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.
Can we make a EU politics general thread that Americans can invade with little to no understanding of how the issues in discussion function and broadly claim that American style government would solve all of the problems that are happening? Because the percentage making wide sweeping statements with out actually understanding the issues is up there with presidential primary debates at this point.
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.
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: [quote] 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?
I don't say you should never shoot him, i say you should not need to kill him. There are many many options in between if you ask me.
On November 26 2014 01:34 Jaaaaasper wrote: Can we make a EU politics general thread that Americans can invade with little to no understanding of how the issues in discussion function and broadly claim that American style government would solve all of the problems that are happening? Because the percentage making wide sweeping statements with out actually understanding the issues is up there with presidential primary debates at this point.
Or you could try to argue some points instead of saying "hey you are wrong gtfo"
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 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)
The entire point of having a jury of your peers is to avoid corruption and bias in the rulings. I guess you could have a bunch of appointed Judges make the decisions on if your are guilty or not, but that system is just as flawed, if not more so.
The simple fact of the matter is if this ruling had come from a judge, people would be bitching it should have been put before a jury.
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.
yeah, you're prolly thinking of the stockholm riots.
why are anti-israel demonstrations in norway relevant? nowhere in the tabloid articles the wiki page uses as a source is the word 'riot' used. the immigrants making the pro-israel demonstration a sad affair get a big yellow star in my book.
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.
"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.
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: [quote] 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?
I don't say you should never shoot him, i say you should not need to kill him. There are many many options in between if you ask me.
Thats a awful idea. A gun is not a non lethal option. If you as much as point a gun at something living, you had best be prepared to kill it. Shooting to do anything other than kill is one of the worst crimes tv has inflicted on people with no idea how the issue being discussed works, up there with zoom and enhance. A gun is not a taser, a gun is not a toy, a gun serves one purpose, to kill something. Trying to use it for anything else is moronic.
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.
And this kind of fact-free statement, implying that people are shot to death in America on a regular basis because of race, is exactly the kind of ignorance I'm talking about. The number of cases where people were shot and killed by police and racism was proven in a court of law or by any kind of fair fact-finding process to be a factor are very low. When police aren't involved, it's nearly 90% of the time that the victim was shot by someone society defines as being of the same "race."
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.
yeah, you're prolly thinking of the stockholm riots.
why are anti-israel demonstrations in norway relevant?
Because they weren't just anti-Israel demonstrations, they were riots, and they had a significant racial connotation in that Jews were the general target, not just "Israelis." Nyxisto wants to imagine that Europe doesn't have these violent racial tensions as much as America. He's right. Europe has more.
On November 26 2014 00:49 Gorsameth wrote: [quote] 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)
The entire point of having a jury of your peers is to avoid corruption and bias in the rulings. I guess you could have a bunch of appointed Judges make the decisions on if your are guilty or not, but that system is just as flawed, if not more so.
The simple fact of the matter is if this ruling had come from a judge, people would be bitching it should have been put before a jury.
Yeah. A good part of it is not being judged by appointees of the state.
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.
"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.
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: [quote] 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?
I don't say you should never shoot him, i say you should not need to kill him. There are many many options in between if you ask me.
He fired 6 rounds and one happened to hit Brown in the head. If he had fired one round, missed or not stopped brown and someone else had been killed in the struggle for the gun, that would be even more tragic.
These things are not math equations. This isn't Call of Duty our counter strike, where you can tell exactly how many shots it takes to drop someone.
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 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)
For someone who is supposedly arguing a "basic" idea, you have done very little explaining; furthermore, perhaps part of the reason you are having such a hard time comprehending our system has to do with your refusal to admit that these are not "simple" or "basic" concepts being discussed. Again, the very notion of "justice" is, in and of itself, a very difficult concept to root down, and the method through which a society deems it appropriate to carry out "justice" is going to be accordingly complex. There exists an argument, one generally accepted in common law jurisdictions, that there are no "experts" on the matter of "justice," and that the shape of the idea itself is perpetually contingent on the manner in which it is practiced and understood by the society that gives it force. That you don't buy this argument does not invalidate it out of hand.
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.
And this kind of fact-free statement, implying that people are shot to death in America on a regular basis because of race, is exactly the kind of ignorance I'm talking about. The number of cases where people were shot and killed by police and racism was proven in a court of law or by any kind of fair fact-finding process to be a factor are very low. When police aren't involved, it's nearly 90% of the time that the victim was shot by someone society defines as being of the same "race."
