|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 19 2014 06:26 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 06:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 06:12 Vindicare605 wrote:On August 19 2014 05:21 Mercy13 wrote:
I think a lot of the confusion around the Ferguson shooting is that people keep conflating the separate issues so it's not clear who's discussing what. Well, that and because Roswell is a moron.
Imo, there are at least 3 separate topics that deserve discussion:
1) Whether or not this specific shooting was justified (No one knows, we should wait for the investigation to draw conclusions).
2) Institutional racism in police departments in Ferguson and elsewhere in the country, and the civil unrest that this sparks. (There is a lot of evidence for this, and widespread protesting doesn't break out for no reason. Also I find it troublesome that the Ferguson PD is so hostile to the press).
3) The militarization of local police departments (which is indefensibly stupid and dangerous. Encouraging police forces to act like occupying military units is a recipe for disaster.)
People have been responding to arguments about 2) by pointing to 1), which confuses everyone because the issues are independent. The protesting isn't happening just because Brown was shot, it's happening because the Ferguson community feels that the police are there to persecute them rather than to protect them. Even if Brown hadn't been shot they would still feel this way, and some other event would have likely lead to similar protests. There's an umbrella issue that all of these smaller issues come under. The use of lethal force by the police and their lack of accountability for it. 1.) Whether or not this specific shooting could be justified, it was another of seemingly countless instances where American Police Officers are gunning down unarmed civilians under very ambiguous circumstances. You combine this killing with the chokehold incident in New York or the constant wave of stories coming from the LAPD and it starts to look like a very frightening pattern. The police are using lethal force a lot more than they used to, there's actual statistical data that backs this up too and one of the reasons for this increase is the militarization of the police. + Show Spoiler +2.) Which really sucks for minorities because as the total number of instances of police brutality rise, the ever constant disproportional rate at which they happen to minorities becomes even more depressing. You simply cannot talk about police misconduct without also having to incorporate the racism argument. It just makes everything worse.
3.) The militarization of the police is the big political issue to take away from all of this. Why exactly are the police being given so much extra equipment to fund swat teams when it doesn't look like either A: they need any of it or B: ready to accept the increased responsibility?
Why are we giving our Police Departments more weapons without giving them more accountability for what they do with them?
It's a fundamental disconnect that's really resonating when you look at it in the context of 1) and 2) and this is why Ferguson is such a huge deal, it has all of the elements working together. You have a primarily black community (70%ish), a primarily white police force (only like 3 officers in the entire department are Black) and image after image of military hardware and military style strategies being used against American civilians protesting the Police killing of an unarmed man under very ambiguous circumstances.
It's a perfect storm. Do you have a stat on that to share? I had thought that police were using lethal force less often than in the past. Ex. NYC: ![[image loading]](http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/02/04/nyregion/police.jpg) Let me see if I can find the actual map. I know NYC is an outlier since the 80's and 90's crack epidemic led to an insane period of time for the police department there. Also I'm just now noticing this graph is already 10 years old, as you can see the number of shootings increases from 2002 to 2003 and although it's much lower than its apex in the 90's.
Yeah, I know it's a tad old, partly why I'm asking what data you have 
|
On August 19 2014 06:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 06:26 Vindicare605 wrote:On August 19 2014 06:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 06:12 Vindicare605 wrote:On August 19 2014 05:21 Mercy13 wrote:
I think a lot of the confusion around the Ferguson shooting is that people keep conflating the separate issues so it's not clear who's discussing what. Well, that and because Roswell is a moron.
Imo, there are at least 3 separate topics that deserve discussion:
1) Whether or not this specific shooting was justified (No one knows, we should wait for the investigation to draw conclusions).
2) Institutional racism in police departments in Ferguson and elsewhere in the country, and the civil unrest that this sparks. (There is a lot of evidence for this, and widespread protesting doesn't break out for no reason. Also I find it troublesome that the Ferguson PD is so hostile to the press).
3) The militarization of local police departments (which is indefensibly stupid and dangerous. Encouraging police forces to act like occupying military units is a recipe for disaster.)
People have been responding to arguments about 2) by pointing to 1), which confuses everyone because the issues are independent. The protesting isn't happening just because Brown was shot, it's happening because the Ferguson community feels that the police are there to persecute them rather than to protect them. Even if Brown hadn't been shot they would still feel this way, and some other event would have likely lead to similar protests. There's an umbrella issue that all of these smaller issues come under. The use of lethal force by the police and their lack of accountability for it. 1.) Whether or not this specific shooting could be justified, it was another of seemingly countless instances where American Police Officers are gunning down unarmed civilians under very ambiguous circumstances. You combine this killing with the chokehold incident in New York or the constant wave of stories coming from the LAPD and it starts to look like a very frightening pattern. The police are using lethal force a lot more than they used to, there's actual statistical data that backs this up too and one of the reasons for this increase is the militarization of the police. + Show Spoiler +2.) Which really sucks for minorities because as the total number of instances of police brutality rise, the ever constant disproportional rate at which they happen to minorities becomes even more depressing. You simply cannot talk about police misconduct without also having to incorporate the racism argument. It just makes everything worse.
3.) The militarization of the police is the big political issue to take away from all of this. Why exactly are the police being given so much extra equipment to fund swat teams when it doesn't look like either A: they need any of it or B: ready to accept the increased responsibility?
Why are we giving our Police Departments more weapons without giving them more accountability for what they do with them?
It's a fundamental disconnect that's really resonating when you look at it in the context of 1) and 2) and this is why Ferguson is such a huge deal, it has all of the elements working together. You have a primarily black community (70%ish), a primarily white police force (only like 3 officers in the entire department are Black) and image after image of military hardware and military style strategies being used against American civilians protesting the Police killing of an unarmed man under very ambiguous circumstances.
It's a perfect storm. Do you have a stat on that to share? I had thought that police were using lethal force less often than in the past. Ex. NYC: Let me see if I can find the actual map. I know NYC is an outlier since the 80's and 90's crack epidemic led to an insane period of time for the police department there. Also I'm just now noticing this graph is already 10 years old, as you can see the number of shootings increases from 2002 to 2003 and although it's much lower than its apex in the 90's. Yeah, I know it's a tad old, partly why I'm asking what data you have
The graph I have on falling crime rates is just as old, and the data regarding militarization, especially SWAT is hard to find because the Police doesn't track that kind of shit.
|
On August 19 2014 06:12 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 05:21 Mercy13 wrote:
I think a lot of the confusion around the Ferguson shooting is that people keep conflating the separate issues so it's not clear who's discussing what. Well, that and because Roswell is a moron.
Imo, there are at least 3 separate topics that deserve discussion:
1) Whether or not this specific shooting was justified (No one knows, we should wait for the investigation to draw conclusions).
2) Institutional racism in police departments in Ferguson and elsewhere in the country, and the civil unrest that this sparks. (There is a lot of evidence for this, and widespread protesting doesn't break out for no reason. Also I find it troublesome that the Ferguson PD is so hostile to the press).
3) The militarization of local police departments (which is indefensibly stupid and dangerous. Encouraging police forces to act like occupying military units is a recipe for disaster.)
