Do you think he'd have any options working in a place where things are pretty quiet (i.e., going to a retirement community in Florida where there's little to no crime, etc.)? I'm asking because I'm honestly curious and JumperDad's quote about him trucking had me wondering.

 

I would guess that lots of people with ex-military and/or policework in their backgrounds could go to a quieter venue on the private side working security for businesses, etc.

 

I'm sure that some businesses would be afraid that they'd be demonized for hiring him right away though, which is unfair to him if he's acquitted.

 

Anything is possible I guess but it isn't easy to up and move to another state when you have bills and things in one place. He'd have to get hired, if it's another police agency in another state he'd probably have to go through another academy...

 

A question I have...would he have a civil case if he could prove he did nothing wrong? A case against people like Sharpton that have made claims that he murdered an innocent teen? I mean he could probably prove it's cost him his job, home etc right?

No way he works in law enforcement again. Maybe private security or something like that but never with the public. I doubt he'll even want to be in the public again for a long time. It would be impossible to stay in the area no matter the length of time that passes.

Here is something I thought of, How much of the riots and protest are still some blow back from the Zimmerman trial?

 

If Zimmerman had been found guilty, would their be as much upheaval now from the black community?

 

I'm not saying that there is or isn't, just asking.

 

Two different scenarios. Whole different ballgame when the perception is a cop killed an innocent black kid with his hands up. I think some people mention Trayvon Martin and use it to fuel the fire but overall I think they have minimal effect on one another.

Two different scenarios. Whole different ballgame when the perception is a cop killed an innocent black kid with his hands up. I think some people mention Trayvon Martin and use it to fuel the fire but overall I think they have minimal effect on one another.

Yeah two completely different scenarios...just wonder how much of the "Enough is enough" feelings help fuel the fire on this case.

Yeah two completely different scenarios...just wonder how much of the "Enough is enough" feelings help fuel the fire on this case.

 

I say none. If it was in Florida it would be different maybe.

Anything is possible I guess but it isn't easy to up and move to another state when you have bills and things in one place. He'd have to get hired, if it's another police agency in another state he'd probably have to go through another academy...

 

A question I have...would he have a civil case if he could prove he did nothing wrong? A case against people like Sharpton that have made claims that he murdered an innocent teen? I mean he could probably prove it's cost him his job, home etc right?

 

Most of the stuff, probably not, ironically, by the same things like sovereign immunity that would protect a police department if he were guilty. Sovereign immunity is what usually protects prosecutors, etc. from liability once it's found out that they've wrongfully imprisoned someone, etc.

 

Really hard to sue the government as an entity, and those are the people prosecuting him and where all the fingers would point if he tried.

 

If he were going to sue Sharpton or someone similar, given the fact that he's now probably going to be considered a public figure, he'd have to prove maliciousness (i.e., that they knew what they were saying was wrong and still did it anyway). Pretty tough standard to overcome when it comes to public figures, policy reasons being that the courts don't want people pulling punches against people like elected officials, etc.

 

If he weren't considered a public figure, then maybe things would be different, but given the attention that this case has gotten and the like, my guess would be that he's considered one.

 

If he points a finger at someone like Sharpton and has a chance of proving his case, then Sharpton or whomever can just point it back at his prosecution, saying that if it were as the officer claims, then the information he relied on from police activity shouldn't have happened, and that because he was relying on that and that the system wouldn't convict an innocent man, and but for them, then he wouldn't have said anything.

 

Most of the stuff, probably not, ironically, by the same things like sovereign immunity that would protect a police department if he were guilty. Sovereign immunity is what usually protects prosecutors, etc. from liability once it's found out that they've wrongfully imprisoned someone, etc.

 

Really hard to sue the government as an entity, and those are the people prosecuting him and where all the fingers would point if he tried.

 

If he were going to sue Sharpton or someone similar, given the fact that he's now probably going to be considered a public figure, he'd have to prove maliciousness (i.e., that they knew what they were saying was wrong and still did it anyway). Pretty tough standard to overcome when it comes to public figures, policy reasons being that the courts don't want people pulling punches against people like elected officials, etc.

 

If he weren't considered a public figure, then maybe things would be different, but given the attention that this case has gotten and the like, my guess would be that he's considered one.

 

If he points a finger at someone like Sharpton and has a chance of proving his case, then Sharpton or whomever can just point it back at his prosecution, saying that if it were as the officer claims, then the information he relied on from police activity shouldn't have happened, and that because he was relying on that and that the system wouldn't convict an innocent man, and but for them, then he wouldn't have said anything.

 

Sharpton has been sued before for something similar right? An alleged rape case a while back.

Sharpton has been sued before for something similar right? An alleged rape case a while back.

 

You would be referring to the Tawanna Brawley case.

Sharpton has been sued before for something similar right? An alleged rape case a while back.

 

That was pretty long ago and I'd imagine that lots has changed since. IIRC, that was in the late 80's if it's the Tawanna Bradley thing.

To add to the above: not saying that suing someone like Sharpton would be impossible, just that it's probably going to be a pretty steep uphill battle.

To add to the above: not saying that suing someone like Sharpton would be impossible, just that it's probably going to be a pretty steep uphill battle.

 

Sue someone who is broke is dumb.

Sue someone who is broke is dumb.

 

Truer words have never been spoken.

Truer words have never been spoken.

 

To be clear, I was not saying he should sue Sharpton. Just wondering if he'd have a case against someone like Sharpton.

FBI arrests two would-be Ferguson bomb suspects: law enforcement source | Reuters

 

Against this backdrop of heightened tensions, according to a law enforcement source, two men described as reputed members of a militant group called the New Black Panther Party, were arrested in the St. Louis area in an FBI sting operation.

 

As initially reported by CBS News, the men were suspected of acquiring explosives for pipe bombs that they planned to set off during protests in Ferguson, according to the official, who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to publicly discuss the case.

FBI arrests two would-be Ferguson bomb suspects: law enforcement source | Reuters

 

Just like one of Obamas big friends, Bill Ayres.

If Obama wanted to stop the protest he could.