It's all about the feelings. Facts not necessary.
The people aren't disputing the facts, they're angry about the way the American legal system works and how obviously institutionalised racism is simply ignored or outright legal. The concept that someone can be part of some kind of neighbourhood militia, actually actively follow some suspect without being trained or prepared for such a situation and then shoot him and leave the court as an innocent person is something very foreign to a lot of people here.
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.
"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.
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: [quote] 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?
I don't say you should never shoot him, i say you should not need to kill him. There are many many options in between if you ask me.
On November 26 2014 01:34 Jaaaaasper wrote: Can we make a EU politics general thread that Americans can invade with little to no understanding of how the issues in discussion function and broadly claim that American style government would solve all of the problems that are happening? Because the percentage making wide sweeping statements with out actually understanding the issues is up there with presidential primary debates at this point.
Or you could try to argue some points instead of saying "hey you are wrong gtfo"
The points have been bouncing off of your self righteous uneducation delusional armor of ignorance for 5 pages now. You don't know how the American justice system works, you don't know how guns work, you don't know when lethal force is justified, but you just keep going full steam ahead, because why let facts get in the way of narrative.
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.
And this kind of fact-free statement, implying that people are shot to death in America on a regular basis because of race, is exactly the kind of ignorance I'm talking about. The number of cases where people were shot and killed by police and racism was proven in a court of law or by any kind of fair fact-finding process to be a factor are very low. When police aren't involved, it's nearly 90% of the time that the victim was shot by someone society defines as being of the same "race."
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.
yeah, you're prolly thinking of the stockholm riots.
why are anti-israel demonstrations in norway relevant?
Because they weren't just anti-Israel demonstrations, they were riots, and they had a significant racial connotation in that Jews were the general target, not just "Israelis." Nyxisto wants to imagine that Europe doesn't have these violent racial tensions as much as America. He's right. Europe has more.
all the sources of the wiki page says anti-israel demonstration, not anti-jew riot, tabloids at that. i'm sure it really doesn't matter, since the point you are trying to make is about europe. but i can't find anything from that wiki page sources that supports that they were riots.
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.
And this kind of fact-free statement, implying that people are shot to death in America on a regular basis because of race, is exactly the kind of ignorance I'm talking about. The number of cases where people were shot and killed by police and racism was proven in a court of law or by any kind of fair fact-finding process to be a factor are very low. When police aren't involved, it's nearly 90% of the time that the victim was shot by someone society defines as being of the same "race."
It's all about the feelings. Facts not necessary.
Im sorry let me rephrase it, the US police shoots a lot more people then anywhere in Europe. People get upset when you shoot their kids.
Im not saying they all get shot because their black, and i'm sorry if you read it that way. Police in general use lethal force far more often and that leads to problems with the communities you are shooting people of.
Aren't social dynamics in the United States much different than European countries? Which would make politics insanely different...
It's my understanding that European countries are more uniform in culture, which makes it much easier when dealing with minority groups. The problem in the United States is that cultures are generally isolated instead, especially minority cultures who grow up being told that the system will never work for them.
On November 26 2014 00:49 Gorsameth wrote: [quote] 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.
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: [quote] 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?
I don't say you should never shoot him, i say you should not need to kill him. There are many many options in between if you ask me.
On November 26 2014 01:34 Jaaaaasper wrote: Can we make a EU politics general thread that Americans can invade with little to no understanding of how the issues in discussion function and broadly claim that American style government would solve all of the problems that are happening? Because the percentage making wide sweeping statements with out actually understanding the issues is up there with presidential primary debates at this point.
Or you could try to argue some points instead of saying "hey you are wrong gtfo"
The points have been bouncing off of your self righteous uneducation delusional armor of ignorance for 5 pages now. You don't know how the American justice system works, you don't know how guns work, you don't know when lethal force is justified, but you just keep going full steam ahead, because why let facts get in the way of narrative.
This is the exact problem that happened with the whole Zimmerman case too. People became invested in their own narrative of the case and seeking out news covered that supported that narrative. When the facts came out at trial, they became angry and refused to accept what they believed to be true was not so.
That case was also ruled on by a jury who found the use of deadly force justified, because you can still kill someone if you don’t have a weapon, which means that people can still be afraid for their lives during a physical altercation.
