|
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 November 26 2014 00:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 00:32 Efane wrote:On November 26 2014 00:10 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:03 Efane wrote:On November 25 2014 23:13 xDaunt wrote: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.
I don't know how it is in Russia, but I can tell you that anywhere in Western Europe, no cop is allowed to shoot someone who attack them. They are allowed to shoot someone who clearly threaten their life. Which is hugely different.
The firearm related violence in the US makes me really sad. There is something utterly fucked up with a country where cops shoot 12 years old because they believe his toy is a real gun or where cops / vigilants shoot people at sight and get away with saying they "felt threatened".
I wish the country was rational enough to realize it's a good time to rethink the whole thing. I know it will never happen.
|
On November 26 2014 01:07 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 00:58 The_Red_Viper wrote:On November 26 2014 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:49 Gorsameth wrote:On November 26 2014 00:37 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:32 Efane wrote:On November 26 2014 00:10 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:03 Efane wrote:On November 25 2014 23:13 xDaunt wrote: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.
The facts you would pick a couple of Jo's off the street over someone who has spend probably over a decade to be prepared for it just shows how fucked up your legal system is.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On November 26 2014 01:11 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 01:07 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 00:58 The_Red_Viper wrote:On November 26 2014 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:49 Gorsameth wrote:On November 26 2014 00:37 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:32 Efane wrote:On November 26 2014 00:10 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:03 Efane wrote:On November 25 2014 23:13 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
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. The facts you would pick a couple of Jo's off the street over someone who has spend probably over a decade to be prepared for it just shows how fucked up your legal system is.
Sorry, but that's a ridiculous thing to say.
|
On November 26 2014 01:07 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 00:58 The_Red_Viper wrote:On November 26 2014 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:49 Gorsameth wrote:On November 26 2014 00:37 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:32 Efane wrote:On November 26 2014 00:10 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:03 Efane wrote:On November 25 2014 23:13 xDaunt wrote: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.
"everything has flaws so we just ask some people who have no idea about anything".
Yeah seems legit.
I wonder if he would have shot 6 times if the guy would haev been white...
I probably can't discuss this "objectively", this stuff makes me angry as fuck and i can't believe people really try to defend it :/
Even if you think he could be armed, as long as you don't see a weapon i don't see any reason to go rambo, sry but i think that could be common sense?
|
On November 26 2014 01:11 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 01:07 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 00:58 The_Red_Viper wrote:On November 26 2014 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:49 Gorsameth wrote:On November 26 2014 00:37 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:32 Efane wrote:On November 26 2014 00:10 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:03 Efane wrote:On November 25 2014 23:13 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
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. The facts you would pick a couple of Jo's off the street over someone who has spend probably over a decade to be prepared for it just shows how fucked up your legal system is.
Or that I trust people to make good decisions. And its not a couple, its 12 people and normally 9 of them need to decide if I committed a crime. The judge is a single person and may have biases I cannot control. Absent other information, I will take a jury of my peers every time.
|
On November 26 2014 01:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 01:11 Gorsameth wrote:On November 26 2014 01:07 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 00:58 The_Red_Viper wrote:On November 26 2014 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:49 Gorsameth wrote:On November 26 2014 00:37 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:32 Efane wrote:On November 26 2014 00:10 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:03 Efane wrote:
[quote]
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. The facts you would pick a couple of Jo's off the street over someone who has spend probably over a decade to be prepared for it just shows how fucked up your legal system is. Or that I trust people to make good decisions. And its not a couple, its 12 people and normally 9 of them need to decide if I committed a crime. The judge is a single person and may have biases I cannot control. Absent other information, I will take a jury of my peers every time.
The average person isn't that smart. A jugde should be rather intelligent.
So yeah i don't see how your statement makes any sense whatsover.
There is a reason other countries don't use this system (hint: it is bad)
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On November 26 2014 01:16 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 01:13 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 01:11 Gorsameth wrote:On November 26 2014 01:07 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 00:58 The_Red_Viper wrote:On November 26 2014 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:49 Gorsameth wrote:On November 26 2014 00:37 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:32 Efane wrote:On November 26 2014 00:10 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
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. The facts you would pick a couple of Jo's off the street over someone who has spend probably over a decade to be prepared for it just shows how fucked up your legal system is. Or that I trust people to make good decisions. And its not a couple, its 12 people and normally 9 of them need to decide if I committed a crime. The judge is a single person and may have biases I cannot control. Absent other information, I will take a jury of my peers every time. The average person isn't that smart. A jughe should be rather intelligent. So yeah i don't see how your statement makes any sense whatsover. There is a reason other countries don't use this system (hint: it is bad)
Glossed over the single person - biases part of his post did we?
