i am NOT advocating "hate" or "violence" by any means, but it seems yahoo! news cannot distinguish between the ideals of "hateful violence promoting" and "individual rights". big surprise.)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110622/ap_on_re_us/us_hate_groups_fertile_ground