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 thing is, they are not. They are only allowed to shoot either at a person directly threatening their lives or an established criminal. But then again, with the corruption and all that other hogwash, cops do alot of messed up shit. Calling the guy a random person is a bit of an overkill on my part, but it is how it seems from the outside. In context of free circulation of arms in the US, the cops case is a bit more plausable, but then again it just doesnt sit right with me that the cops shoot to kill, not to immobilize. I mean, shoot the fuckers kneekap once, he aint gonna stand back up
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.
And this kind of fact-free statement, implying that people are shot to death in America on a regular basis because of race, is exactly the kind of ignorance I'm talking about. The number of cases where people were shot and killed by police and racism was proven in a court of law or by any kind of fair fact-finding process to be a factor are very low. When police aren't involved, it's nearly 90% of the time that the victim was shot by someone society defines as being of the same "race."
It's all about the feelings. Facts not necessary.
The people aren't disputing the facts, they're angry about the way the American legal system works and how obvious institutionalised racism is simply ignored or outright legal. The concept that someone can be part of some kind of neighbourhood militia, actually actively follow some suspect without being trained or prepared for such a situation and then shoot him and leave the court as an innocent person is something very foreign to a lot of people here.
What institutionalized racism has been simply ignored or is outright legal in this case?
A neighborhood watch is a "militia"?
Not getting the outcome these people wanted, the outcome they decided was just without knowing all the facts, the outcome they wanted before any kind of legal process at all had been undertaken, shows that the American legal system works wrong? Sounds like it works just fine to me, at not giving in to lynch mob passion.
You are giving me example after example of what I am talking about.
I'm very sorry that acknowledging and factoring in all the facts - like that that guy who left court innocent was having his head bashed into concrete - or that a neighborhood watch is not a "militia" - is something very foreign to a lot of people here, but I'm not surprised by it. Reaching a conclusion 2 seconds after something happens and ignoring any subsequent facts that come out is SOP.
And yes, the people are disputing facts, by refusing to acknowledge them and clinging on to what they already believed beforehand. Like your paragraph above, there is so much in it that is inaccurate it is incredible.
On November 26 2014 00:49 Gorsameth wrote: [quote] 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.
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: [quote] 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?
I don't say you should never shoot him, i say you should not need to kill him. There are many many options in between if you ask me.
On November 26 2014 01:34 Jaaaaasper wrote: Can we make a EU politics general thread that Americans can invade with little to no understanding of how the issues in discussion function and broadly claim that American style government would solve all of the problems that are happening? Because the percentage making wide sweeping statements with out actually understanding the issues is up there with presidential primary debates at this point.
Or you could try to argue some points instead of saying "hey you are wrong gtfo"
The points have been bouncing off of your self righteous uneducation delusional armor of ignorance for 5 pages now. You don't know how the American justice system works, you don't know how guns work, you don't know when lethal force is justified, but you just keep going full steam ahead, because why let facts get in the way of narrative.
I guess americans don't even know how to count, so yeah i am out of this "discussion". Apparently as soon as you use your gun you have to kill people, random Joes are more trustworthy than judges (i wonder why only the USA thinks that way) etcpp. I guess that is common sense in a "civilized country" where stuff like this happens
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.
On November 26 2014 00:49 Gorsameth wrote: [quote] 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.
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: [quote] 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?
I don't say you should never shoot him, i say you should not need to kill him. There are many many options in between if you ask me.
He fired 6 rounds and one happened to hit Brown in the head. If he had fired one round, missed or not stopped brown and someone else had been killed in the struggle for the gun, that would be even more tragic.
These things are not math equations. This isn't Call of Duty our counter strike, where you can tell exactly how many shots it takes to drop someone.
He shot him 10-11 times, according to reviews of the audio :p
It's clear though that the biggest pieces of trash in this whole thing are the media. Oh boy, what they wouldn't do to get some clicks and stir some hype up.
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.
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.
Jesus, can't be that bad, can it?
As for this discussion about the jury system, I'll just tell you from experience that there's very little to suggest to me that it is inferior to bench trials or other mechanisms were some technocrat is in charge. Individual jurors may be stupid, but juries collectively are very, very intelligent. If nothing else, juries are about as democratic of an institution as you can have. They serve as the voice of community in allowing or condemning specific acts.
EPT
