Hands Up!!

[Karee 4,189]

Here's one of the results of this national idiocy.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Just more evidence about the exceeding amounts of patience required to deal with race baiters in America. After all this horseshit who in the hell would ever want to be a police officer?

[Transborderwife 4,666]

I'd like to see how this all started. The guy became absolutely moronic putting on a show.

[Karee 4,189]

I'd like to see how this all started. The guy became absolutely moronic putting on a show.

What I don't understand is why they didn't arrest him? He obviously stole the merchandise since the loss prevention officer was pushing it back into the store at the end.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

What I don't understand is why they didn't arrest him? He obviously stole the merchandise since the loss prevention officer was pushing it back into the store at the end.

The excessive tolerance police must show is what is making Americans less safe. If that Wal Mart idiot was white then he would have been arrested immediately, Look what's happened to officer Wilson. A good policeman who will probably never be able to work in law enforcement for the rest of his life. The only deterrent to crime in America is fast, effective, and high profile law enforcement. These racial efforts underfoot are attempting to add so much political correctness to police work, that officers will be more inclined to ignore illegal activity in black communities for fear of retribution. Officer Wilson is the true victim of racial hatred and assassination.

Edited November 30, 2014 by ExExpat

[LibCampFireClub 635]

‘Absolutely Disgusting’: Keep a Close Eye on the Cop’s Reaction as a Black Friday Shopper Claims That He’s Being Harassed Like ‘Mike Brown’

“He knows who I am,” the shopper says of the officer, claiming that he shouldn’t have to show ID because, “[the officer is] the arresting officer on one of my cases.”

According to the video description posted on YouTube, the officer is Michael Manfredi of the South Strabane Police Department in Washington County, Pennsylvania.

The officer has apparently been called to the Wal-Mart by the store’s security team, and he calmly follows the shopper to the parking lot as the shopper loudly refuses to hand the officer his receipt.

The shopper waves the receipt in front of the officer’s face, but he doesn’t allow the officer to hold the receipt or even take a picture of it.

Soon, despite no apparent aggression from the officer, the shopper starts running around the parking lot yelling at the top of his lungs.

“My hands are up!” the man starts shouting. “He’s trying to Mike Brown me!”

The police officer’s calm remains strong through the end of the encounter, when he allows the shopper to go free — even though the man kept refusing to let him hold the receipt.

On Reddit, commenters responded with disgust that someone would invoke the name of the slain Brown to justify not showing a cop a receipt on Black Friday.

“As someone who works Asset Protection at a retail store, I can almost guarantee that whoever was attempting to stop these two and got officers involved had probable cause to do so,” one person wrote on Reddit. “I’m assuming that this was on Black Friday and after purchasing some of their merchandise they went back into the store and placed a few more items into their cart and attempted to leave the store.”

The top comment on Reddit was more succinct: “Absolutely disgusting. He should be ashamed of himself.”

Another commenter speculated, “He’s probably too dumb to be ashamed, or more likely has his head too far up his own a** to hear anyone telling him so. F******g ridiculous idiot.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/11/29/absolutely-disgusting-keep-a-close-eye-on-the-cops-reaction-as-a-black-friday-shopper-claims-that-hes-being-harassed-like-mike-brown/

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Officer has been falsely accused before:

Andre Cromwell v. Michael Manfredi, 10-4017 (3rd Cir. 2011)

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Filed: March 11th, 2011

Status: Non-Precedential

Docket Number: 10-4017

Fingerprint: 84af11aa5b56b143496e527c52b2ad9d0477c243

BLD-123 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-4017

___________

ANDRE LAMONT CROMWELL, Appellant

v.

MICHAEL MANFREDI, Officer of South Strabane Police Department, South Strabane

Township, Washington, PA; CARL MARTIN, Officer of City of Washington Police

Department, Washington County, PA; JOHN C. PETTIT, former Washington County

District Attorney, Washington, PA; PATRICK LEARY, State Police Officer of

Washington County PA State Police Barracks, Washington, PA;

KENNETH WESTCOTT, Then Mayor of City of Washington, Pennsylvania;

CITY OF WASHINGTON PENNSYLVANIA;

STATE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA;

CITY OF WASHINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, Washington County, Pennsylvania

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 2:08-cv-01048)

District Judge: Honorable Joy Flowers Conti

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or

Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

February 25, 2011

Before: SLOVITER, JORDAN AND GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: March 11, 2011)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Andre Cromwell, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s September

30, 2010 order dismissing his second amended complaint with prejudice. For the reasons

that follow, we will summarily affirm.