People have been responding to arguments about 2) by pointing to 1), which confuses everyone because the issues are independent. The protesting isn't happening just because Brown was shot, it's happening because the Ferguson community feels that the police are there to persecute them rather than to protect them. Even if Brown hadn't been shot they would still feel this way, and some other event would have likely lead to similar protests. There's an umbrella issue that all of these smaller issues come under. The use of lethal force by the police and their lack of accountability for it.1.) Whether or not this specific shooting could be justified, it was another of seemingly countless instances where American Police Officers are gunning down unarmed civilians under very ambiguous circumstances. You combine this killing with the chokehold incident in New York or the constant wave of stories coming from the LAPD and it starts to look like a very frightening pattern. The police are using lethal force a lot more than they used to, there's actual statistical data that backs this up too and one of the reasons for this increase is the militarization of the police. 2.) Which really sucks for minorities because as the total number of instances of police brutality rise, the ever constant disproportional rate at which they happen to minorities becomes even more depressing. You simply cannot talk about police misconduct without also having to incorporate the racism argument. It just makes everything worse. 3.) The militarization of the police is the big political issue to take away from all of this. Why exactly are the police being given so much extra equipment to fund swat teams when it doesn't look like either A: they need any of it or B: ready to accept the increased responsibility? Why are we giving our Police Departments more weapons without giving them more accountability for what they do with them? It's a fundamental disconnect that's really resonating when you look at it in the context of 1) and 2) and this is why Ferguson is such a huge deal, it has all of the elements working together. You have a primarily black community (70%ish), a primarily white police force (only like 3 officers in the entire department are Black) and image after image of military hardware and military style strategies being used against American civilians protesting the Police killing of an unarmed man under very ambiguous circumstances. It's a perfect storm.
You're right, lack of accountability is a huge deal. Right now, many police departments don't even bother to keep track of police shootings:
As the nation reels over the fatal police shooting of Missouri teen Mike Brown this week, it may come as a surprise that there is no official data on citizen deaths at the hands of police officers, despite a decades-old congressional mandate.
Source
It's tough to hold police accountable when they are unwilling to share important data with the public.
|
On August 19 2014 05:48 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 05:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 05:00 Millitron wrote:On August 19 2014 04:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 04:08 Roswell wrote:I was not joking, marijuana kills people and is more addicting than meth. The autopsy seems to go hand and hand with this eye witness, "And then all the sudden he just started bum-rushing him. He just started coming at him full speed. And, so he just started shooting. And, he just kept coming" http://www.brennerbrief.com/witness-michael-brown-bum-rushed-cop/#dT8oEdux2XjZiHsd.99 @5th guy who cant take a joke, no sir, it is you who is armed with stupid. Go join the michigan militia you dim wit. Really with the 'marijuana kills people'? If he only ran ~35 ft how could he have 'Charged him and just kept coming' and still been about the same distance away? No matter how the facts of this particular incident shake out, the Ferguson PD and many in the area have bigger more institutionalized problems to deal with. The cop would have been backing up. What? He ran ~35 ft away from the car and died ~35ft away from the car. The cop pursued (an unknown distance), what would the cop 'backing up' have to do with him dying as far as he ran away and how that doesn't fit the idea of him charging the cop, then continuing after he was shot several times? How do you know he ran only 35 ft away initially?
Can't say 'I know' but all reports to this point have said as much (even the officers friend allegedly recounting what the officer told him). Other distances reported suggest he didn't make it as far but it's not like people were spotting with rangefinders.
I get peoples desire to wait for all of the facts/stories about this incident come out to make judgments, but if it does turn out he killed this teenager in cold blood would it bother any of the people more adamant about it that an alleged and witnessed murderer has been free to go where he wishes and carry a weapon?
Or is letting someone go free after multiple witnesses allege they murdered someone how you envision 'letting the facts come out'
I mean they arrested journalists for literally nothing but it would be obscene to expect them to arrest an alleged murderer?
|
On August 19 2014 06:55 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 06:12 Vindicare605 wrote:On August 19 2014 05:21 Mercy13 wrote:
I think a lot of the confusion around the Ferguson shooting is that people keep conflating the separate issues so it's not clear who's discussing what. Well, that and because Roswell is a moron.
Imo, there are at least 3 separate topics that deserve discussion:
1) Whether or not this specific shooting was justified (No one knows, we should wait for the investigation to draw conclusions).
2) Institutional racism in police departments in Ferguson and elsewhere in the country, and the civil unrest that this sparks. (There is a lot of evidence for this, and widespread protesting doesn't break out for no reason. Also I find it troublesome that the Ferguson PD is so hostile to the press).
3) The militarization of local police departments (which is indefensibly stupid and dangerous. Encouraging police forces to act like occupying military units is a recipe for disaster.)
People have been responding to arguments about 2) by pointing to 1), which confuses everyone because the issues are independent. The protesting isn't happening just because Brown was shot, it's happening because the Ferguson community feels that the police are there to persecute them rather than to protect them. Even if Brown hadn't been shot they would still feel this way, and some other event would have likely lead to similar protests. There's an umbrella issue that all of these smaller issues come under. The use of lethal force by the police and their lack of accountability for it.1.) Whether or not this specific shooting could be justified, it was another of seemingly countless instances where American Police Officers are gunning down unarmed civilians under very ambiguous circumstances. You combine this killing with the chokehold incident in New York or the constant wave of stories coming from the LAPD and it starts to look like a very frightening pattern. The police are using lethal force a lot more than they used to, there's actual statistical data that backs this up too and one of the reasons for this increase is the militarization of the police. 2.) Which really sucks for minorities because as the total number of instances of police brutality rise, the ever constant disproportional rate at which they happen to minorities becomes even more depressing. You simply cannot talk about police misconduct without also having to incorporate the racism argument. It just makes everything worse. 3.) The militarization of the police is the big political issue to take away from all of this. Why exactly are the police being given so much extra equipment to fund swat teams when it doesn't look like either A: they need any of it or B: ready to accept the increased responsibility? Why are we giving our Police Departments more weapons without giving them more accountability for what they do with them? It's a fundamental disconnect that's really resonating when you look at it in the context of 1) and 2) and this is why Ferguson is such a huge deal, it has all of the elements working together. You have a primarily black community (70%ish), a primarily white police force (only like 3 officers in the entire department are Black) and image after image of military hardware and military style strategies being used against American civilians protesting the Police killing of an unarmed man under very ambiguous circumstances. It's a perfect storm. You're right, lack of accountability is a huge deal. Right now, many police departments don't even bother to keep track of police shootings: Show nested quote +As the nation reels over the fatal police shooting of Missouri teen Mike Brown this week, it may come as a surprise that there is no official data on citizen deaths at the hands of police officers, despite a decades-old congressional mandate. SourceIt's tough to hold police accountable when they are unwilling to share important data with the public.
That would explain why I couldn't find any of it.
|
On August 19 2014 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 05:48 Crushinator wrote:On August 19 2014 05:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 05:00 Millitron wrote:On August 19 2014 04:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 04:08 Roswell wrote:I was not joking, marijuana kills people and is more addicting than meth. The autopsy seems to go hand and hand with this eye witness, "And then all the sudden he just started bum-rushing him. He just started coming at him full speed. And, so he just started shooting. And, he just kept coming" http://www.brennerbrief.com/witness-michael-brown-bum-rushed-cop/#dT8oEdux2XjZiHsd.99 @5th guy who cant take a joke, no sir, it is you who is armed with stupid. Go join the michigan militia you dim wit. Really with the 'marijuana kills people'? If he only ran ~35 ft how could he have 'Charged him and just kept coming' and still been about the same distance away? No matter how the facts of this particular incident shake out, the Ferguson PD and many in the area have bigger more institutionalized problems to deal with. The cop would have been backing up. What? He ran ~35 ft away from the car and died ~35ft away from the car. The cop pursued (an unknown distance), what would the cop 'backing up' have to do with him dying as far as he ran away and how that doesn't fit the idea of him charging the cop, then continuing after he was shot several times? How do you know he ran only 35 ft away initially? Can't say 'I know' but all reports to this point have said as much (even the officers friend allegedly recounting what the officer told him). Other distances reported suggest he didn't make it as far but it's not like people were spotting with rangefinders. I get peoples desire to wait for all of the facts/stories about this incident come out to make judgments, but if it does turn out he killed this teenager in cold blood would it bother any of the people more adamant about it that an alleged and witnessed murderer has been free to go where he wishes and carry a weapon? Or is letting someone go free after multiple witnesses allege they murdered someone how you envision 'letting the facts come out' I mean they arrested journalists for literally nothing but it would be obscene to expect them to arrest an alleged murderer?