If you can't see how the statement he made might make sense, you should probably read again, as it's pretty obvious
|
On November 26 2014 01:13 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 01:07 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 00:58 The_Red_Viper wrote:On November 26 2014 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:49 Gorsameth wrote:On November 26 2014 00:37 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:32 Efane wrote:On November 26 2014 00:10 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:03 Efane wrote:On November 25 2014 23:13 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
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. "everything has flaws so we just ask some people who have no idea about anything". Yeah seems legit. I wonder if he would have shot 6 times if the guy would haev been white... I probably can't discuss this "objectively", this stuff makes me angry as fuck and i can't believe people really try to defend it :/ Even if you think he could be armed, as long as you don't see a weapon i don't see any reason to go rambo, sry but i think that could be common sense?
From reports, Brown weighed nearly 300 pounds, had about 4 inches on the officer and about 85 pounds(I might be off, I am remembering from a news report this morning). The guy was nearly 1/3 bigger than the officer. You are allowed to use deadly force(anyone, not just police) if you reasonable believe that the person over power you. If you weigh 120 and the person attacking you is unarmed and 250, you can use deadly force.
|
On November 26 2014 01:02 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 00:54 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 26 2014 00:47 Nyxisto wrote: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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008–09_anti-Israel_riots_in_Norway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Stockholm_riots
On November 26 2014 01:06 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 00:54 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 26 2014 00:47 Nyxisto wrote: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.
Which is more frequent than the US as to frequency of riots over these kinds of racial tensions...
They also do not have criminals who are regularly armed. 50,000,000+ police interactions with people a year. ~500 people shot and killed by police a year. That's 5 zeroes past the decimal point. Not seeing the shocking unique awfulness of it. Maybe if it were China, where police have shot and killed multiple people (and when I say multiple I don't mean 2 or 3, I mean a lot more than that) at the same time, several times, over the last 5 years...
|
On November 26 2014 01:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 01:13 The_Red_Viper wrote:On November 26 2014 01:07 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 00:58 The_Red_Viper wrote:On November 26 2014 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:49 Gorsameth wrote:On November 26 2014 00:37 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:32 Efane wrote:On November 26 2014 00:10 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:03 Efane wrote:
[quote]
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. "everything has flaws so we just ask some people who have no idea about anything". Yeah seems legit. I wonder if he would have shot 6 times if the guy would haev been white... I probably can't discuss this "objectively", this stuff makes me angry as fuck and i can't believe people really try to defend it :/ Even if you think he could be armed, as long as you don't see a weapon i don't see any reason to go rambo, sry but i think that could be common sense? From reports, Brown weighed nearly 300 pounds, had about 4 inches on the officer and about 85 pounds(I might be off, I am remembering from a news report this morning). The guy was nearly 1/3 bigger than the officer. You are allowed to use deadly force(anyone, not just police) if you reasonable believe that the person over power you. If you weigh 120 and the person attacking you is unarmed and 250, you can use deadly force.
Yeah and that in itself is really stupid.
So cause somebody is big you are allowed to kill him? makes perfect sense.
I mean there are only two option: kill him or don't do anything i guess
On November 26 2014 01:17 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 01:16 The_Red_Viper wrote:On November 26 2014 01:13 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 01:11 Gorsameth wrote:On November 26 2014 01:07 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 00:58 The_Red_Viper wrote:On November 26 2014 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:49 Gorsameth wrote:On November 26 2014 00:37 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:32 Efane wrote:
[quote]
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. The facts you would pick a couple of Jo's off the street over someone who has spend probably over a decade to be prepared for it just shows how fucked up your legal system is. Or that I trust people to make good decisions. And its not a couple, its 12 people and normally 9 of them need to decide if I committed a crime. The judge is a single person and may have biases I cannot control. Absent other information, I will take a jury of my peers every time. The average person isn't that smart. A jughe should be rather intelligent. So yeah i don't see how your statement makes any sense whatsover. There is a reason other countries don't use this system (hint: it is bad) Glossed over the single person - biases part of his post did we? If you can't see how the statement he made might make sense, you should probably read again, as it's pretty obvious
No it makes no sense. It is basically saying "i don't trust someone who does this for a job, so i rather pick some people who don't have to deal with this kind of stuff on a daily basis".