I.

Because we write for the parties, who are familiar with the background of this

case, we only briefly discuss that background here. In July 2008, Cromwell commenced

this civil rights action by filing a complaint in the District Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. He later filed an amended complaint in October 2008. The amended complaint,

which named 12 defendants and sought $200 million in damages, centered around a

November 8, 2006 incident involving Cromwell and two police officers — Defendants

Michael Manfredi and Carl Martin. Cromwell alleged that the two officers used

excessive force against him on that day, and that he was later maliciously prosecuted for

his conduct during the incident. He also alleged that several of the defendants had

conspired against him, and that the municipalities and police departments named as

defendants had failed to train their officers.

Several defendants ultimately moved to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In August 2009, the Magistrate Judge issued a report

recommending that the District Court grant the various motions to dismiss and dismiss all

claims against all Defendants. In doing so, the Magistrate Judge concluded that

Cromwell’s excessive force claims lacked merit because (1) his allegations failed to show

2

that he had been seized under the Fourth Amendment, and (2) even if those allegations

did reflect a seizure, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The Magistrate

Judge also concluded that Cromwell’s malicious prosecution claims failed because the

criminal proceedings brought against him for his conduct on November 8, 2006, had not

ended in his favor.1 Finally, the Magistrate Judge concluded that because Cromwell’s

underlying constitutional claims lacked merit, his related conspiracy and failure to train

arguments necessarily failed as well. On September 17, 2009, the District Court adopted

the Magistrate Judge’s report and dismissed the complaint without prejudice to

Cromwell’s “right to file an amended complaint . . . to include factual allegations

sufficient to state claims.” (Dist. Ct. Order of Sept. 17, 2009, at 5.)

In January 2010, Cromwell filed his second amended complaint, naming fewer

defendants than he did in his previous complaint. A subset of those defendants

subsequently moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). In September 2010, the

Magistrate Judge issued a report recommending that the District Court grant the motions

and dismiss the case. In support of this recommendation, the Magistrate Judge stated that

“the second amended complaint does not state any new facts so as to take [it] outside of

the reasoning of the prior Report,” (Magistrate Judge’s Report entered on Sept. 7, 2010,

at 7), and that any further amendment of the pleadings would be futile. On September

30, 2010, the District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s report and dismissed

1

In December 2007, pursuant to an agreement with the Commonwealth,

Cromwell pleaded guilty to two counts of recklessly endangering another person. As part

3

Cromwell’s second amended complaint with prejudice. Cromwell now appeals from this

most recent order.

II.

We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise

de novo review over the District Court’s dismissal of Cromwell’s case for failure to state

a claim. See Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 230 (3d Cir. 2008). In

conducting this review, “we accept as true all well-pled factual allegations in the

[plaintiff’s pleading] and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from them, and we

affirm the order of dismissal only if the pleading does not plausibly suggest an

entitlement to relief.” See Fellner v. Tri-Union Seafoods, L.L.C., 539 F.3d 237, 242 (3d

Cir. 2008).

Having reviewed the record and considered Cromwell’s arguments in support of

his appeal, and for substantially the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s two

thorough and well-reasoned reports — both of which the District Court adopted — we

agree with the District Court’s decision to dismiss Cromwell’s case with prejudice.

Because this appeal does not present a substantial question, we will summarily affirm the

District Court’s September 30, 2010 order. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.

Cromwell’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

of the agreement, the multiple aggravated assault charges against him were dropped.

4

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/206615/andre-cromwell-v-michael-manfredi/

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/pawdce/2:2008cv01048/87693/130

Edited November 30, 2014 by ExExpat

[Darnell 8,478]

Just more evidence about the exceeding amounts of patience required to deal with race baiters in America. After all this horseshit who in the hell would ever want to be a police officer?

I am unsure, also.

I hope more folk can become this type of officer, instead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jujQG7TBOs

[LibCampFireClub 635]

I am unsure, also.

I hope more folk can become this type of officer, instead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jujQG7TBOs

That looks a lot like Chris O'Dowd

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1483369/?ref_=tt_cl_t6

[Darnell 8,478]

it is. it was a skit, produced for Male Cancer Awareness foundation.

[no, I'm not kidding]

[unsmiley 111]

The OP's video is an extremely disturbing example of the lunatics running the insane asylum. What I don't get is why those lowlifes posted this video. Do they think it makes them look good? Do they think it makes cops look bad? If so, they really are delusional.

[eieio 1,594]

Do they think it makes them look good?

Yes. No amount of education can make a retard smart.