Witnesses do describe a struggle and the cop does have marks, so there shouldn't be anyone thinking that he was killed in cold blood.
|
On August 19 2014 07:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 05:48 Crushinator wrote:On August 19 2014 05:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 05:00 Millitron wrote:On August 19 2014 04:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 04:08 Roswell wrote:I was not joking, marijuana kills people and is more addicting than meth. The autopsy seems to go hand and hand with this eye witness, "And then all the sudden he just started bum-rushing him. He just started coming at him full speed. And, so he just started shooting. And, he just kept coming" http://www.brennerbrief.com/witness-michael-brown-bum-rushed-cop/#dT8oEdux2XjZiHsd.99 @5th guy who cant take a joke, no sir, it is you who is armed with stupid. Go join the michigan militia you dim wit. Really with the 'marijuana kills people'? If he only ran ~35 ft how could he have 'Charged him and just kept coming' and still been about the same distance away? No matter how the facts of this particular incident shake out, the Ferguson PD and many in the area have bigger more institutionalized problems to deal with. The cop would have been backing up. What? He ran ~35 ft away from the car and died ~35ft away from the car. The cop pursued (an unknown distance), what would the cop 'backing up' have to do with him dying as far as he ran away and how that doesn't fit the idea of him charging the cop, then continuing after he was shot several times? How do you know he ran only 35 ft away initially? Can't say 'I know' but all reports to this point have said as much (even the officers friend allegedly recounting what the officer told him). Other distances reported suggest he didn't make it as far but it's not like people were spotting with rangefinders. I get peoples desire to wait for all of the facts/stories about this incident come out to make judgments, but if it does turn out he killed this teenager in cold blood would it bother any of the people more adamant about it that an alleged and witnessed murderer has been free to go where he wishes and carry a weapon? Or is letting someone go free after multiple witnesses allege they murdered someone how you envision 'letting the facts come out' I mean they arrested journalists for literally nothing but it would be obscene to expect them to arrest an alleged murderer? Witnesses do describe a struggle and the cop does have marks, so there shouldn't be anyone thinking that he was killed in cold blood.
Well I don't want to argue over what the phrase was intended to mean but the ambiguous physical struggle was over before he killed him by all accounts. We are yet to hear from the officer why he thought he needed to kill Michael and why he didn't have any other reasonable option.
If he wasn't such a large guy I wouldn't have any idea how the officer could of been remotely close to fearing for his life from an unarmed person ~35 ft away.
I personally am not comfortable with police officers feeling incapable of defending themselves against an unarmed person who is ~35 ft from them without anything less than lethal force even if it is a big guy.
|
On August 19 2014 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 07:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 05:48 Crushinator wrote:On August 19 2014 05:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 05:00 Millitron wrote:On August 19 2014 04:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 04:08 Roswell wrote:I was not joking, marijuana kills people and is more addicting than meth. The autopsy seems to go hand and hand with this eye witness, "And then all the sudden he just started bum-rushing him. He just started coming at him full speed. And, so he just started shooting. And, he just kept coming" http://www.brennerbrief.com/witness-michael-brown-bum-rushed-cop/#dT8oEdux2XjZiHsd.99 @5th guy who cant take a joke, no sir, it is you who is armed with stupid. Go join the michigan militia you dim wit. Really with the 'marijuana kills people'? If he only ran ~35 ft how could he have 'Charged him and just kept coming' and still been about the same distance away? No matter how the facts of this particular incident shake out, the Ferguson PD and many in the area have bigger more institutionalized problems to deal with. The cop would have been backing up. What? He ran ~35 ft away from the car and died ~35ft away from the car. The cop pursued (an unknown distance), what would the cop 'backing up' have to do with him dying as far as he ran away and how that doesn't fit the idea of him charging the cop, then continuing after he was shot several times? How do you know he ran only 35 ft away initially? Can't say 'I know' but all reports to this point have said as much (even the officers friend allegedly recounting what the officer told him). Other distances reported suggest he didn't make it as far but it's not like people were spotting with rangefinders. I get peoples desire to wait for all of the facts/stories about this incident come out to make judgments, but if it does turn out he killed this teenager in cold blood would it bother any of the people more adamant about it that an alleged and witnessed murderer has been free to go where he wishes and carry a weapon? Or is letting someone go free after multiple witnesses allege they murdered someone how you envision 'letting the facts come out' I mean they arrested journalists for literally nothing but it would be obscene to expect them to arrest an alleged murderer? Witnesses do describe a struggle and the cop does have marks, so there shouldn't be anyone thinking that he was killed in cold blood. Well I don't want to argue over what the phrase was intended to mean but the ambiguous physical struggle was over before he killed him by all accounts. We are yet to hear from the officer why he thought he needed to kill Michael and why he didn't have any other reasonable option. If he wasn't such a large guy I wouldn't have any idea how the officer could of been remotely close to fearing for his life from an unarmed person ~35 ft away. I personally am not comfortable with police officers feeling incapable of defending themselves against an unarmed person who is ~35 ft from them without anything less than lethal force even if it is a big guy.
If he was unarmed, had just tried to take the officer's gun and was returning to attack, yeah, using the gun may have been justified. We need more info.
|
On August 19 2014 07:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 05:48 Crushinator wrote:On August 19 2014 05:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 05:00 Millitron wrote:On August 19 2014 04:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 04:08 Roswell wrote:I was not joking, marijuana kills people and is more addicting than meth. The autopsy seems to go hand and hand with this eye witness, "And then all the sudden he just started bum-rushing him. He just started coming at him full speed. And, so he just started shooting. And, he just kept coming" http://www.brennerbrief.com/witness-michael-brown-bum-rushed-cop/#dT8oEdux2XjZiHsd.99 @5th guy who cant take a joke, no sir, it is you who is armed with stupid. Go join the michigan militia you dim wit. Really with the 'marijuana kills people'? If he only ran ~35 ft how could he have 'Charged him and just kept coming' and still been about the same distance away? No matter how the facts of this particular incident shake out, the Ferguson PD and many in the area have bigger more institutionalized problems to deal with. The cop would have been backing up. What? He ran ~35 ft away from the car and died ~35ft away from the car. The cop pursued (an unknown distance), what would the cop 'backing up' have to do with him dying as far as he ran away and how that doesn't fit the idea of him charging the cop, then continuing after he was shot several times? How do you know he ran only 35 ft away initially? Can't say 'I know' but all reports to this point have said as much (even the officers friend allegedly recounting what the officer told him). Other distances reported suggest he didn't make it as far but it's not like people were spotting with rangefinders. I get peoples desire to wait for all of the facts/stories about this incident come out to make judgments, but if it does turn out he killed this teenager in cold blood would it bother any of the people more adamant about it that an alleged and witnessed murderer has been free to go where he wishes and carry a weapon? Or is letting someone go free after multiple witnesses allege they murdered someone how you envision 'letting the facts come out' I mean they arrested journalists for literally nothing but it would be obscene to expect them to arrest an alleged murderer? Witnesses do describe a struggle and the cop does have marks, so there shouldn't be anyone thinking that he was killed in cold blood. Well I don't want to argue over what the phrase was intended to mean but the ambiguous physical struggle was over before he killed him by all accounts. We are yet to hear from the officer why he thought he needed to kill Michael and why he didn't have any other reasonable option. If he wasn't such a large guy I wouldn't have any idea how the officer could of been remotely close to fearing for his life from an unarmed person ~35 ft away. I personally am not comfortable with police officers feeling incapable of defending themselves against an unarmed person who is ~35 ft from them without anything less than lethal force even if it is a big guy. If he was unarmed, had just tried to take the officer's gun and was returning to attack, yeah, using the gun may have been justified. We need more info.