I don't see how this is a good system. This whole point is based on the absence of trust in people who have knowledge in the field.
If you really don't trust one person, take more judges and not some random people, no?
|
On November 26 2014 01:16 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 01:13 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 01:11 Gorsameth wrote:On November 26 2014 01:07 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 00:58 The_Red_Viper wrote:On November 26 2014 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:49 Gorsameth wrote:On November 26 2014 00:37 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:32 Efane wrote:On November 26 2014 00:10 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
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. The facts you would pick a couple of Jo's off the street over someone who has spend probably over a decade to be prepared for it just shows how fucked up your legal system is. Or that I trust people to make good decisions. And its not a couple, its 12 people and normally 9 of them need to decide if I committed a crime. The judge is a single person and may have biases I cannot control. Absent other information, I will take a jury of my peers every time. The average person isn't that smart. A jugde should be rather intelligent. So yeah i don't see how your statement makes any sense whatsover. There is a reason other countries don't use this system (hint: it is bad)
Your "hint" betrays a pathetically limited understanding as to how systems of law come to be. Assertions of "bad" and "good" without reference to the societies in which the systems operate are like putting the cart before the horse. Furthermore, if you really want to get into the tenets of the jury trial system, you better come prepared with a workable, practical defition for "justice" and then be prepared to demonstrate how it is that juries are "bad" for "justice." So far you've just said "experts better, random people bad?" and that ain't gonna cut it bro.
|
On November 26 2014 01:10 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Are you kidding me? It is literally shocking to you that the US might not be unique in this regard. Facts are facts. Start dealing in them. Just look at what is happening right now, the US had a 60s-style racial riot last night for the first time in 20 years. Like has been happening in Europe for over a decade. Not unique at all.
These aren't facts to prove that there is something systemically wrong. These are isolated incidents. Just look at the reality of it. The average American person is about as armed as a German police officer. Stand your ground laws don't even exist because people never even think about having them. Listing some news and Wikipedia articles is just ridiculous. Every American person that has ever been here has said that in regards to how the police and security works the two systems are just completely incomparable.
|
On November 26 2014 01:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 00:58 The_Red_Viper wrote:On November 26 2014 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:49 Gorsameth wrote:On November 26 2014 00:37 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:32 Efane wrote:On November 26 2014 00:10 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:03 Efane wrote:On November 25 2014 23:13 xDaunt wrote: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.
Stop making me side with xDuant and Derb, please guys. He attacked the officer to the point that deadly force was justified, the family was obviously and understandably grieving, and then people on both sides of the argument ran off half cocked and claimed they had a full story when they clearly didn't. The officers life was in danger, and he responded with deadly force. If he was white he would still have been shot 6 times, but no one would have run with this story with out actually knowing what was going on. If this had happened in Europe, he would have responded with what ever force he had aviable, and if that was a fire arm, no one would want to be pressing charges, it would either be a non story, or the discussion would have been about something other than lethal force being applied.
|
On November 26 2014 01:17 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 01:16 The_Red_Viper wrote:On November 26 2014 01:13 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 01:11 Gorsameth wrote:On November 26 2014 01:07 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 00:58 The_Red_Viper wrote:On November 26 2014 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:49 Gorsameth wrote:On November 26 2014 00:37 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:32 Efane wrote:
[quote]
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. The facts you would pick a couple of Jo's off the street over someone who has spend probably over a decade to be prepared for it just shows how fucked up your legal system is. Or that I trust people to make good decisions. And its not a couple, its 12 people and normally 9 of them need to decide if I committed a crime. The judge is a single person and may have biases I cannot control. Absent other information, I will take a jury of my peers every time. The average person isn't that smart. A jughe should be rather intelligent. So yeah i don't see how your statement makes any sense whatsover. There is a reason other countries don't use this system (hint: it is bad) Glossed over the single person - biases part of his post did we? If you can't see how the statement he made might make sense, you should probably read again, as it's pretty obvious
If you believe a judge is biased you can request a different judge. Its also probably a whole lot easier then requesting a different jury.
