In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On November 25 2014 23:04 Efane wrote: Regardless of rights and wrongs, buffles me to no end that for 13+ years now US police is more or less US army... I though with all those dirty DARPA moneyz you could make something better then a tazer... And its kinda sad that the jury decided to overlook some clear overuse of power, i mean, come on, even if the officers life was threatened, in his perception, doesnt sanction spraying and praying like its 5 past apocalypse and we are all doomed, DOOMED! Well, i guess considering policemen in their line of duty just "human", with emotions and crap is a wise excuse for the future, i mean, its not like they are trained to apprehend all kinds of dodgy situations, they might have worked in Taco Bell like a week ago... oh, wait
I doubt that it has been overlooked. That kind of claim is reserved for civil lawsuits. The family already lawyered up and hired Crump to represent them in a potential wrongful death / 1983 case. Whether they actually file suit could be rather telling regarding what they think of the evidence that is available. Of course, there's also the potential that they just settle for an "undisclosed amount."
Im clearly nowhere near competent enough on US legislature, but to me it seems to be the main point of investigation/case. Does it not kinda seems common sense for the main question to be "Why empty half a clip into a boy?" I mean, the court is determening if the course of actions chosen by the officer was "legitimate" (cant remember the proper word, sadly). Jury seems to think it was, which, at least for me, raises the question about standart police procedures in states. But then again, not a citizen, my opinion doesnt matter, as i was told lots of times by several US retailers :D
At least now im sure that US is kinda the same shithole Russia is, just with less backhanded stuff (or maybe better orchestrated). Oh well, authority empowers you with rights, not responsobilities
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
Good news! We're dealing with just that situation here.
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.
On November 26 2014 01:38 nunez wrote:
On November 26 2014 01:18 DeepElemBlues wrote:
On November 26 2014 01:02 nunez wrote:
On November 26 2014 00:54 DeepElemBlues wrote:
On November 26 2014 00:47 Nyxisto wrote:
On November 26 2014 00:31 coverpunch wrote: I guess it's worth asking - does Angela Merkel or David Cameron or other leaders get involved and comment on local murder cases? I suppose I could point out that President Park of South Korea did have to trot herself out for the Sewol ferry disaster, although the Korean Coast Guard was heavily involved in that.
This is not the same thing. In Germany or in the UK stuff like this happens once every few years. People get sad for a while but accept that it's a freak accident. In the US this is now a weekly thing. Kids get shot while they play with toy pistols, African-Americans get shot under disturbing circumstances, the police is armed like the military, etc. People aren't setting shit on fire because of some technicality in this specific case, but because there is a general problem in the US that simply doesn't exist in any other developed country. The fact that the US heavily discriminated African-Americans up to basically two generations ago and that you know have a black president who apparently doesn't really give a crap about the rights of African-Americans in his own country naturally amplifies the situation.
A general problem that does not exist in any other developed country, except France, where riots over racial/ethnic tension are much more frequent and violent than in the USA...
And Britain, which has had riots of its own...
And the Netherlands...
And Norway...
And Denmark...
And Italy...
And Spain...
All developed countries that have seen riots in varying sizes and degrees of violence in the last ~10 years because of racial/ethnic tensions stoked by immigration from North Africa to continental Europe. That list sure isn't comprehensive either.
This is the main problem, simple ignorance and filling in the necessary facts with nonsense that sounds plausible and reinforces already existing stereotypes. Like, say, the untrue and ignorant assertion that this situation is unique to the United States because [insert stereotype about the United States here that of course makes the US look uniquely bad compared to all those other developed countries that are clearly superior].
are you sure you don't mean sweden? tbh, i can't remember any riots in norway.
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.
You simply must not have read the link then, or you're denying reality because you don't like it. They were riots, they were violent, and there was targeting of Jews. All of that is in the wiki page sources. You can say that you didn't find anything in them, but that is obviously not true. But here's another article to help you out with that.
On November 26 2014 01:48 DeepElemBlues wrote: 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.