Yeah not really (for my point[not limited to this particular incident]). I am pretty comfortable in thinking that police officers should be able to defend themselves from an unarmed person ~35 ft away without having to shoot him 6 times.
If he had shot him only during a struggle for the gun that would be entirely different. I am not even arguing about 'justified', from a purely practical standpoint, cops should be able to defend themselves against unarmed people ~35 ft away without having to shoot them.
I'm still curious how many times he actually shot. I know that's obviously much too complicated a piece of information to release though.
|
On August 19 2014 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 07:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 05:48 Crushinator wrote:On August 19 2014 05:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 05:00 Millitron wrote:On August 19 2014 04:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 04:08 Roswell wrote:I was not joking, marijuana kills people and is more addicting than meth. The autopsy seems to go hand and hand with this eye witness, "And then all the sudden he just started bum-rushing him. He just started coming at him full speed. And, so he just started shooting. And, he just kept coming" http://www.brennerbrief.com/witness-michael-brown-bum-rushed-cop/#dT8oEdux2XjZiHsd.99 @5th guy who cant take a joke, no sir, it is you who is armed with stupid. Go join the michigan militia you dim wit. Really with the 'marijuana kills people'? If he only ran ~35 ft how could he have 'Charged him and just kept coming' and still been about the same distance away? No matter how the facts of this particular incident shake out, the Ferguson PD and many in the area have bigger more institutionalized problems to deal with. The cop would have been backing up. What? He ran ~35 ft away from the car and died ~35ft away from the car. The cop pursued (an unknown distance), what would the cop 'backing up' have to do with him dying as far as he ran away and how that doesn't fit the idea of him charging the cop, then continuing after he was shot several times? How do you know he ran only 35 ft away initially? Can't say 'I know' but all reports to this point have said as much (even the officers friend allegedly recounting what the officer told him). Other distances reported suggest he didn't make it as far but it's not like people were spotting with rangefinders. I get peoples desire to wait for all of the facts/stories about this incident come out to make judgments, but if it does turn out he killed this teenager in cold blood would it bother any of the people more adamant about it that an alleged and witnessed murderer has been free to go where he wishes and carry a weapon? Or is letting someone go free after multiple witnesses allege they murdered someone how you envision 'letting the facts come out' I mean they arrested journalists for literally nothing but it would be obscene to expect them to arrest an alleged murderer? Witnesses do describe a struggle and the cop does have marks, so there shouldn't be anyone thinking that he was killed in cold blood. Well I don't want to argue over what the phrase was intended to mean but the ambiguous physical struggle was over before he killed him by all accounts. We are yet to hear from the officer why he thought he needed to kill Michael and why he didn't have any other reasonable option. If he wasn't such a large guy I wouldn't have any idea how the officer could of been remotely close to fearing for his life from an unarmed person ~35 ft away. I personally am not comfortable with police officers feeling incapable of defending themselves against an unarmed person who is ~35 ft from them without anything less than lethal force even if it is a big guy. If he was unarmed, had just tried to take the officer's gun and was returning to attack, yeah, using the gun may have been justified. We need more info. Yeah not really (for my point[not limited to this particular incident]). I am pretty comfortable in thinking that police officers should be able to defend themselves from an unarmed person ~35 ft away without having to shoot him 6 times. If he had shot him only during a struggle for the gun that would be entirely different. I am not even arguing about 'justified', from a purely practical standpoint, cops should be able to defend themselves against unarmed people ~35 ft away without having to shoot them. I'm still curious how many times he actually shot. I know that's obviously much too complicated a piece of information to release though.
I'd have to disagree with you there. An officer shouldn't wait for his gun to be taken away before he can use it.
|
On August 19 2014 07:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 05:48 Crushinator wrote:On August 19 2014 05:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 05:00 Millitron wrote:On August 19 2014 04:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Really with the 'marijuana kills people'?
If he only ran ~35 ft how could he have 'Charged him and just kept coming' and still been about the same distance away?
No matter how the facts of this particular incident shake out, the Ferguson PD and many in the area have bigger more institutionalized problems to deal with. The cop would have been backing up. What? He ran ~35 ft away from the car and died ~35ft away from the car. The cop pursued (an unknown distance), what would the cop 'backing up' have to do with him dying as far as he ran away and how that doesn't fit the idea of him charging the cop, then continuing after he was shot several times? How do you know he ran only 35 ft away initially? Can't say 'I know' but all reports to this point have said as much (even the officers friend allegedly recounting what the officer told him). Other distances reported suggest he didn't make it as far but it's not like people were spotting with rangefinders. I get peoples desire to wait for all of the facts/stories about this incident come out to make judgments, but if it does turn out he killed this teenager in cold blood would it bother any of the people more adamant about it that an alleged and witnessed murderer has been free to go where he wishes and carry a weapon? Or is letting someone go free after multiple witnesses allege they murdered someone how you envision 'letting the facts come out' I mean they arrested journalists for literally nothing but it would be obscene to expect them to arrest an alleged murderer? Witnesses do describe a struggle and the cop does have marks, so there shouldn't be anyone thinking that he was killed in cold blood. Well I don't want to argue over what the phrase was intended to mean but the ambiguous physical struggle was over before he killed him by all accounts. We are yet to hear from the officer why he thought he needed to kill Michael and why he didn't have any other reasonable option. If he wasn't such a large guy I wouldn't have any idea how the officer could of been remotely close to fearing for his life from an unarmed person ~35 ft away. I personally am not comfortable with police officers feeling incapable of defending themselves against an unarmed person who is ~35 ft from them without anything less than lethal force even if it is a big guy. If he was unarmed, had just tried to take the officer's gun and was returning to attack, yeah, using the gun may have been justified. We need more info. Yeah not really (for my point[not limited to this particular incident]). I am pretty comfortable in thinking that police officers should be able to defend themselves from an unarmed person ~35 ft away without having to shoot him 6 times. If he had shot him only during a struggle for the gun that would be entirely different. I am not even arguing about 'justified', from a purely practical standpoint, cops should be able to defend themselves against unarmed people ~35 ft away without having to shoot them. I'm still curious how many times he actually shot. I know that's obviously much too complicated a piece of information to release though. I'd have to disagree with you there. An officer shouldn't wait for his gun to be taken away before he can use it.
LOL really? Well unless the person is telepathic you shouldn't have to worry about a guy ~35 ft away taking your weapon.
And my point is that if he looks like he is trying to, a police officer should have the skills to avoid him taking the weapon without having to shoot him multiple times (before he is even close). There are similar incidents when officers unnecessarily killed relatively unarmed mentally ill people with similar justifications.
|
On August 19 2014 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 07:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 05:48 Crushinator wrote:On August 19 2014 05:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 05:00 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
The cop would have been backing up. What? He ran ~35 ft away from the car and died ~35ft away from the car. The cop pursued (an unknown distance), what would the cop 'backing up' have to do with him dying as far as he ran away and how that doesn't fit the idea of him charging the cop, then continuing after he was shot several times? How do you know he ran only 35 ft away initially? Can't say 'I know' but all reports to this point have said as much (even the officers friend allegedly recounting what the officer told him). Other distances reported suggest he didn't make it as far but it's not like people were spotting with rangefinders. I get peoples desire to wait for all of the facts/stories about this incident come out to make judgments, but if it does turn out he killed this teenager in cold blood would it bother any of the people more adamant about it that an alleged and witnessed murderer has been free to go where he wishes and carry a weapon? Or is letting someone go free after multiple witnesses allege they murdered someone how you envision 'letting the facts come out' I mean they arrested journalists for literally nothing but it would be obscene to expect them to arrest an alleged murderer? Witnesses do describe a struggle and the cop does have marks, so there shouldn't be anyone thinking that he was killed in cold blood. Well I don't want to argue over what the phrase was intended to mean but the ambiguous physical struggle was over before he killed him by all accounts. We are yet to hear from the officer why he thought he needed to kill Michael and why he didn't have any other reasonable option. If he wasn't such a large guy I wouldn't have any idea how the officer could of been remotely close to fearing for his life from an unarmed person ~35 ft away. I personally am not comfortable with police officers feeling incapable of defending themselves against an unarmed person who is ~35 ft from them without anything less than lethal force even if it is a big guy. If he was unarmed, had just tried to take the officer's gun and was returning to attack, yeah, using the gun may have been justified. We need more info. Yeah not really (for my point[not limited to this particular incident]). I am pretty comfortable in thinking that police officers should be able to defend themselves from an unarmed person ~35 ft away without having to shoot him 6 times. If he had shot him only during a struggle for the gun that would be entirely different. I am not even arguing about 'justified', from a purely practical standpoint, cops should be able to defend themselves against unarmed people ~35 ft away without having to shoot them. I'm still curious how many times he actually shot. I know that's obviously much too complicated a piece of information to release though. I'd have to disagree with you there. An officer shouldn't wait for his gun to be taken away before he can use it. LOL really? Well unless the person is telepathic you shouldn't have to worry about a guy ~35 ft away taking your weapon. And my point is that if he looks like he is trying to, a police officer should have the skills to avoid him taking the weapon without having to shoot him multiple times (before he is even close). There are similar incidents when officers unnecessarily killed relatively unarmed mentally ill people with similar justifications.
There is at least one witness why ways that he moved toward the cop before the cop opened fire. It doesn't take long to cover 35ft, so opening fire could be justified in that case.
|
On August 19 2014 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 05:48 Crushinator wrote:On August 19 2014 05:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 05:00 Millitron wrote:On August 19 2014 04:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 04:08 Roswell wrote:I was not joking, marijuana kills people and is more addicting than meth. The autopsy seems to go hand and hand with this eye witness, "And then all the sudden he just started bum-rushing him. He just started coming at him full speed. And, so he just started shooting. And, he just kept coming" http://www.brennerbrief.com/witness-michael-brown-bum-rushed-cop/#dT8oEdux2XjZiHsd.99 @5th guy who cant take a joke, no sir, it is you who is armed with stupid. Go join the michigan militia you dim wit. Really with the 'marijuana kills people'? If he only ran ~35 ft how could he have 'Charged him and just kept coming' and still been about the same distance away? No matter how the facts of this particular incident shake out, the Ferguson PD and many in the area have bigger more institutionalized problems to deal with. The cop would have been backing up. What? He ran ~35 ft away from the car and died ~35ft away from the car. The cop pursued (an unknown distance), what would the cop 'backing up' have to do with him dying as far as he ran away and how that doesn't fit the idea of him charging the cop, then continuing after he was shot several times? How do you know he ran only 35 ft away initially? Can't say 'I know' but all reports to this point have said as much (even the officers friend allegedly recounting what the officer told him). Other distances reported suggest he didn't make it as far but it's not like people were spotting with rangefinders. I get peoples desire to wait for all of the facts/stories about this incident come out to make judgments, but if it does turn out he killed this teenager in cold blood would it bother any of the people more adamant about it that an alleged and witnessed murderer has been free to go where he wishes and carry a weapon? Or is letting someone go free after multiple witnesses allege they murdered someone how you envision 'letting the facts come out' I mean they arrested journalists for literally nothing but it would be obscene to expect them to arrest an alleged murderer?
I'd be displeased if the officer continues regular duties while the investigation is going on, but in principle no, I don't mind waiting for the facts to make a judgment and don't feel like I wasted my time if people's initial guess turns out to be correct.
Police officers are different from ordinary citizens in that they have less flight risk and they should be easier to find since probably most of their friends are their fellow officers. "Letting him free" for a police would mean not doing an investigation or doing only a cursory investigation vindicating the officer. Given the shitstorm right now, that is absolutely not the case.
As with any defense case, it's important to remember his due process rights. It's not up to citizens to arbitrarily decide he was wrong and punish him however they see fit. We collectively put ourselves at the mercy of a process that gives him the chance to defend himself. If he was wrong to kill that kid, the process will mete out the appropriate punishment, which has already been clearly laid out in Missouri law in statutes and precedent.
|
On August 19 2014 08:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 05:48 Crushinator wrote:On August 19 2014 05:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
What? He ran ~35 ft away from the car and died ~35ft away from the car. The cop pursued (an unknown distance), what would the cop 'backing up' have to do with him dying as far as he ran away and how that doesn't fit the idea of him charging the cop, then continuing after he was shot several times? How do you know he ran only 35 ft away initially? Can't say 'I know' but all reports to this point have said as much (even the officers friend allegedly recounting what the officer told him). Other distances reported suggest he didn't make it as far but it's not like people were spotting with rangefinders. I get peoples desire to wait for all of the facts/stories about this incident come out to make judgments, but if it does turn out he killed this teenager in cold blood would it bother any of the people more adamant about it that an alleged and witnessed murderer has been free to go where he wishes and carry a weapon? Or is letting someone go free after multiple witnesses allege they murdered someone how you envision 'letting the facts come out' I mean they arrested journalists for literally nothing but it would be obscene to expect them to arrest an alleged murderer? Witnesses do describe a struggle and the cop does have marks, so there shouldn't be anyone thinking that he was killed in cold blood. Well I don't want to argue over what the phrase was intended to mean but the ambiguous physical struggle was over before he killed him by all accounts. We are yet to hear from the officer why he thought he needed to kill Michael and why he didn't have any other reasonable option. If he wasn't such a large guy I wouldn't have any idea how the officer could of been remotely close to fearing for his life from an unarmed person ~35 ft away. I personally am not comfortable with police officers feeling incapable of defending themselves against an unarmed person who is ~35 ft from them without anything less than lethal force even if it is a big guy. If he was unarmed, had just tried to take the officer's gun and was returning to attack, yeah, using the gun may have been justified. We need more info. Yeah not really (for my point[not limited to this particular incident]). I am pretty comfortable in thinking that police officers should be able to defend themselves from an unarmed person ~35 ft away without having to shoot him 6 times. If he had shot him only during a struggle for the gun that would be entirely different. I am not even arguing about 'justified', from a purely practical standpoint, cops should be able to defend themselves against unarmed people ~35 ft away without having to shoot them. I'm still curious how many times he actually shot. I know that's obviously much too complicated a piece of information to release though. I'd have to disagree with you there. An officer shouldn't wait for his gun to be taken away before he can use it. LOL really? Well unless the person is telepathic you shouldn't have to worry about a guy ~35 ft away taking your weapon. And my point is that if he looks like he is trying to, a police officer should have the skills to avoid him taking the weapon without having to shoot him multiple times (before he is even close). There are similar incidents when officers unnecessarily killed relatively unarmed mentally ill people with similar justifications. There is at least one witness why ways that he moved toward the cop before the cop opened fire. It doesn't take long to cover 35ft, so opening fire could be justified in that case.
Again 'justified' was not my point (though I disagree depending on a lot of factors), it's that we are talking about how an unarmed man allegedly charging toward the cop from ~35ft away left the officer with no reasonable choice but to kill him (apparently at that distance). I just don't consider that acceptable.
Even if it turns out to be completely legal and 'justified' we need to make the necessary changes to prevent that from being true. Because this wasn't the first time something like such has happened and it won't be the last. Killing people should be avoided whenever reasonable.
Maybe eventually when we hear any semblance of a story from the police or the officer about what happened after the officer left the vehicle there will be some information that changes this particular case, but the over-aggression/militarization of the police is a clear and rampant problem that people consistently minimize, deny, and sweep under the rug.
|
On August 19 2014 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 08:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 05:48 Crushinator wrote:
[quote]
How do you know he ran only 35 ft away initially? Can't say 'I know' but all reports to this point have said as much (even the officers friend allegedly recounting what the officer told him). Other distances reported suggest he didn't make it as far but it's not like people were spotting with rangefinders. I get peoples desire to wait for all of the facts/stories about this incident come out to make judgments, but if it does turn out he killed this teenager in cold blood would it bother any of the people more adamant about it that an alleged and witnessed murderer has been free to go where he wishes and carry a weapon? Or is letting someone go free after multiple witnesses allege they murdered someone how you envision 'letting the facts come out' I mean they arrested journalists for literally nothing but it would be obscene to expect them to arrest an alleged murderer? Witnesses do describe a struggle and the cop does have marks, so there shouldn't be anyone thinking that he was killed in cold blood. Well I don't want to argue over what the phrase was intended to mean but the ambiguous physical struggle was over before he killed him by all accounts. We are yet to hear from the officer why he thought he needed to kill Michael and why he didn't have any other reasonable option. If he wasn't such a large guy I wouldn't have any idea how the officer could of been remotely close to fearing for his life from an unarmed person ~35 ft away. I personally am not comfortable with police officers feeling incapable of defending themselves against an unarmed person who is ~35 ft from them without anything less than lethal force even if it is a big guy. If he was unarmed, had just tried to take the officer's gun and was returning to attack, yeah, using the gun may have been justified. We need more info. Yeah not really (for my point[not limited to this particular incident]). I am pretty comfortable in thinking that police officers should be able to defend themselves from an unarmed person ~35 ft away without having to shoot him 6 times. If he had shot him only during a struggle for the gun that would be entirely different. I am not even arguing about 'justified', from a purely practical standpoint, cops should be able to defend themselves against unarmed people ~35 ft away without having to shoot them. I'm still curious how many times he actually shot. I know that's obviously much too complicated a piece of information to release though. I'd have to disagree with you there. An officer shouldn't wait for his gun to be taken away before he can use it. LOL really? Well unless the person is telepathic you shouldn't have to worry about a guy ~35 ft away taking your weapon. And my point is that if he looks like he is trying to, a police officer should have the skills to avoid him taking the weapon without having to shoot him multiple times (before he is even close). There are similar incidents when officers unnecessarily killed relatively unarmed mentally ill people with similar justifications. There is at least one witness why ways that he moved toward the cop before the cop opened fire. It doesn't take long to cover 35ft, so opening fire could be justified in that case. Again 'justified' was not my point (though I disagree depending on a lot of factors), it's that we are talking about how an unarmed man allegedly charging toward the cop from ~35ft away left the officer with no reasonable choice but to kill him (apparently at that distance). I just don't consider that acceptable. Even if it turns out to be completely legal and 'justified' we need to make the necessary changes to prevent that from being true. Because this wasn't the first time something like such has happened and it won't be the last. Killing people should be avoided whenever reasonable. Maybe eventually when we hear any semblance of a story from the police or the officer about what happened after the officer left the vehicle there will be some information that changes this particular case, but the over-aggression/militarization of the police is a clear and rampant problem that people consistently minimize, deny, and sweep under the rug.
Depending on how it went down it could be acceptable. If the guy went for the officer's gun... that's a very dangerous situation. I wouldn't expect an officer to take that lightly.
Edit: What's with the "minimize deny and sweep under the rug" comment? This is getting huge attention from many angles. Moreover, where's the evidence that it's a "clear and rampant" problem? The only statistics I've seen is for police shootings going down.
|
On August 19 2014 09:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 08:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Can't say 'I know' but all reports to this point have said as much (even the officers friend allegedly recounting what the officer told him). Other distances reported suggest he didn't make it as far but it's not like people were spotting with rangefinders.
I get peoples desire to wait for all of the facts/stories about this incident come out to make judgments, but if it does turn out he killed this teenager in cold blood would it bother any of the people more adamant about it that an alleged and witnessed murderer has been free to go where he wishes and carry a weapon?
Or is letting someone go free after multiple witnesses allege they murdered someone how you envision 'letting the facts come out'
I mean they arrested journalists for literally nothing but it would be obscene to expect them to arrest an alleged murderer? Witnesses do describe a struggle and the cop does have marks, so there shouldn't be anyone thinking that he was killed in cold blood. Well I don't want to argue over what the phrase was intended to mean but the ambiguous physical struggle was over before he killed him by all accounts. We are yet to hear from the officer why he thought he needed to kill Michael and why he didn't have any other reasonable option. If he wasn't such a large guy I wouldn't have any idea how the officer could of been remotely close to fearing for his life from an unarmed person ~35 ft away. I personally am not comfortable with police officers feeling incapable of defending themselves against an unarmed person who is ~35 ft from them without anything less than lethal force even if it is a big guy. If he was unarmed, had just tried to take the officer's gun and was returning to attack, yeah, using the gun may have been justified. We need more info. Yeah not really (for my point[not limited to this particular incident]). I am pretty comfortable in thinking that police officers should be able to defend themselves from an unarmed person ~35 ft away without having to shoot him 6 times. If he had shot him only during a struggle for the gun that would be entirely different. I am not even arguing about 'justified', from a purely practical standpoint, cops should be able to defend themselves against unarmed people ~35 ft away without having to shoot them. I'm still curious how many times he actually shot. I know that's obviously much too complicated a piece of information to release though. I'd have to disagree with you there. An officer shouldn't wait for his gun to be taken away before he can use it. LOL really? Well unless the person is telepathic you shouldn't have to worry about a guy ~35 ft away taking your weapon. And my point is that if he looks like he is trying to, a police officer should have the skills to avoid him taking the weapon without having to shoot him multiple times (before he is even close). There are similar incidents when officers unnecessarily killed relatively unarmed mentally ill people with similar justifications. There is at least one witness why ways that he moved toward the cop before the cop opened fire. It doesn't take long to cover 35ft, so opening fire could be justified in that case. Again 'justified' was not my point (though I disagree depending on a lot of factors), it's that we are talking about how an unarmed man allegedly charging toward the cop from ~35ft away left the officer with no reasonable choice but to kill him (apparently at that distance). I just don't consider that acceptable. Even if it turns out to be completely legal and 'justified' we need to make the necessary changes to prevent that from being true. Because this wasn't the first time something like such has happened and it won't be the last. Killing people should be avoided whenever reasonable. Maybe eventually when we hear any semblance of a story from the police or the officer about what happened after the officer left the vehicle there will be some information that changes this particular case, but the over-aggression/militarization of the police is a clear and rampant problem that people consistently minimize, deny, and sweep under the rug. Depending on how it went down it could be acceptable. If the guy went for the officer's gun... that's a very dangerous situation. I wouldn't expect an officer to take that lightly.
No one is suggesting to 'take it lightly' just not shoot him 6 times from ~35 ft away. I would just love to see what the officer says happened. I wonder how long they will keep it secret?
|
On August 19 2014 09:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 09:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 08:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Witnesses do describe a struggle and the cop does have marks, so there shouldn't be anyone thinking that he was killed in cold blood. Well I don't want to argue over what the phrase was intended to mean but the ambiguous physical struggle was over before he killed him by all accounts. We are yet to hear from the officer why he thought he needed to kill Michael and why he didn't have any other reasonable option. If he wasn't such a large guy I wouldn't have any idea how the officer could of been remotely close to fearing for his life from an unarmed person ~35 ft away. I personally am not comfortable with police officers feeling incapable of defending themselves against an unarmed person who is ~35 ft from them without anything less than lethal force even if it is a big guy. If he was unarmed, had just tried to take the officer's gun and was returning to attack, yeah, using the gun may have been justified. We need more info. Yeah not really (for my point[not limited to this particular incident]). I am pretty comfortable in thinking that police officers should be able to defend themselves from an unarmed person ~35 ft away without having to shoot him 6 times. If he had shot him only during a struggle for the gun that would be entirely different. I am not even arguing about 'justified', from a purely practical standpoint, cops should be able to defend themselves against unarmed people ~35 ft away without having to shoot them. I'm still curious how many times he actually shot. I know that's obviously much too complicated a piece of information to release though. I'd have to disagree with you there. An officer shouldn't wait for his gun to be taken away before he can use it. LOL really? Well unless the person is telepathic you shouldn't have to worry about a guy ~35 ft away taking your weapon. And my point is that if he looks like he is trying to, a police officer should have the skills to avoid him taking the weapon without having to shoot him multiple times (before he is even close). There are similar incidents when officers unnecessarily killed relatively unarmed mentally ill people with similar justifications. There is at least one witness why ways that he moved toward the cop before the cop opened fire. It doesn't take long to cover 35ft, so opening fire could be justified in that case. Again 'justified' was not my point (though I disagree depending on a lot of factors), it's that we are talking about how an unarmed man allegedly charging toward the cop from ~35ft away left the officer with no reasonable choice but to kill him (apparently at that distance). I just don't consider that acceptable. Even if it turns out to be completely legal and 'justified' we need to make the necessary changes to prevent that from being true. Because this wasn't the first time something like such has happened and it won't be the last. Killing people should be avoided whenever reasonable. Maybe eventually when we hear any semblance of a story from the police or the officer about what happened after the officer left the vehicle there will be some information that changes this particular case, but the over-aggression/militarization of the police is a clear and rampant problem that people consistently minimize, deny, and sweep under the rug. Depending on how it went down it could be acceptable. If the guy went for the officer's gun... that's a very dangerous situation. I wouldn't expect an officer to take that lightly. No one is suggesting to 'take it lightly' just not shoot him 6 times from ~35 ft away. I would just love to see what the officer says happened. I wonder how long they will keep it secret?
It's pretty typical that if you shoot, you shoot to kill. 6 times isn't excessive in the real world - it's normal.
|
On August 19 2014 09:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 08:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Can't say 'I know' but all reports to this point have said as much (even the officers friend allegedly recounting what the officer told him). Other distances reported suggest he didn't make it as far but it's not like people were spotting with rangefinders.
I get peoples desire to wait for all of the facts/stories about this incident come out to make judgments, but if it does turn out he killed this teenager in cold blood would it bother any of the people more adamant about it that an alleged and witnessed murderer has been free to go where he wishes and carry a weapon?
Or is letting someone go free after multiple witnesses allege they murdered someone how you envision 'letting the facts come out'
I mean they arrested journalists for literally nothing but it would be obscene to expect them to arrest an alleged murderer? Witnesses do describe a struggle and the cop does have marks, so there shouldn't be anyone thinking that he was killed in cold blood. Well I don't want to argue over what the phrase was intended to mean but the ambiguous physical struggle was over before he killed him by all accounts. We are yet to hear from the officer why he thought he needed to kill Michael and why he didn't have any other reasonable option. If he wasn't such a large guy I wouldn't have any idea how the officer could of been remotely close to fearing for his life from an unarmed person ~35 ft away. I personally am not comfortable with police officers feeling incapable of defending themselves against an unarmed person who is ~35 ft from them without anything less than lethal force even if it is a big guy. If he was unarmed, had just tried to take the officer's gun and was returning to attack, yeah, using the gun may have been justified. We need more info. Yeah not really (for my point[not limited to this particular incident]). I am pretty comfortable in thinking that police officers should be able to defend themselves from an unarmed person ~35 ft away without having to shoot him 6 times. If he had shot him only during a struggle for the gun that would be entirely different. I am not even arguing about 'justified', from a purely practical standpoint, cops should be able to defend themselves against unarmed people ~35 ft away without having to shoot them. I'm still curious how many times he actually shot. I know that's obviously much too complicated a piece of information to release though. I'd have to disagree with you there. An officer shouldn't wait for his gun to be taken away before he can use it. LOL really? Well unless the person is telepathic you shouldn't have to worry about a guy ~35 ft away taking your weapon. And my point is that if he looks like he is trying to, a police officer should have the skills to avoid him taking the weapon without having to shoot him multiple times (before he is even close). There are similar incidents when officers unnecessarily killed relatively unarmed mentally ill people with similar justifications. There is at least one witness why ways that he moved toward the cop before the cop opened fire. It doesn't take long to cover 35ft, so opening fire could be justified in that case. Again 'justified' was not my point (though I disagree depending on a lot of factors), it's that we are talking about how an unarmed man allegedly charging toward the cop from ~35ft away left the officer with no reasonable choice but to kill him (apparently at that distance). I just don't consider that acceptable. Even if it turns out to be completely legal and 'justified' we need to make the necessary changes to prevent that from being true. Because this wasn't the first time something like such has happened and it won't be the last. Killing people should be avoided whenever reasonable. Maybe eventually when we hear any semblance of a story from the police or the officer about what happened after the officer left the vehicle there will be some information that changes this particular case, but the over-aggression/militarization of the police is a clear and rampant problem that people consistently minimize, deny, and sweep under the rug. Depending on how it went down it could be acceptable. If the guy went for the officer's gun... that's a very dangerous situation. I wouldn't expect an officer to take that lightly. Edit: What's with the "minimize deny and sweep under the rug" comment? This is getting huge attention from many angles. Moreover, where's the evidence that it's a "clear and rampant" problem? The only statistics I've seen is for police shootings going down.