As a guilty person I would want a jury, much easier to fool 4 out of 12 Joe's then a judge
|
On November 26 2014 01:21 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 01:18 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 01:13 The_Red_Viper wrote:On November 26 2014 01:07 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 00:58 The_Red_Viper wrote:On November 26 2014 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:49 Gorsameth wrote:On November 26 2014 00:37 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:32 Efane wrote:On November 26 2014 00:10 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
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. "everything has flaws so we just ask some people who have no idea about anything". Yeah seems legit. I wonder if he would have shot 6 times if the guy would haev been white... I probably can't discuss this "objectively", this stuff makes me angry as fuck and i can't believe people really try to defend it :/ Even if you think he could be armed, as long as you don't see a weapon i don't see any reason to go rambo, sry but i think that could be common sense? From reports, Brown weighed nearly 300 pounds, had about 4 inches on the officer and about 85 pounds(I might be off, I am remembering from a news report this morning). The guy was nearly 1/3 bigger than the officer. You are allowed to use deadly force(anyone, not just police) if you reasonable believe that the person over power you. If you weigh 120 and the person attacking you is unarmed and 250, you can use deadly force. Yeah and that in itself is really stupid. So cause somebody is big you are allowed to kill him? makes perfect sense. Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 01:17 marvellosity wrote:On November 26 2014 01:16 The_Red_Viper wrote:On November 26 2014 01:13 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 01:11 Gorsameth wrote:On November 26 2014 01:07 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 00:58 The_Red_Viper wrote:On November 26 2014 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:49 Gorsameth wrote:On November 26 2014 00:37 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
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. The facts you would pick a couple of Jo's off the street over someone who has spend probably over a decade to be prepared for it just shows how fucked up your legal system is. Or that I trust people to make good decisions. And its not a couple, its 12 people and normally 9 of them need to decide if I committed a crime. The judge is a single person and may have biases I cannot control. Absent other information, I will take a jury of my peers every time. The average person isn't that smart. A jughe should be rather intelligent. So yeah i don't see how your statement makes any sense whatsover. There is a reason other countries don't use this system (hint: it is bad) Glossed over the single person - biases part of his post did we? If you can't see how the statement he made might make sense, you should probably read again, as it's pretty obvious No it makes no sense. It is basically saying "i don't trust someone who does this for a job, so i rather pick some people who don't have to deal with this kind of stuff on a daily basis". I don't see how this is a good system. This whole point is based on the absence of trust in people who have knowledge in the field. If you really don't trust one person, take more judges and not some random people, no?
You need to read up on the legal system. The use of deadly force is based on the "reasonable fear of great bodily harm". If the person using the force thinks they could be killed or hurt badly(aka, maimed), they are allowed to use deadly force Its not based on some emotional response of "he was unarmed and that means no one should ever shoot at him". Its why I am allowed to shoot someone with a baseball bat that invades my house, because what other option is there?
|
On November 26 2014 01:25 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 01:17 marvellosity wrote:On November 26 2014 01:16 The_Red_Viper wrote:On November 26 2014 01:13 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 01:11 Gorsameth wrote:On November 26 2014 01:07 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 00:58 The_Red_Viper wrote:On November 26 2014 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:49 Gorsameth wrote:On November 26 2014 00:37 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
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. The facts you would pick a couple of Jo's off the street over someone who has spend probably over a decade to be prepared for it just shows how fucked up your legal system is. Or that I trust people to make good decisions. And its not a couple, its 12 people and normally 9 of them need to decide if I committed a crime. The judge is a single person and may have biases I cannot control. Absent other information, I will take a jury of my peers every time. The average person isn't that smart. A jughe should be rather intelligent. So yeah i don't see how your statement makes any sense whatsover. There is a reason other countries don't use this system (hint: it is bad) Glossed over the single person - biases part of his post did we? If you can't see how the statement he made might make sense, you should probably read again, as it's pretty obvious If you believe a judge is biased you can request a different judge. Its also probably a whole lot easier then requesting a different jury. As a guilty person I would want a jury, much easier to fool 4 out of 12 Joe's then a judge
Getting a judge to recuse him/herself is very hard, if not impossible. You can ask, but you need overwhelming proof of bias(like the judge knows the police officer personally) before you can force them to step down. It is very rare.
|
On November 26 2014 01:23 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 01:10 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Are you kidding me? It is literally shocking to you that the US might not be unique in this regard. Facts are facts. Start dealing in them. Just look at what is happening right now, the US had a 60s-style racial riot last night for the first time in 20 years. Like has been happening in Europe for over a decade. Not unique at all.