Just to stay with the example. If you'd willingly get yourself into such a situation here in Germany, you'd not be protected by self-defense law, even if you get your head bashed in. If you're escalating a conflict on your own you're already partially responsible. If someone breaks into your house you're only allowed to shoot him as long as he is not fleeing. Defense has to be proportionate. In the US apparently everyone who breaks into a house turns into unprotected game.
Also I'm the last person to deny that racism in Europe exists, but this discussion is essentially about the legal system and the police force which is something entirely different. Europe has a lot of racism from the bottom to top. What were talking about here is institutionalized racism from the top down.
4799 pages. Grand jurors are allowed to ask questions of the prosecutors and of witnesses, and they did so extensively during the proceedings. They asked, for the most part, pertinent and insightful questions. But remember, this is fact-free zone, so they're obviously a bunch of mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers because that's how "people are" on the internet.
Not the person making that claim of course, they are superior to the general run of humanity.
On November 26 2014 01:48 DeepElemBlues wrote: 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.
Just to stay with the example. If you'd willingly get yourself into such a situation here in Germany, you'd not be protected by self-defense law, even if you get your head bashed in. If you're escalating a conflict on your own you're already partially responsible. If someone breaks into your house you're only allowed to shoot him as long as he is not fleeing. Defense has to be proportionate. In the US apparently everyone who breaks into a house turns into unprotected hunting game.
It's ridiculous and immoral that in Germany you would not be protected by self-defense in that situation. That to initiate a verbal confrontation with someone puts some responsibility on you if that someone starts bashing your head into concrete is completely immoral. There is no "he was escalating it (verbally)" or "he got himself into a heated situation" defense in America, and rightly so, unless death threats determined to be credible are involved.
And by the way, in the US you aren't allowed to shoot someone who broke into your home if they are fleeing too. Only if they are determined to have been presenting a physical threat (which is basically anything other than running away) can they legally be shot by the homeowner. Identical to what it is in Germany by what you're saying. People in America do get arrested for doing that - shooting burglars who were fleeing...
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?
The other option is your first option: put that thing down and call the police. :D That's the problem with this whole stand-your-ground stuff. It trivializes self-defense. Everybody can feel like there were threatened with "great bodily harm", or at least pretend to and shoot a couple rounds (I'm not saying that's what happened with Wilson btw). A drunken guy knocks on the wrong door, boom, you shoot him, you were obviously in great bodily danger. My personal favorite will remain this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Yoshihiro_Hattori
Edit: As pointed out below, that's not even "stand-your-ground", that's only castle doctrine when you're home.
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?
The other option is your first option: put that thing down and call the police. :D
I am going to assume my fiancee is calling the police while I hold the gun on the guy, or call the police before I confront him. The point is that if the person attacks, I have no option but to shoot. And once I start, I am not stopping until that person is on the ground and I know they are not a threat.
To be fair, I would use a shotgun for home defense, so I would only likely have to shoot once.
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.
"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: [quote]
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
Sry i have to puke now
The US is not the only country to use trial by jury...
On November 26 2014 01:48 DeepElemBlues wrote: 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.
Just to stay with the example. If you'd willingly get yourself into such a situation here in Germany, you'd not be protected by self-defense law, even if you get your head bashed in. If you're escalating a conflict on your own you're already partially responsible. If someone breaks into your house you're only allowed to shoot him as long as he is not fleeing. Defense has to be proportionate. In the US apparently everyone who breaks into a house turns into unprotected game.
Also I'm the last person to deny that racism in Europe exists, but this discussion is essentially about the legal system, institutions and the police force which is something entirely different.
you're not quite right on this. It varies by state; some states have a duty to retreat, others don't.
first link I could find on google that has some good info. http://volokh.com/2013/07/17/duty-to-retreat/ The requirement about not being able to shoot vs someone who's fleeing also applies in much of the US; though again there's some variation.
Please research the law more carefully, and remember that the federalized US system means there's a lot of state by state variation.
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?
The other option is your first option: put that thing down and call the police. :D
I am going to assume my fiancee is calling the police while I hold the gun on the guy, or call the police before I confront him. The point is that if the person attacks, I have no option but to shoot. And once I start, I am not stopping until that person is on the ground and I know they are not a threat.
To be fair, I would use a shotgun for home defense, so I would only likely have to shoot once.
