Pulling a Gun and Running from the Sheriff While Hispanic?

MortFurd said:
Or, stopping to take a look at something fishy at a spot where a near murder occurred the week before.




It's popular to bash the police these days, but nobody ever stops to see if the bashing is deserved.

I also find it interesting that the (near) murder drew no interest and was not even mentioned in interviews with the shop owner/manager.

I mean, somebody is shot on the doorstep of your shop and drags themselves inside while leaving a trail of blood. The police investigate (after getting a warrant) and find drugs and a weapon in the shop. A week later, the police shoot someone at your shop and there's no mention of other things going on - just the police apparently at random stopping in your driveway and shooting a "good kid" for no reason.
Click to expand...

Where does it say the shooting victim or drugs were in the body shop? It says in the same building.
 
So no evidence the victim of the police shooting or the owner of the shop were involved with the previous incident or drugs?

Racial profiling much?
 
William Parcher said:
Could the police have been in an unmarked vehicle, or do LA County Sheriff's Deputies not do that?
Click to expand...

No, they were on patrol. They were investigating an illegally parked car when they noticed Guardado.

I'm going with my personal theory that the cameras were already in a state of dis-repair and the owner is hoping to get them repaired at the expense of the taxpayers. But that is my own pessimistic viewpoint, and not based on anything other than it doesn't serve the cover-up theory to break the cameras. And if the area was bad enough to warrant security, the cameras would be a legit target even for taggers.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
So no evidence the victim of the police shooting or the owner of the shop were involved with the previous incident or drugs?

Racial profiling much?
Click to expand...

Noticing something going on at the entrance to the site of a previous incident and looking to investigate?

No mention of white police officers, (and you can be damn sure there would have been a mention if they were present) so who was doing the profiling?
 
Leftus said:
No, they were on patrol. They were investigating an illegally parked car when they noticed Guardado.

I'm going with my personal theory that the cameras were already in a state of dis-repair and the owner is hoping to get them repaired at the expense of the taxpayers. But that is my own pessimistic viewpoint, and not based on anything other than it doesn't serve the cover-up theory to break the cameras. And if the area was bad enough to warrant security, the cameras would be a legit target even for taggers.
Click to expand...


From above;

"A search warrant was also served on a third-party alarm company for Internet-based footage."​

The cameras may not even have been his. They could have belonged to this third party alarm company.
 
quadraginta said:
The cameras may not even have been his. They could have belonged to this third party alarm company.
Click to expand...
But he already claims that cops broke some of his cameras and possibly all of them. He's not talking about other people's cameras.
 
Cameras on his building front serviced by a 3rd party alarm company. Not uncommon.
So in that respect they are 'his' cameras.
 
quadraginta said:
From above;

"A search warrant was also served on a third-party alarm company for Internet-based footage."​

The cameras may not even have been his. They could have belonged to this third party alarm company.
Click to expand...

Captain_Swoop said:
Cameras on his building front serviced by a 3rd party alarm company. Not uncommon.
So in that respect they are 'his' cameras.
Click to expand...

100%

My shop security and surveillance system was installed by Signature Security Systems. They maintain the cameras and equipment, and they are who I call when there is a problem, but the entire installation - cameras, storage drives etc, belong to me.
 
Last edited:
quadraginta said:
From above;

"A search warrant was also served on a third-party alarm company for Internet-based footage."​

The cameras may not even have been his. They could have belonged to this third party alarm company.
Click to expand...

True, but under the terms of the lease, he may be responsible for them.

As an example, Nest Cameras only work with a google subscription. You own the camera, but the ability to record is limited to a subscription to a Google product. So if I were using Nest, then a 3rd party could be subpoenaed for the data despite me owning the hardware.
 
MortFurd said:
It looks like there's more to this than everyone wants to admit.



From another news site:



So there's more going on around that body shop that everybody involved in the protests is ignoring or not aware of.

You have a place of business where a shooting occurred and illegal drugs and at least one weapon were found, then a few days later you have the police stop at that place of business to see why a car is stopped in the drive way blocking traffic - and all hell breaks loose.

Looks to me like there's lots of room for dishonesty on both sides of this story.

-----------

As for the cameras supposedly being destroyed:

It seems that at least some of the cameras had slots for SD cards to make local recordings as well as sending the video the the recording system.

From here:



That provides a possible reason for the alleged destruction of cameras.
Click to expand...
Destroying the cameras still doesn't make sense to me. Confiscating them and any device that stored the video makes sense. But destroying them after the fact doesn't. You can remove the cameras without breaking them.
 
The owner is a close friend of the victim and it's revealed in early quotes from him. He says that the cops had him on his knees with hands up and a cop shot him 7 times in the back.

The family of the victim says he was killed while running away.

Everything is odd.
 
When the police routinely lie in incidents such as these, why should we believe a ******* word they say about ANY aspect of this case, without corroborating evidence?
 
William Parcher said:
Two things come to mind.

1) The police broke the cameras for unknown reasons and it was just like the shop manager said.
2) The police did not break the cameras and the shop manager is not telling the truth.
Click to expand...

3) The broke the cameras so when they destroyed the footage they could say the cameras were broken before they got there, so of course there was no footage.
 
The police shouldn't be allowed to confiscate any video in cases involving themselves. The FBI should come in to investigate officer involved shootings.
 
William Parcher said:
Who told them he was running away when shot?
Click to expand...

I don’t know but I would guess the cops or someone else in the criminal justice system, such as the local prosecutor’s office. They are usually the first people to officially notify the families, aren’t they?
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
So no evidence the victim of the police shooting or the owner of the shop were involved with the previous incident or drugs?

Racial profiling much?
Click to expand...

Indeed the police referred to the previous alleged incident as occurring in “one” of the businesses at that address. Does anyone doubt that if it occurred at the same business as the shop owner, or in anyway involved the shop owner or victim of the police shooting, that would not have been prominently heralded in the police statement? The usual police response is to throw as much dirt on the victims and witnesses as possible. They would use all the dirt they had or could in any way create by distorting the truth. Here they appear to so far have been able to brew a very, very weak concoction at best.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom