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 November 25 2014 23:04 Efane wrote: Regardless of rights and wrongs, buffles me to no end that for 13+ years now US police is more or less US army... I though with all those dirty DARPA moneyz you could make something better then a tazer... And its kinda sad that the jury decided to overlook some clear overuse of power, i mean, come on, even if the officers life was threatened, in his perception, doesnt sanction spraying and praying like its 5 past apocalypse and we are all doomed, DOOMED! Well, i guess considering policemen in their line of duty just "human", with emotions and crap is a wise excuse for the future, i mean, its not like they are trained to apprehend all kinds of dodgy situations, they might have worked in Taco Bell like a week ago... oh, wait
I doubt that it has been overlooked. That kind of claim is reserved for civil lawsuits. The family already lawyered up and hired Crump to represent them in a potential wrongful death / 1983 case. Whether they actually file suit could be rather telling regarding what they think of the evidence that is available. Of course, there's also the potential that they just settle for an "undisclosed amount."
Im clearly nowhere near competent enough on US legislature, but to me it seems to be the main point of investigation/case. Does it not kinda seems common sense for the main question to be "Why empty half a clip into a boy?" I mean, the court is determening if the course of actions chosen by the officer was "legitimate" (cant remember the proper word, sadly). Jury seems to think it was, which, at least for me, raises the question about standart police procedures in states. But then again, not a citizen, my opinion doesnt matter, as i was told lots of times by several US retailers :D
At least now im sure that US is kinda the same shithole Russia is, just with less backhanded stuff (or maybe better orchestrated). Oh well, authority empowers you with rights, not responsobilities
On November 25 2014 23:04 Efane wrote: Regardless of rights and wrongs, buffles me to no end that for 13+ years now US police is more or less US army... I though with all those dirty DARPA moneyz you could make something better then a tazer... And its kinda sad that the jury decided to overlook some clear overuse of power, i mean, come on, even if the officers life was threatened, in his perception, doesnt sanction spraying and praying like its 5 past apocalypse and we are all doomed, DOOMED! Well, i guess considering policemen in their line of duty just "human", with emotions and crap is a wise excuse for the future, i mean, its not like they are trained to apprehend all kinds of dodgy situations, they might have worked in Taco Bell like a week ago... oh, wait
I doubt that it has been overlooked. That kind of claim is reserved for civil lawsuits. The family already lawyered up and hired Crump to represent them in a potential wrongful death / 1983 case. Whether they actually file suit could be rather telling regarding what they think of the evidence that is available. Of course, there's also the potential that they just settle for an "undisclosed amount."
Im clearly nowhere near competent enough on US legislature, but to me it seems to be the main point of investigation/case. Does it not kinda seems common sense for the main question to be "Why empty half a clip into a boy?" I mean, the court is determening if the course of actions chosen by the officer was "legitimate" (cant remember the proper word, sadly). Jury seems to think it was, which, at least for me, raises the question about standart police procedures in states. But then again, not a citizen, my opinion doesnt matter, as i was told lots of times by several US retailers :D
At least now im sure that US is kinda the same shithole Russia is, just with less backhanded stuff (or maybe better orchestrated). Oh well, authority empowers you with rights, not responsobilities
Well, it wasn't the job of the grand jury to determine the legality of what the cop did. They're only task was to determine whether there's a good enough chance that the cop's actions could be criminal. The grand jury decided the answer to that question was no. It still is yet to be decided whether the killing was otherwise unlawful under civil law. I would expect the family's attorney to ask the same question you did regarding emptying half the clip into the kid. I have no doubt, however, that the defense will put on an expert to talk about how cops are trained to keep shooting until the target goes down, which is apparently what happened here.
IMO we should talk about the angle of the news media stirring things up, almost hoping for a violent reaction and fueling the flames by spinning the result as completely unfair without really looking into the legal procedure that goes into this. The politics of this, going all the way up to the White House, are also pretty ugly.
Going through the grand jury transcript and the prosecutor's statements, the simple fact is that the most credible witnesses all backed the cop's version of events. Many of the witnesses backing Brown's version of events changed their stories over time or their stories were inconsistent with the physical evidence.
I guess it's worth asking - does Angela Merkel or David Cameron or other leaders get involved and comment on local murder cases? I suppose I could point out that President Park of South Korea did have to trot herself out for the Sewol ferry disaster, although the Korean Coast Guard was heavily involved in that.
On November 25 2014 23:04 Efane wrote: Regardless of rights and wrongs, buffles me to no end that for 13+ years now US police is more or less US army... I though with all those dirty DARPA moneyz you could make something better then a tazer... And its kinda sad that the jury decided to overlook some clear overuse of power, i mean, come on, even if the officers life was threatened, in his perception, doesnt sanction spraying and praying like its 5 past apocalypse and we are all doomed, DOOMED! Well, i guess considering policemen in their line of duty just "human", with emotions and crap is a wise excuse for the future, i mean, its not like they are trained to apprehend all kinds of dodgy situations, they might have worked in Taco Bell like a week ago... oh, wait
I doubt that it has been overlooked. That kind of claim is reserved for civil lawsuits. The family already lawyered up and hired Crump to represent them in a potential wrongful death / 1983 case. Whether they actually file suit could be rather telling regarding what they think of the evidence that is available. Of course, there's also the potential that they just settle for an "undisclosed amount."
Im clearly nowhere near competent enough on US legislature, but to me it seems to be the main point of investigation/case. Does it not kinda seems common sense for the main question to be "Why empty half a clip into a boy?" I mean, the court is determening if the course of actions chosen by the officer was "legitimate" (cant remember the proper word, sadly). Jury seems to think it was, which, at least for me, raises the question about standart police procedures in states. But then again, not a citizen, my opinion doesnt matter, as i was told lots of times by several US retailers :D
At least now im sure that US is kinda the same shithole Russia is, just with less backhanded stuff (or maybe better orchestrated). Oh well, authority empowers you with rights, not responsobilities
Well, it wasn't the job of the grand jury to determine the legality of what the cop did. They're only task was to determine whether there's a good enough chance that the cop's actions could be criminal. The grand jury decided the answer to that question was no. It still is yet to be decided whether the killing was otherwise unlawful under civil law. I would expect the family's attorney to ask the same question you did regarding emptying half the clip into the kid. I have no doubt, however, that the defense will put on an expert to talk about how cops are trained to keep shooting until the target goes down, which is apparently what happened here.
This clarifies the whole grand jury thing for me, but it just doesnt sit well at all that shooting a random person, even if intimidating, until he goes down, is a proper, lawful way of communication between a policeman and a citizen... 9/11 really fucked US up. I visited the states once, and while i loved the country and the people, being treated as a potential criminal while crossing the border left an unfavorable impression. It's like the UK asking you to basicly tell them you biography on tape during the visa procedures, but it just doesnt stop there...
On November 25 2014 23:04 Efane wrote: Regardless of rights and wrongs, buffles me to no end that for 13+ years now US police is more or less US army... I though with all those dirty DARPA moneyz you could make something better then a tazer... And its kinda sad that the jury decided to overlook some clear overuse of power, i mean, come on, even if the officers life was threatened, in his perception, doesnt sanction spraying and praying like its 5 past apocalypse and we are all doomed, DOOMED! Well, i guess considering policemen in their line of duty just "human", with emotions and crap is a wise excuse for the future, i mean, its not like they are trained to apprehend all kinds of dodgy situations, they might have worked in Taco Bell like a week ago... oh, wait
I doubt that it has been overlooked. That kind of claim is reserved for civil lawsuits. The family already lawyered up and hired Crump to represent them in a potential wrongful death / 1983 case. Whether they actually file suit could be rather telling regarding what they think of the evidence that is available. Of course, there's also the potential that they just settle for an "undisclosed amount."
Im clearly nowhere near competent enough on US legislature, but to me it seems to be the main point of investigation/case. Does it not kinda seems common sense for the main question to be "Why empty half a clip into a boy?" I mean, the court is determening if the course of actions chosen by the officer was "legitimate" (cant remember the proper word, sadly). Jury seems to think it was, which, at least for me, raises the question about standart police procedures in states. But then again, not a citizen, my opinion doesnt matter, as i was told lots of times by several US retailers :D
At least now im sure that US is kinda the same shithole Russia is, just with less backhanded stuff (or maybe better orchestrated). Oh well, authority empowers you with rights, not responsobilities
Well, it wasn't the job of the grand jury to determine the legality of what the cop did. They're only task was to determine whether there's a good enough chance that the cop's actions could be criminal. The grand jury decided the answer to that question was no. It still is yet to be decided whether the killing was otherwise unlawful under civil law. I would expect the family's attorney to ask the same question you did regarding emptying half the clip into the kid. I have no doubt, however, that the defense will put on an expert to talk about how cops are trained to keep shooting until the target goes down, which is apparently what happened here.
This clarifies the whole grand jury thing for me, but it just doesnt sit well at all that shooting a random person, even if intimidating, until he goes down, is a proper, lawful way of communication between a policeman and a citizen... 9/11 really fucked US up. I visited the states once, and while i loved the country and the people, being treated as a potential criminal while crossing the border left an unfavorable impression. It's like the UK asking you to basicly tell them you biography on tape during the visa procedures, but it just doesnt stop there...
I'm just going to take a wild guess that the cops in Russia are allowed to shoot people that attack them. I have no idea why you are characterizing this event as the shooting of a random person. You couldn't be much farther from the truth.
On November 26 2014 00:31 coverpunch wrote: IMO we should talk about the angle of the news media stirring things up, almost hoping for a violent reaction and fueling the flames by spinning the result as completely unfair without really looking into the legal procedure that goes into this. The politics of this, going all the way up to the White House, are also pretty ugly.
Yes, the news media need to be collectively flogged. Take a look at this shit that's splashed on the front page of the Politico this morning:
In November, when rumors circulated that a grand jury decision was nearing, the protesters began to prepare. They were fighting the same fight that had brought them out in the early August day: the killing of unarmed black men by law enforcement, and the sanctioning of those killings by the justice system. The preparation meetings were mostly about how to not get killed while pointing this out. Medics, legal advocates, and peace activists gave tips on how to handle tear gas and go limp when arrested. As the media talked riots, protesters talked survival—not only survival of the people they were fighting for, but theirs.
To speak was to anticipate being silenced. To insist that black lives matter was to anticipate the end of your own. Finally, last night, on November 24, prosecutor Bob McCulloch sauntered in late to the press conference where he announced that Darren Wilson would face no charges for killing Michael Brown. He began by blaming social media for distributing what he deemed inflammatory information, and ended by declaring Brown’s death an “opportunity” for St. Louis’s civic engagement. Where he sees “opportunity” many St. Louisans see stone-cold murder. Everything about the announcement—the timing, the condescending tone, the weeks of militarized vehicles patrolling the roads—seemed designed to inflame and incite the region.
And it did. As I write this, I hear gunshots and sirens outside my window and watch burning vehicles and buildings on my TV. Officials and media who have spent weeks falsely proclaiming that there were “riots” in St. Louis may have finally gotten what they wanted: real riots, retroactive justification for police militarization and brutality.
Nothing has changed in St. Louis since August—not the tear gas or the riot gear and especially not the fear. Nothing has changed except any remaining pretense that Brown’s killer would face consequences. Instead, Wilson is the recipient of a financial windfall, made possible through donations of supporters, as the region he swore to serve and protect burns. This is the reality St. Louis parents will explain to their children today when they ask why school is canceled. They will have to tell children that a white officer killed a black teenager in the street, and not only was this officer not held accountable, he was ultimately rewarded. St. Louis’s children will look in the mirror and see their future in the color of their skin. They will look at the streets and see new ruins accompanying the boarded windows and blight of St. Louis’s racial geography.
Just look at this horseshit. In practically the same breath she's scolding the media for stoking last night's riots and stoking the riots herself by groundlessly tarnishing the result of the legal process. Notice how none of these idiots who are expressing outrage over the result are even bothering to look at the facts beyond stating that an unarmed black kid was shot. Well, guess what? It is perfectly legal, if not advisable, to shoot an unarmed black kid given certain factual circumstances.
On November 26 2014 00:31 coverpunch wrote: I guess it's worth asking - does Angela Merkel or David Cameron or other leaders get involved and comment on local murder cases? I suppose I could point out that President Park of South Korea did have to trot herself out for the Sewol ferry disaster, although the Korean Coast Guard was heavily involved in that.
This is not the same thing. In Germany or in the UK stuff like this happens once every few years. People get sad for a while but accept that it's a freak accident. In the US this is now a weekly thing. Kids get shot while they play with toy pistols, African-Americans get shot under disturbing circumstances, the police is armed like the military, etc. People aren't setting shit on fire because of some technicality in this specific case, but because there is a general problem in the US that simply doesn't exist in any other developed country. The fact that the US heavily discriminated African-Americans up to basically two generations ago and that you know have a black president who apparently doesn't really give a crap about the rights of African-Americans in his own country naturally amplifies the situation.
On November 26 2014 00:31 coverpunch wrote: IMO we should talk about the angle of the news media stirring things up, almost hoping for a violent reaction and fueling the flames by spinning the result as completely unfair without really looking into the legal procedure that goes into this. The politics of this, going all the way up to the White House, are also pretty ugly.
Going through the grand jury transcript and the prosecutor's statements, the simple fact is that the most credible witnesses all backed the cop's version of events. Many of the witnesses backing Brown's version of events changed their stories over time or their stories were inconsistent with the physical evidence.
I guess it's worth asking - does Angela Merkel or David Cameron or other leaders get involved and comment on local murder cases? I suppose I could point out that President Park of South Korea did have to trot herself out for the Sewol ferry disaster, although the Korean Coast Guard was heavily involved in that.
On November 25 2014 23:04 Efane wrote: Regardless of rights and wrongs, buffles me to no end that for 13+ years now US police is more or less US army... I though with all those dirty DARPA moneyz you could make something better then a tazer... And its kinda sad that the jury decided to overlook some clear overuse of power, i mean, come on, even if the officers life was threatened, in his perception, doesnt sanction spraying and praying like its 5 past apocalypse and we are all doomed, DOOMED! Well, i guess considering policemen in their line of duty just "human", with emotions and crap is a wise excuse for the future, i mean, its not like they are trained to apprehend all kinds of dodgy situations, they might have worked in Taco Bell like a week ago... oh, wait
I doubt that it has been overlooked. That kind of claim is reserved for civil lawsuits. The family already lawyered up and hired Crump to represent them in a potential wrongful death / 1983 case. Whether they actually file suit could be rather telling regarding what they think of the evidence that is available. Of course, there's also the potential that they just settle for an "undisclosed amount."
Im clearly nowhere near competent enough on US legislature, but to me it seems to be the main point of investigation/case. Does it not kinda seems common sense for the main question to be "Why empty half a clip into a boy?" I mean, the court is determening if the course of actions chosen by the officer was "legitimate" (cant remember the proper word, sadly). Jury seems to think it was, which, at least for me, raises the question about standart police procedures in states. But then again, not a citizen, my opinion doesnt matter, as i was told lots of times by several US retailers :D
At least now im sure that US is kinda the same shithole Russia is, just with less backhanded stuff (or maybe better orchestrated). Oh well, authority empowers you with rights, not responsobilities
Well, it wasn't the job of the grand jury to determine the legality of what the cop did. They're only task was to determine whether there's a good enough chance that the cop's actions could be criminal. The grand jury decided the answer to that question was no. It still is yet to be decided whether the killing was otherwise unlawful under civil law. I would expect the family's attorney to ask the same question you did regarding emptying half the clip into the kid. I have no doubt, however, that the defense will put on an expert to talk about how cops are trained to keep shooting until the target goes down, which is apparently what happened here.
This clarifies the whole grand jury thing for me, but it just doesnt sit well at all that shooting a random person, even if intimidating, until he goes down, is a proper, lawful way of communication between a policeman and a citizen... 9/11 really fucked US up. I visited the states once, and while i loved the country and the people, being treated as a potential criminal while crossing the border left an unfavorable impression. It's like the UK asking you to basicly tell them you biography on tape during the visa procedures, but it just doesnt stop there...
I'm just going to take a wild guess that the cops in Russia are allowed to shoot people that attack them. I have no idea why you are characterizing this event as the shooting of a random person. You couldn't be much farther from the truth.
The problem is that unneeded violence by police in the US is so common place that even if this was a legitimate use of deadly force it will be questioned. To many cases and perceptions of police being covered from blame for the community to blindly accept the grand jury.
You can focus on case X or Y but in the end unrest like this will not end until the systematic problems with the US police force are addressed.
On November 25 2014 23:04 Efane wrote: Regardless of rights and wrongs, buffles me to no end that for 13+ years now US police is more or less US army... I though with all those dirty DARPA moneyz you could make something better then a tazer... And its kinda sad that the jury decided to overlook some clear overuse of power, i mean, come on, even if the officers life was threatened, in his perception, doesnt sanction spraying and praying like its 5 past apocalypse and we are all doomed, DOOMED! Well, i guess considering policemen in their line of duty just "human", with emotions and crap is a wise excuse for the future, i mean, its not like they are trained to apprehend all kinds of dodgy situations, they might have worked in Taco Bell like a week ago... oh, wait
I doubt that it has been overlooked. That kind of claim is reserved for civil lawsuits. The family already lawyered up and hired Crump to represent them in a potential wrongful death / 1983 case. Whether they actually file suit could be rather telling regarding what they think of the evidence that is available. Of course, there's also the potential that they just settle for an "undisclosed amount."
Im clearly nowhere near competent enough on US legislature, but to me it seems to be the main point of investigation/case. Does it not kinda seems common sense for the main question to be "Why empty half a clip into a boy?" I mean, the court is determening if the course of actions chosen by the officer was "legitimate" (cant remember the proper word, sadly). Jury seems to think it was, which, at least for me, raises the question about standart police procedures in states. But then again, not a citizen, my opinion doesnt matter, as i was told lots of times by several US retailers :D
At least now im sure that US is kinda the same shithole Russia is, just with less backhanded stuff (or maybe better orchestrated). Oh well, authority empowers you with rights, not responsobilities
Well, it wasn't the job of the grand jury to determine the legality of what the cop did. They're only task was to determine whether there's a good enough chance that the cop's actions could be criminal. The grand jury decided the answer to that question was no. It still is yet to be decided whether the killing was otherwise unlawful under civil law. I would expect the family's attorney to ask the same question you did regarding emptying half the clip into the kid. I have no doubt, however, that the defense will put on an expert to talk about how cops are trained to keep shooting until the target goes down, which is apparently what happened here.
This clarifies the whole grand jury thing for me, but it just doesnt sit well at all that shooting a random person, even if intimidating, until he goes down, is a proper, lawful way of communication between a policeman and a citizen... 9/11 really fucked US up. I visited the states once, and while i loved the country and the people, being treated as a potential criminal while crossing the border left an unfavorable impression. It's like the UK asking you to basicly tell them you biography on tape during the visa procedures, but it just doesnt stop there...
I'm just going to take a wild guess that the cops in Russia are allowed to shoot people that attack them. I have no idea why you are characterizing this event as the shooting of a random person. You couldn't be much farther from the truth.
The problem is that unneeded violence by police in the US is so common place that even if this was a legitimate use of deadly force it will be questioned. To many cases and perceptions of police being covered from blame for the community to blindly accept the grand jury.
You can focus on case X or Y but in the end unrest like this will not end until the systematic problems with the US police force are addressed.
I'm not going to argue that we don't have a problem with our domestic police force. Too many cops are assholes and do abuse their authority -- often violently. However, I have not seen any compelling evidence that this is what happened here.
On November 26 2014 00:31 coverpunch wrote: I guess it's worth asking - does Angela Merkel or David Cameron or other leaders get involved and comment on local murder cases? I suppose I could point out that President Park of South Korea did have to trot herself out for the Sewol ferry disaster, although the Korean Coast Guard was heavily involved in that.
This is not the same thing. In Germany or in the UK stuff like this happens once every few years. People get sad for a while but accept that it's a freak accident. In the US this is now a weekly thing. Kids get shot while they play with toy pistols, African-Americans get shot under disturbing circumstances, the police is armed like the military, etc. People aren't setting shit on fire because of some technicality in this specific case, but because there is a general problem in the US that simply doesn't exist in any other developed country. The fact that the US heavily discriminated African-Americans up to basically two generations ago and that you know have a black president who apparently doesn't really give a crap about the rights of African-Americans in his own country naturally amplifies the situation.
A general problem that does not exist in any other developed country, except France, where riots over racial/ethnic tension are much more frequent and violent than in the USA...
And Britain, which has had riots of its own...
And the Netherlands...
And Norway...
And Denmark...
And Italy...
And Spain...
All developed countries that have seen riots in varying sizes and degrees of violence in the last ~10 years because of racial/ethnic tensions stoked by immigration from North Africa to continental Europe. That list sure isn't comprehensive either.
This is the main problem, simple ignorance and filling in the necessary facts with nonsense that sounds plausible and reinforces already existing stereotypes. Like, say, the untrue and ignorant assertion that this situation is unique to the United States because [insert stereotype about the United States here that of course makes the US look uniquely bad compared to all those other developed countries that are clearly superior].
Between which groups in France is the tension higher than what is currently happening in Ferguson? And how do you come to the conclusion that they are more violent given the number of victims posted on the last few pages? This isn't about feeling superior. The US is unique in that regard, I mean just look at what's happening right now, are you kidding me?
insert stereotype about the United States here that of course makes the US look uniquely bad compared to all those other developed countries that are clearly superior
This isn't a stereotype. Look at the number of African-Americans in prison, poverty among African Americans, life expectency, gun deaths, etc.. all the numbers have posted a billion times in the thread already. "you just can't handle how great the United States of America are" is not a valid argument .
On November 25 2014 23:04 Efane wrote: Regardless of rights and wrongs, buffles me to no end that for 13+ years now US police is more or less US army... I though with all those dirty DARPA moneyz you could make something better then a tazer... And its kinda sad that the jury decided to overlook some clear overuse of power, i mean, come on, even if the officers life was threatened, in his perception, doesnt sanction spraying and praying like its 5 past apocalypse and we are all doomed, DOOMED! Well, i guess considering policemen in their line of duty just "human", with emotions and crap is a wise excuse for the future, i mean, its not like they are trained to apprehend all kinds of dodgy situations, they might have worked in Taco Bell like a week ago... oh, wait
I doubt that it has been overlooked. That kind of claim is reserved for civil lawsuits. The family already lawyered up and hired Crump to represent them in a potential wrongful death / 1983 case. Whether they actually file suit could be rather telling regarding what they think of the evidence that is available. Of course, there's also the potential that they just settle for an "undisclosed amount."
Im clearly nowhere near competent enough on US legislature, but to me it seems to be the main point of investigation/case. Does it not kinda seems common sense for the main question to be "Why empty half a clip into a boy?" I mean, the court is determening if the course of actions chosen by the officer was "legitimate" (cant remember the proper word, sadly). Jury seems to think it was, which, at least for me, raises the question about standart police procedures in states. But then again, not a citizen, my opinion doesnt matter, as i was told lots of times by several US retailers :D
At least now im sure that US is kinda the same shithole Russia is, just with less backhanded stuff (or maybe better orchestrated). Oh well, authority empowers you with rights, not responsobilities
Well, it wasn't the job of the grand jury to determine the legality of what the cop did. They're only task was to determine whether there's a good enough chance that the cop's actions could be criminal. The grand jury decided the answer to that question was no. It still is yet to be decided whether the killing was otherwise unlawful under civil law. I would expect the family's attorney to ask the same question you did regarding emptying half the clip into the kid. I have no doubt, however, that the defense will put on an expert to talk about how cops are trained to keep shooting until the target goes down, which is apparently what happened here.
This clarifies the whole grand jury thing for me, but it just doesnt sit well at all that shooting a random person, even if intimidating, until he goes down, is a proper, lawful way of communication between a policeman and a citizen... 9/11 really fucked US up. I visited the states once, and while i loved the country and the people, being treated as a potential criminal while crossing the border left an unfavorable impression. It's like the UK asking you to basicly tell them you biography on tape during the visa procedures, but it just doesnt stop there...
I'm just going to take a wild guess that the cops in Russia are allowed to shoot people that attack them. I have no idea why you are characterizing this event as the shooting of a random person. You couldn't be much farther from the truth.
The problem is that unneeded violence by police in the US is so common place that even if this was a legitimate use of deadly force it will be questioned. To many cases and perceptions of police being covered from blame for the community to blindly accept the grand jury.
