In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On November 26 2014 03:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Cameras on all police officers. Including random drug tests, and mandatory drug tests after incidents and no more paid with leave. Also a special non police prosecutor for every state.
There are no "police prosecutors," DA's offices aren't part of police departments.
Yeah, DA's normally have a pretty contentious relationship with police departments, because DAs have to work with the evidence the police bring them and some times it is shit.
On November 26 2014 03:09 ZenithM wrote: Btw guys, a lot of accounts speak of Wilson shooting in Brown's back as he's fleeing. Obviously I know the grand jury is king and knows all the fact and whatnot, but it's still weird to me that Brown would turn around after beginning to flee (because he was already shot at twice near the car). Why would he do that? To kill an armed cop, while being himself unarmed at a 30 feet distance? Wilson says in his testimony that he had never seen that reaction before. No shit. That's a bit light. And convenient too. And I know forensics proved that he wasn't hit in the back. Quite different from shot in the back though.
Yeah those accounts are unsupported by evidence. And thus in a court of law are worthless. If you want justice, you can't let rumor over come evidence.
On November 26 2014 03:09 ZenithM wrote: Btw guys, a lot of accounts speak of Wilson shooting in Brown's back as he's fleeing. Obviously I know the grand jury is king and knows all the fact and whatnot, but it's still weird to me that Brown would turn around after beginning to flee (because he was already shot at twice near the car). Why would he do that? To kill an armed cop, while being himself unarmed at a 30 feet distance? Wilson says in his testimony that he had never seen that reaction before. No shit. That's a bit light. And convenient too. And I know forensics proved that he wasn't hit in the back. Quite different from shot in the back though.
Yeah those accounts are unsupported by evidence. And thus in a court of law are worthless. If you want justice, you can't let rumor over come evidence.
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
You're in luck again! This is exactly what happened!
FFS, it'd be nice if some of y'all actually made a half-assed attempt to familiarize yourselves with the facts of the case before commenting on it.
People seem to think guns are some kind of magically shield that protect you from any harm if your opponent doesn't have a gun. Pro-tip, they aren't. You are just as vulnerable to getting beaten to death with or without a gun if you're unwilling to shoot. Rubber bullets can be just as lethal as real ones. They're supposed to be shot at the ground and bounced into your target to incapacitate, which isn't really much of an option when your opponent is in your face trying to kill you. If you aim right at them, you'll kill them just as dead. They also seem to think any gunshot wound is incapacitating. There are plenty of cases of people surviving multiple gunshot wounds, and even still being capable of fighting especially in the case of handgun rounds.
If you have to shoot, you shoot to kill. Shooting to wound or to warn is Hollywood bullshit.
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
You're in luck again! This is exactly what happened!
FFS, it'd be nice if some of y'all actually made a half-assed attempt to familiarize yourselves with the facts of the case before commenting on it.
He shot 12 times the last shot was the only one (besides the two in the car) where Brown was even close enough to hit him with a bat let alone threaten him.
People need to quit talking about it like they were face to face when Wilson continued to shoot him after he ran away. (especially the ones saying others don't know the 'facts')
He was shooting at him from far enough for Brown to allegedly sprint for at least 7 seconds (a minimum of ~45ft @walking speed ~100ft @ 10mph run ~150ft @15 mph [human top speed is a bit under 28mph) before he got within 8-10 ft (which is the closest he got after running away).
Wilson is just lucky he didn't shoot some innocent bystander spraying bullets at such a range like he did. He never once mentioned checking his backdrop and explicitly says he had tunnel vision so the real possibility of shooting innocent people never even crossed his mind (according to his testimony).
On November 26 2014 03:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Cameras on all police officers. Including random drug tests, and mandatory drug tests after incidents and no more paid with leave. Also a special non police prosecutor for every state.
There are no "police prosecutors," DA's offices aren't part of police departments.
Yeah, DA's normally have a pretty contentious relationship with police departments, because DAs have to work with the evidence the police bring them and some times it is shit.
well it should also be said that the vast majority of DAs give the vast majority of cops way more benefit of the doubt than they would a non-cop when that cop is a suspect or a defendant.
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 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
You're in luck again! This is exactly what happened!
FFS, it'd be nice if some of y'all actually made a half-assed attempt to familiarize yourselves with the facts of the case before commenting on it.
He shot 12 times the last shot was the only one (besides the two in the car) where Brown was even close enough to hit him with a bat let alone threaten him.
People need to quit talking about it like they were face to face when Wilson continued to shoot him after he ran away. (especially the ones saying others don't know the 'facts')
He was shooting at him from far enough for Brown to allegedly sprint for at least 7 seconds (a minimum of ~45ft @walking speed ~100ft @ 10mph run ~150ft @15 mph [human top speed is a bit under 28mph) before he got within 8-10 ft (which is the closest he got after running away).