Sure, fair enough. Problem is, it seems to me that trespassing is enough for you to legally being able to kill the guy.
On November 26 2014 01:48 DeepElemBlues wrote: 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.
Just to stay with the example. If you'd willingly get yourself into such a situation here in Germany, you'd not be protected by self-defense law, even if you get your head bashed in. If you're escalating a conflict on your own you're already partially responsible. If someone breaks into your house you're only allowed to shoot him as long as he is not fleeing. Defense has to be proportionate. In the US apparently everyone who breaks into a house turns into unprotected game.
Also I'm the last person to deny that racism in Europe exists, but this discussion is essentially about the legal system, institutions and the police force which is something entirely different.
you're not quite right on this. It varies by state; some states have a duty to retreat, others don't.
first link I could find on google that has some good info. http://volokh.com/2013/07/17/duty-to-retreat/ The requirement about not being able to shoot vs someone who's fleeing also applies in much of the US; though again there's some variation.
Please research the law more carefully, and remember that the federalized US system means there's a lot of state by state variation.
"is not in his home or other property that he owns or his place of business,"
Please read my posts more carefully, thanks. Stand your ground as in 'outside of the ground that you actually own' is something that doesn't exist here at all. As the overwhelming majority of people here is not allowed to carry a weapon in public anyway this scenario usually doesn't come up.
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
Good news! We're dealing with just that situation here.
Except in Russia lethal force is allowed only as a last resort. The policeman is supposed to detain whoever threatens them and use leathal measures only if the person in question refuses to cooperate to the point of leaving no other options. And by direct threat to life i mean a threat with a weapon of some sorts, not just being huge.
Its just seems that the cop in question was awfully trigger-happy. Even if his actions were justified, he should never work at the force again. Firing half a clip is, and should be classified as, brutality, which, im sure, is not a publicaly accepted practice in the US.
It seems it all comes down to the issue of authority being so sweet and legal defenitions being so vague... Just give ur ordinary patrol cops some rubber bullets or something, its a bit harder to kill with that shit, you actually gotta aim
I am reading your posts carefully, you did not read mine; and/or chose to selectively respond to it; only picking and choosing interpretations which let you look good, rather than addressing the point I was actually countering.
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.
"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: [quote]
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?
The other option is your first option: put that thing down and call the police. :D
I am going to assume my fiancee is calling the police while I hold the gun on the guy, or call the police before I confront him. The point is that if the person attacks, I have no option but to shoot. And once I start, I am not stopping until that person is on the ground and I know they are not a threat.
To be fair, I would use a shotgun for home defense, so I would only likely have to shoot once.
Sure, fair enough. Problem is, it seems to me that trespassing is enough for you to legally being able to kill the guy.
No, I need a reasonable fear that the person is going to do harm. If the guy is trespassing and I ask him to leave, then I am not ok to shoot the guy.(also he wouldn't be in the house). However, if he doesn't leave and approaches, then I have a better case.
This stuff is never cut and dry, it all depends on what is going on. IF there are two unarmed people in my house, There is a good case that lethal force is acceptable if they refuse to leave and approach me, because I can't fight two people at once.
On a side note on the similar subject, you are not allowed to booby trap your home, because you can't control who the traps would harm. The castle rule does not apply.
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.
"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: [quote]
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?
The other option is your first option: put that thing down and call the police. :D
I am going to assume my fiancee is calling the police while I hold the gun on the guy, or call the police before I confront him. The point is that if the person attacks, I have no option but to shoot. And once I start, I am not stopping until that person is on the ground and I know they are not a threat.
To be fair, I would use a shotgun for home defense, so I would only likely have to shoot once.
Sure, fair enough. Problem is, it seems to me that trespassing is enough for you to legally being able to kill the guy.
Problem is, you have someone break into your home, you have no idea what they're going to do. Such situations usually end one of two ways, if someone in the home confronts the intruder: the intruder runs immediately, or there is some kind of fight. I don't know what this guy who broke into my house is going to do. Maybe he'll just grab stuff and run. Maybe he'll beat me up and grab stuff and run. Maybe he'll tie me up, grab stuff and run. Maybe he'll shoot or stab me. Maybe he'll tie me up and then shoot or stab me.