You can focus on case X or Y but in the end unrest like this will not end until the systematic problems with the US police force are addressed.
I'm not going to argue that we don't have a problem with our domestic police force. Too many cops are assholes and do abuse their authority -- often violently. However, I have not seen any compelling evidence that this is what happened here.
Isn't it proven that the boy was unarmed? Why do you need to shoot him 6 times when there really isn't any danger? Why do normal civil people decide "if it was a crime" ? The american "law" system is fucked up, holy shit.
On November 26 2014 00:31 coverpunch wrote: I guess it's worth asking - does Angela Merkel or David Cameron or other leaders get involved and comment on local murder cases? I suppose I could point out that President Park of South Korea did have to trot herself out for the Sewol ferry disaster, although the Korean Coast Guard was heavily involved in that.
When the riots in London a few years ago were happening, which were also sparked by police shooting a black guy, Cameron and pretty much every other politician commented on the situation, almost all condemning the rioters.
On November 25 2014 23:04 Efane wrote: Regardless of rights and wrongs, buffles me to no end that for 13+ years now US police is more or less US army... I though with all those dirty DARPA moneyz you could make something better then a tazer... And its kinda sad that the jury decided to overlook some clear overuse of power, i mean, come on, even if the officers life was threatened, in his perception, doesnt sanction spraying and praying like its 5 past apocalypse and we are all doomed, DOOMED! Well, i guess considering policemen in their line of duty just "human", with emotions and crap is a wise excuse for the future, i mean, its not like they are trained to apprehend all kinds of dodgy situations, they might have worked in Taco Bell like a week ago... oh, wait
I doubt that it has been overlooked. That kind of claim is reserved for civil lawsuits. The family already lawyered up and hired Crump to represent them in a potential wrongful death / 1983 case. Whether they actually file suit could be rather telling regarding what they think of the evidence that is available. Of course, there's also the potential that they just settle for an "undisclosed amount."
Im clearly nowhere near competent enough on US legislature, but to me it seems to be the main point of investigation/case. Does it not kinda seems common sense for the main question to be "Why empty half a clip into a boy?" I mean, the court is determening if the course of actions chosen by the officer was "legitimate" (cant remember the proper word, sadly). Jury seems to think it was, which, at least for me, raises the question about standart police procedures in states. But then again, not a citizen, my opinion doesnt matter, as i was told lots of times by several US retailers :D
At least now im sure that US is kinda the same shithole Russia is, just with less backhanded stuff (or maybe better orchestrated). Oh well, authority empowers you with rights, not responsobilities
Well, it wasn't the job of the grand jury to determine the legality of what the cop did. They're only task was to determine whether there's a good enough chance that the cop's actions could be criminal. The grand jury decided the answer to that question was no. It still is yet to be decided whether the killing was otherwise unlawful under civil law. I would expect the family's attorney to ask the same question you did regarding emptying half the clip into the kid. I have no doubt, however, that the defense will put on an expert to talk about how cops are trained to keep shooting until the target goes down, which is apparently what happened here.
This clarifies the whole grand jury thing for me, but it just doesnt sit well at all that shooting a random person, even if intimidating, until he goes down, is a proper, lawful way of communication between a policeman and a citizen... 9/11 really fucked US up. I visited the states once, and while i loved the country and the people, being treated as a potential criminal while crossing the border left an unfavorable impression. It's like the UK asking you to basicly tell them you biography on tape during the visa procedures, but it just doesnt stop there...
I'm just going to take a wild guess that the cops in Russia are allowed to shoot people that attack them. I have no idea why you are characterizing this event as the shooting of a random person. You couldn't be much farther from the truth.
The problem is that unneeded violence by police in the US is so common place that even if this was a legitimate use of deadly force it will be questioned. To many cases and perceptions of police being covered from blame for the community to blindly accept the grand jury.
You can focus on case X or Y but in the end unrest like this will not end until the systematic problems with the US police force are addressed.
I'm not going to argue that we don't have a problem with our domestic police force. Too many cops are assholes and do abuse their authority -- often violently. However, I have not seen any compelling evidence that this is what happened here.
And you may well be right, It might not have happened here but when a community has all faith in the system it doesn't matter if the case is legitimate or not. To them its just another white cop shooing a black kid being kept safe by the system. If the US wants to end this problem it needs to restore faith in the justice system and police and its hard to do that when cops kill people almost daily. Lethal force is no longer a last resort in the US and that is a massive problem.
On November 26 2014 00:31 coverpunch wrote: I guess it's worth asking - does Angela Merkel or David Cameron or other leaders get involved and comment on local murder cases? I suppose I could point out that President Park of South Korea did have to trot herself out for the Sewol ferry disaster, although the Korean Coast Guard was heavily involved in that.