These aren't facts to prove that there is something systemically wrong. These are isolated incidents. Just look at the reality of it. The average American person is about as armed as a German police officer. Stand your ground laws don't even exist because people never even think about having them. Listing some news and Wikipedia articles is just ridiculous. Every American person that has ever been here has said that in regards to how the police and security works the two systems are just completely incomparable.
Your own governments in Europe have said multiple times in the last 10 years, regardless of which coalition of parties, left, center-left, center-right, right, whatever, was in power, that yes, there are things systemically wrong with race relations on the Continent, particularly when it comes to white Europeans and non-white immigrants, and those non-white immigrants and Jews.
Riots where racial tension was the main or a main cause have happened like clockwork in Europe for ten years. Particularly riots and attacks against Jewish targets. They are not "isolated incidents." They are a huge cultural and public safety concern that your governments have been making very concerned pronouncements about and trying to stop from happening for a while.
I don't know why the links are ridiculous except perhaps because you don't like the facts they present and thus they are ridiculous because you don't like them.
Stand your ground laws have what to do with policing differences between America and Europe? Which yes, can be and are profound differences in some areas.
If they are completely incomparable, why are you comparing them...
|
On November 26 2014 01:22 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 01:16 The_Red_Viper wrote:On November 26 2014 01:13 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 01:11 Gorsameth wrote:On November 26 2014 01:07 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 00:58 The_Red_Viper wrote:On November 26 2014 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:49 Gorsameth wrote:On November 26 2014 00:37 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:32 Efane wrote:
[quote]
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. The facts you would pick a couple of Jo's off the street over someone who has spend probably over a decade to be prepared for it just shows how fucked up your legal system is. Or that I trust people to make good decisions. And its not a couple, its 12 people and normally 9 of them need to decide if I committed a crime. The judge is a single person and may have biases I cannot control. Absent other information, I will take a jury of my peers every time. The average person isn't that smart. A jugde should be rather intelligent. So yeah i don't see how your statement makes any sense whatsover. There is a reason other countries don't use this system (hint: it is bad) Your "hint" betrays a pathetically limited understanding as to how systems of law come to be. Assertions of "bad" and "good" without reference to the societies in which the systems operate are like putting the cart before the horse. Furthermore, if you really want to get into the tenets of the jury trial system, you better come prepared with a workable, practical defition for "justice" and then be prepared to demonstrate how it is that juries are "bad" for "justice." So far you've just said "experts better, random people bad?" and that ain't gonna cut it bro.
Yeah whatever, if you think it is a good system to have "pretty random" people who then decide such an important matter, i am not really sure what to argue.
I had hoped this is common sense really, but apperently it isn't. I mean i agree that it is better to have multiple people to decide those things, but why choose someone who has no idea what he is doing? I really don't get it why anybody would think this makes any sense :/ (You may be right that i don't have a deep knowledge about your "justice" system, but i argue this basic idea really)
|
On November 26 2014 01:30 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 01:23 Nyxisto wrote:On November 26 2014 01:10 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Are you kidding me? It is literally shocking to you that the US might not be unique in this regard. Facts are facts. Start dealing in them. Just look at what is happening right now, the US had a 60s-style racial riot last night for the first time in 20 years. Like has been happening in Europe for over a decade. Not unique at all.
These aren't facts to prove that there is something systemically wrong. These are isolated incidents. Just look at the reality of it. The average American person is about as armed as a German police officer. Stand your ground laws don't even exist because people never even think about having them. Listing some news and Wikipedia articles is just ridiculous. Every American person that has ever been here has said that in regards to how the police and security works the two systems are just completely incomparable. Your own governments in Europe have said multiple times in the last 10 years, regardless of which coalition of parties, left, center-left, center-right, right, whatever, was in power, that yes, there are things systemically wrong with race relations on the Continent, particularly when it comes to white Europeans and non-white immigrants, and those non-white immigrants and Jews. I don't know why they are ridiculous except perhaps because you don't like the facts they present and thus they are ridiculous because you don't like them. Stand your ground laws have what to do with policing differences between America and Europe? Which yes, can be and are profound differences in some areas. If they are completely incomparable, why are you comparing them...
The difference is that while problems of race happen everywhere we shoot slightly less of them on a regular basis. People get less upset when you fine their kids compared to when you shoot them dead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