It's my home. Breaking in, that person has zero right to be there. I don't have a crystal ball, I don't know what his intentions truly are.
And trespassing usually is never considered enough to shoot at someone in America. That's why they're two different crimes, trespassing and breaking & entering, trespassing is considered much much less serious.
On November 26 2014 02:07 zlefin wrote: I am reading your posts carefully, you did not read mine; and/or chose to selectively respond to it; only picking and choosing interpretations which let you look good, rather than addressing the point I was actually countering.
I bring up the example of someone breaking into your house and you having the right to shoot him without any considerations. You link me some stand your ground law stuff which in the first sentence makes clear that it is about people actually not being at some place they legally own. That makes no sense.
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
Good news! We're dealing with just that situation here.
Except in Russia lethal force is allowed only as a last resort. The policeman is supposed to detain whoever threatens them and use leathal measures only if the person in question refuses to cooperate to the point of leaving no other options. And by direct threat to life i mean a threat with a weapon of some sorts, not just being huge.
Its just seems that the cop in question was awfully trigger-happy. Even if his actions were justified, he should never work at the force again. Firing half a clip is, and should be classified as, brutality, which, im sure, is not a publicaly accepted practice in the US.
It seems it all comes down to the issue of authority being so sweet and legal defenitions being so vague... Just give ur ordinary patrol cops some rubber bullets or something, its a bit harder to kill with that shit, you actually gotta aim
He was being attacked, and had been hit in the head already when he started shooting. That was a fully justified time to shoot in any country.
i literally read through all the norwegian sources in the wiki article: the word riot is not used, and all are described as anti-israel protests in response to israel attacks on gaza, where only a small minority were firing some firecrackers, throwing rocks etc. some guy got roughed (from a weird christian group), and was part of the pro-israel protestors that clashed with the anti-israel protestors. the word jew was used in a derogatory manner by some thugs who wanted to beat him up further, but it says he was shielded by the non-violent anti-israel protestors. that's good stuff, but not a riot. not even clsoe.
understandable that young palestinians are gonna make their voices heard when their country is bombed, that's a good thing.
the tabletmag article is about sweden, not norway. different countries you know.
It's like people forget your fist is a weapon too, sure you probably wouldn't be able to kill somebody with one punch, but you can knock them out, then I don't know... maybe take the cop's gun after that and shoot him, or maybe take his head and smash it into the concrete, or many other things.
On November 26 2014 02:13 Ym1r wrote: It's like people forget your fist is a weapon too, sure you probably wouldn't be able to kill somebody with one punch, but you can knock them out, then I don't know... maybe take the cop's gun after that and shoot him, or maybe take his head and smash it into the concrete, or many other things.
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.
"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: [quote] 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?
The other option is your first option: put that thing down and call the police. :D
I am going to assume my fiancee is calling the police while I hold the gun on the guy, or call the police before I confront him. The point is that if the person attacks, I have no option but to shoot. And once I start, I am not stopping until that person is on the ground and I know they are not a threat.
To be fair, I would use a shotgun for home defense, so I would only likely have to shoot once.
Sure, fair enough. Problem is, it seems to me that trespassing is enough for you to legally being able to kill the guy.
Problem is, you have someone break into your home, you have no idea what they're going to do. Such situations usually end one of two ways, if someone in the home confronts the intruder: the intruder runs immediately, or there is some kind of fight. I don't know what this guy who broke into my house is going to do. Maybe he'll just grab stuff and run. Maybe he'll beat me up and grab stuff and run. Maybe he'll tie me up, grab stuff and run. Maybe he'll shoot or stab me. Maybe he'll tie me up and then shoot or stab me.
It's my home. Breaking in, that person has zero right to be there. I don't have a crystal ball, I don't know what his intentions truly are.
And trespassing usually is never considered enough to shoot at someone in America. That's why they're two different crimes, trespassing and breaking & entering, trespassing is considered much much less serious.
It should also be pointed out that you can't just unload into someone that is in your house(barring other information, like them saying they are going to kill you or that there are 5 of them). In general it only works if you ask them to leave and they still behave aggressively or refuse to do so.
EPT