This is not the same thing. In Germany or in the UK stuff like this happens once every few years. People get sad for a while but accept that it's a freak accident. In the US this is now a weekly thing. Kids get shot while they play with toy pistols, African-Americans get shot under disturbing circumstances, the police is armed like the military, etc. People aren't setting shit on fire because of some technicality in this specific case, but because there is a general problem in the US that simply doesn't exist in any other developed country. The fact that the US heavily discriminated African-Americans up to basically two generations ago and that you know have a black president who apparently doesn't really give a crap about the rights of African-Americans in his own country naturally amplifies the situation.
A general problem that does not exist in any other developed country, except France, where riots over racial/ethnic tension are much more frequent and violent than in the USA...
And Britain, which has had riots of its own...
And the Netherlands...
And Norway...
And Denmark...
And Italy...
And Spain...
All developed countries that have seen riots in varying sizes and degrees of violence in the last ~10 years because of racial/ethnic tensions stoked by immigration from North Africa to continental Europe. That list sure isn't comprehensive either.
This is the main problem, simple ignorance and filling in the necessary facts with nonsense that sounds plausible and reinforces already existing stereotypes. Like, say, the untrue and ignorant assertion that this situation is unique to the United States because [insert stereotype about the United States here that of course makes the US look uniquely bad compared to all those other developed countries that are clearly superior].
are you sure you don't mean sweden? tbh, i can't remember any riots in norway.
On November 26 2014 00:31 coverpunch wrote: I guess it's worth asking - does Angela Merkel or David Cameron or other leaders get involved and comment on local murder cases? I suppose I could point out that President Park of South Korea did have to trot herself out for the Sewol ferry disaster, although the Korean Coast Guard was heavily involved in that.
This is not the same thing. In Germany or in the UK stuff like this happens once every few years. People get sad for a while but accept that it's a freak accident. In the US this is now a weekly thing. Kids get shot while they play with toy pistols, African-Americans get shot under disturbing circumstances, the police is armed like the military, etc. People aren't setting shit on fire because of some technicality in this specific case, but because there is a general problem in the US that simply doesn't exist in any other developed country. The fact that the US heavily discriminated African-Americans up to basically two generations ago and that you know have a black president who apparently doesn't really give a crap about the rights of African-Americans in his own country naturally amplifies the situation.
A general problem that does not exist in any other developed country, except France, where riots over racial/ethnic tension are much more frequent and violent than in the USA...
And Britain, which has had riots of its own...
And the Netherlands...
And Norway...
And Denmark...
And Italy...
And Spain...
All developed countries that have seen riots in varying sizes and degrees of violence in the last ~10 years because of racial/ethnic tensions stoked by immigration from North Africa to continental Europe. That list sure isn't comprehensive either.
This is the main problem, simple ignorance and filling in the necessary facts with nonsense that sounds plausible and reinforces already existing stereotypes. Like, say, the untrue and ignorant assertion that this situation is unique to the United States because [insert stereotype about the United States here that of course makes the US look uniquely bad compared to all those other developed countries that are clearly superior].
Yes these countries have a riot now and then, mostly one every few years. They do not however have cops killing people on a (roughly) daily basis.
On November 25 2014 23:04 Efane wrote: Regardless of rights and wrongs, buffles me to no end that for 13+ years now US police is more or less US army... I though with all those dirty DARPA moneyz you could make something better then a tazer... And its kinda sad that the jury decided to overlook some clear overuse of power, i mean, come on, even if the officers life was threatened, in his perception, doesnt sanction spraying and praying like its 5 past apocalypse and we are all doomed, DOOMED! Well, i guess considering policemen in their line of duty just "human", with emotions and crap is a wise excuse for the future, i mean, its not like they are trained to apprehend all kinds of dodgy situations, they might have worked in Taco Bell like a week ago... oh, wait
I doubt that it has been overlooked. That kind of claim is reserved for civil lawsuits. The family already lawyered up and hired Crump to represent them in a potential wrongful death / 1983 case. Whether they actually file suit could be rather telling regarding what they think of the evidence that is available. Of course, there's also the potential that they just settle for an "undisclosed amount."
Im clearly nowhere near competent enough on US legislature, but to me it seems to be the main point of investigation/case. Does it not kinda seems common sense for the main question to be "Why empty half a clip into a boy?" I mean, the court is determening if the course of actions chosen by the officer was "legitimate" (cant remember the proper word, sadly). Jury seems to think it was, which, at least for me, raises the question about standart police procedures in states. But then again, not a citizen, my opinion doesnt matter, as i was told lots of times by several US retailers :D
At least now im sure that US is kinda the same shithole Russia is, just with less backhanded stuff (or maybe better orchestrated). Oh well, authority empowers you with rights, not responsobilities
Well, it wasn't the job of the grand jury to determine the legality of what the cop did. They're only task was to determine whether there's a good enough chance that the cop's actions could be criminal. The grand jury decided the answer to that question was no. It still is yet to be decided whether the killing was otherwise unlawful under civil law. I would expect the family's attorney to ask the same question you did regarding emptying half the clip into the kid. I have no doubt, however, that the defense will put on an expert to talk about how cops are trained to keep shooting until the target goes down, which is apparently what happened here.