That's not a very useful statistic because it
1. Is not necessarily indicative of the country as a whole (it's only NYC)
2. As a starting point it picks the most violent point (in terms of gun violence and homicide) in our history
3. Doesn't include statistics on race.
It also raises the question on why we don't have those statistics.
|
On August 19 2014 09:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 08:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Can't say 'I know' but all reports to this point have said as much (even the officers friend allegedly recounting what the officer told him). Other distances reported suggest he didn't make it as far but it's not like people were spotting with rangefinders.
I get peoples desire to wait for all of the facts/stories about this incident come out to make judgments, but if it does turn out he killed this teenager in cold blood would it bother any of the people more adamant about it that an alleged and witnessed murderer has been free to go where he wishes and carry a weapon?
Or is letting someone go free after multiple witnesses allege they murdered someone how you envision 'letting the facts come out'
I mean they arrested journalists for literally nothing but it would be obscene to expect them to arrest an alleged murderer? Witnesses do describe a struggle and the cop does have marks, so there shouldn't be anyone thinking that he was killed in cold blood. Well I don't want to argue over what the phrase was intended to mean but the ambiguous physical struggle was over before he killed him by all accounts. We are yet to hear from the officer why he thought he needed to kill Michael and why he didn't have any other reasonable option. If he wasn't such a large guy I wouldn't have any idea how the officer could of been remotely close to fearing for his life from an unarmed person ~35 ft away. I personally am not comfortable with police officers feeling incapable of defending themselves against an unarmed person who is ~35 ft from them without anything less than lethal force even if it is a big guy. If he was unarmed, had just tried to take the officer's gun and was returning to attack, yeah, using the gun may have been justified. We need more info. Yeah not really (for my point[not limited to this particular incident]). I am pretty comfortable in thinking that police officers should be able to defend themselves from an unarmed person ~35 ft away without having to shoot him 6 times. If he had shot him only during a struggle for the gun that would be entirely different. I am not even arguing about 'justified', from a purely practical standpoint, cops should be able to defend themselves against unarmed people ~35 ft away without having to shoot them. I'm still curious how many times he actually shot. I know that's obviously much too complicated a piece of information to release though. I'd have to disagree with you there. An officer shouldn't wait for his gun to be taken away before he can use it. LOL really? Well unless the person is telepathic you shouldn't have to worry about a guy ~35 ft away taking your weapon. And my point is that if he looks like he is trying to, a police officer should have the skills to avoid him taking the weapon without having to shoot him multiple times (before he is even close). There are similar incidents when officers unnecessarily killed relatively unarmed mentally ill people with similar justifications. There is at least one witness why ways that he moved toward the cop before the cop opened fire. It doesn't take long to cover 35ft, so opening fire could be justified in that case. Again 'justified' was not my point (though I disagree depending on a lot of factors), it's that we are talking about how an unarmed man allegedly charging toward the cop from ~35ft away left the officer with no reasonable choice but to kill him (apparently at that distance). I just don't consider that acceptable. Even if it turns out to be completely legal and 'justified' we need to make the necessary changes to prevent that from being true. Because this wasn't the first time something like such has happened and it won't be the last. Killing people should be avoided whenever reasonable. Maybe eventually when we hear any semblance of a story from the police or the officer about what happened after the officer left the vehicle there will be some information that changes this particular case, but the over-aggression/militarization of the police is a clear and rampant problem that people consistently minimize, deny, and sweep under the rug. Depending on how it went down it could be acceptable. If the guy went for the officer's gun... that's a very dangerous situation. I wouldn't expect an officer to take that lightly. Edit: What's with the "minimize deny and sweep under the rug" comment? This is getting huge attention from many angles. Moreover, where's the evidence that it's a "clear and rampant" problem? The only statistics I've seen is for police shootings going down.
Shooting is just one of the most extreme manifestations of the problems. There is plenty in between decent policing and unnecessarily shooting people. Stop and frisk in NYC is a good place to look if you want to see a lot of the problems all in one place (this policy and practice is changing [hopefully/seemingly for the better]).
Arrest rates in the Ferguson area show some worrying signs also.
But as far as what I actually said are you really unaware of the widespread problems with police over-aggression and militarization. For instance the huge spike in SWAT teams and their use?
Incidentally Ed Henry just (probably accidentally) called the death a 'murder' on O'Reilly.
|
On August 19 2014 09:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 09:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 09:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 08:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Well I don't want to argue over what the phrase was intended to mean but the ambiguous physical struggle was over before he killed him by all accounts. We are yet to hear from the officer why he thought he needed to kill Michael and why he didn't have any other reasonable option.
If he wasn't such a large guy I wouldn't have any idea how the officer could of been remotely close to fearing for his life from an unarmed person ~35 ft away.
I personally am not comfortable with police officers feeling incapable of defending themselves against an unarmed person who is ~35 ft from them without anything less than lethal force even if it is a big guy. If he was unarmed, had just tried to take the officer's gun and was returning to attack, yeah, using the gun may have been justified. We need more info. Yeah not really (for my point[not limited to this particular incident]). I am pretty comfortable in thinking that police officers should be able to defend themselves from an unarmed person ~35 ft away without having to shoot him 6 times. If he had shot him only during a struggle for the gun that would be entirely different. I am not even arguing about 'justified', from a purely practical standpoint, cops should be able to defend themselves against unarmed people ~35 ft away without having to shoot them. I'm still curious how many times he actually shot. I know that's obviously much too complicated a piece of information to release though. I'd have to disagree with you there. An officer shouldn't wait for his gun to be taken away before he can use it. LOL really? Well unless the person is telepathic you shouldn't have to worry about a guy ~35 ft away taking your weapon. And my point is that if he looks like he is trying to, a police officer should have the skills to avoid him taking the weapon without having to shoot him multiple times (before he is even close). There are similar incidents when officers unnecessarily killed relatively unarmed mentally ill people with similar justifications. There is at least one witness why ways that he moved toward the cop before the cop opened fire. It doesn't take long to cover 35ft, so opening fire could be justified in that case. Again 'justified' was not my point (though I disagree depending on a lot of factors), it's that we are talking about how an unarmed man allegedly charging toward the cop from ~35ft away left the officer with no reasonable choice but to kill him (apparently at that distance). I just don't consider that acceptable. Even if it turns out to be completely legal and 'justified' we need to make the necessary changes to prevent that from being true. Because this wasn't the first time something like such has happened and it won't be the last. Killing people should be avoided whenever reasonable. Maybe eventually when we hear any semblance of a story from the police or the officer about what happened after the officer left the vehicle there will be some information that changes this particular case, but the over-aggression/militarization of the police is a clear and rampant problem that people consistently minimize, deny, and sweep under the rug. Depending on how it went down it could be acceptable. If the guy went for the officer's gun... that's a very dangerous situation. I wouldn't expect an officer to take that lightly. No one is suggesting to 'take it lightly' just not shoot him 6 times from ~35 ft away. I would just love to see what the officer says happened. I wonder how long they will keep it secret? It's pretty typical that if you shoot, you shoot to kill. 6 times isn't excessive in the real world - it's normal.
No, it's really not. Do you know how many times cops typically fire their weapon when they use it? Or what the trends on that look like?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