This clarifies the whole grand jury thing for me, but it just doesnt sit well at all that shooting a random person, even if intimidating, until he goes down, is a proper, lawful way of communication between a policeman and a citizen... 9/11 really fucked US up. I visited the states once, and while i loved the country and the people, being treated as a potential criminal while crossing the border left an unfavorable impression. It's like the UK asking you to basicly tell them you biography on tape during the visa procedures, but it just doesnt stop there...
I'm just going to take a wild guess that the cops in Russia are allowed to shoot people that attack them. I have no idea why you are characterizing this event as the shooting of a random person. You couldn't be much farther from the truth.
The problem is that unneeded violence by police in the US is so common place that even if this was a legitimate use of deadly force it will be questioned. To many cases and perceptions of police being covered from blame for the community to blindly accept the grand jury.
You can focus on case X or Y but in the end unrest like this will not end until the systematic problems with the US police force are addressed.
I'm not going to argue that we don't have a problem with our domestic police force. Too many cops are assholes and do abuse their authority -- often violently. However, I have not seen any compelling evidence that this is what happened here.
Isn't it proven that the boy was unarmed? Why do you need to shoot him 6 times when there really isn't any danger? Why do normal civil people decide "if it was a crime" ? The american "law" system is fucked up, holy shit.
Which would you rather, a jury of your peers or a Judge? Both have flaws. A judge can be just as bias as a jury, if not more so. As someone who works in the legal field, I will take my peers over a judge if I want an unbiased ruling.
And lets be clear, from the evidence, the officer did could not 100% have known that Brown was unarmed, the office felt Brown could overpower him and the office claimed the nearly lost control of his fire arm. This is not some controlled event.
On November 25 2014 23:04 Efane wrote: Regardless of rights and wrongs, buffles me to no end that for 13+ years now US police is more or less US army... I though with all those dirty DARPA moneyz you could make something better then a tazer... And its kinda sad that the jury decided to overlook some clear overuse of power, i mean, come on, even if the officers life was threatened, in his perception, doesnt sanction spraying and praying like its 5 past apocalypse and we are all doomed, DOOMED! Well, i guess considering policemen in their line of duty just "human", with emotions and crap is a wise excuse for the future, i mean, its not like they are trained to apprehend all kinds of dodgy situations, they might have worked in Taco Bell like a week ago... oh, wait
I doubt that it has been overlooked. That kind of claim is reserved for civil lawsuits. The family already lawyered up and hired Crump to represent them in a potential wrongful death / 1983 case. Whether they actually file suit could be rather telling regarding what they think of the evidence that is available. Of course, there's also the potential that they just settle for an "undisclosed amount."
Im clearly nowhere near competent enough on US legislature, but to me it seems to be the main point of investigation/case. Does it not kinda seems common sense for the main question to be "Why empty half a clip into a boy?" I mean, the court is determening if the course of actions chosen by the officer was "legitimate" (cant remember the proper word, sadly). Jury seems to think it was, which, at least for me, raises the question about standart police procedures in states. But then again, not a citizen, my opinion doesnt matter, as i was told lots of times by several US retailers :D
At least now im sure that US is kinda the same shithole Russia is, just with less backhanded stuff (or maybe better orchestrated). Oh well, authority empowers you with rights, not responsobilities
Well, it wasn't the job of the grand jury to determine the legality of what the cop did. They're only task was to determine whether there's a good enough chance that the cop's actions could be criminal. The grand jury decided the answer to that question was no. It still is yet to be decided whether the killing was otherwise unlawful under civil law. I would expect the family's attorney to ask the same question you did regarding emptying half the clip into the kid. I have no doubt, however, that the defense will put on an expert to talk about how cops are trained to keep shooting until the target goes down, which is apparently what happened here.
This clarifies the whole grand jury thing for me, but it just doesnt sit well at all that shooting a random person, even if intimidating, until he goes down, is a proper, lawful way of communication between a policeman and a citizen... 9/11 really fucked US up. I visited the states once, and while i loved the country and the people, being treated as a potential criminal while crossing the border left an unfavorable impression. It's like the UK asking you to basicly tell them you biography on tape during the visa procedures, but it just doesnt stop there...
I'm just going to take a wild guess that the cops in Russia are allowed to shoot people that attack them. I have no idea why you are characterizing this event as the shooting of a random person. You couldn't be much farther from the truth.
The problem is that unneeded violence by police in the US is so common place that even if this was a legitimate use of deadly force it will be questioned. To many cases and perceptions of police being covered from blame for the community to blindly accept the grand jury.
You can focus on case X or Y but in the end unrest like this will not end until the systematic problems with the US police force are addressed.
I'm not going to argue that we don't have a problem with our domestic police force. Too many cops are assholes and do abuse their authority -- often violently. However, I have not seen any compelling evidence that this is what happened here.
Isn't it proven that the boy was unarmed? Why do you need to shoot him 6 times when there really isn't any danger? Why do normal civil people decide "if it was a crime" ? The american "law" system is fucked up, holy shit.
Go reexamine the factual accuracy of this statement and then come back and speak on whether our system fucked up.
EPT