Wilson is just lucky he didn't shoot some innocent bystander spraying bullets at such a range like he did. He never once mentioned checking his backdrop and explicitly says he had tunnel vision so the real possibility of shooting innocent people never even crossed his mind (according to his testimony).
The GreenHorizons self-defense rule: You can only shoot a 300 pound man who is charging at you with the intent to kill you when he gets close enough to actually hit you with a bat. Brilliant.
On November 26 2014 03:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Cameras on all police officers. Including random drug tests, and mandatory drug tests after incidents and no more paid with leave. Also a special non police prosecutor for every state.
There are no "police prosecutors," DA's offices aren't part of police departments.
Yeah, DA's normally have a pretty contentious relationship with police departments, because DAs have to work with the evidence the police bring them and some times it is shit.
well it should also be said that the vast majority of DAs give the vast majority of cops way more benefit of the doubt than they would a non-cop when that cop is a suspect or a defendant.
That doesn't mean he isn't going to do his job, though. This case, from the evidence, sounds pretty bad for the DA. The witnesses were just plain bad and the physical evidence supports the officer's story.
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
You're in luck again! This is exactly what happened!
FFS, it'd be nice if some of y'all actually made a half-assed attempt to familiarize yourselves with the facts of the case before commenting on it.
He shot 12 times the last shot was the only one (besides the two in the car) where Brown was even close enough to hit him with a bat let alone threaten him.
People need to quit talking about it like they were face to face when Wilson continued to shoot him after he ran away. (especially the ones saying others don't know the 'facts')
He was shooting at him from far enough for Brown to allegedly sprint for at least 7 seconds (a minimum of ~45ft @walking speed ~100ft @ 10mph run ~150ft @15 mph [human top speed is a bit under 28mph) before he got within 8-10 ft (which is the closest he got after running away).
Wilson is just lucky he didn't shoot some innocent bystander spraying bullets at such a range like he did. He never once mentioned checking his backdrop and explicitly says he had tunnel vision so the real possibility of shooting innocent people never even crossed his mind (according to his testimony).
The GreenHorizons self-defense rule: You can only shoot a 300 pound man who is charging at you with the intent to kill you when he gets close enough to actually hit you with a bat. Brilliant.
No obviously not. You just don't need to start shooting him when he is at least a 7 second 'charge' away. You get behind cover and reassess.
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
You're in luck again! This is exactly what happened!
FFS, it'd be nice if some of y'all actually made a half-assed attempt to familiarize yourselves with the facts of the case before commenting on it.
He shot 12 times the last shot was the only one (besides the two in the car) where Brown was even close enough to hit him with a bat let alone threaten him.
People need to quit talking about it like they were face to face when Wilson continued to shoot him after he ran away. (especially the ones saying others don't know the 'facts')
He was shooting at him from far enough for Brown to allegedly sprint for at least 7 seconds (a minimum of ~45ft @walking speed ~100ft @ 10mph run ~150ft @15 mph [human top speed is a bit under 28mph) before he got within 8-10 ft (which is the closest he got after running away).
Wilson is just lucky he didn't shoot some innocent bystander spraying bullets at such a range like he did. He never once mentioned checking his backdrop and explicitly says he had tunnel vision so the real possibility of shooting innocent people never even crossed his mind (according to his testimony).
The GreenHorizons self-defense rule: You can only shoot a 300 pound man who is charging at you with the intent to kill you when he gets close enough to actually hit you with a bat. Brilliant.
Thats not GreenHorizon's self defense rule, that appears to be the way most police officers' practice in the face of a physical assault by an unarmed civilian. Again, 50k assaults are reported. 1/5th of those are reported to be severe. 80% of those are unarmed. We should be seeing many more self defense cases than we do.
On November 26 2014 03:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Cameras on all police officers. Including random drug tests, and mandatory drug tests after incidents and no more paid with leave. Also a special non police prosecutor for every state.
There are no "police prosecutors," DA's offices aren't part of police departments.
Yeah, DA's normally have a pretty contentious relationship with police departments, because DAs have to work with the evidence the police bring them and some times it is shit.
well it should also be said that the vast majority of DAs give the vast majority of cops way more benefit of the doubt than they would a non-cop when that cop is a suspect or a defendant.
That doesn't mean he isn't going to do his job, though. This case, from the evidence, sounds pretty bad for the DA. The witnesses were just plain bad and the physical evidence supports the officer's story.
Exactly. There is no chance of getting a conviction based upon the evidence that's out there. None. That's why all of this unfounded outrage (or faux outrage in some cases) is so infuriating.
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 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
You're in luck again! This is exactly what happened!
FFS, it'd be nice if some of y'all actually made a half-assed attempt to familiarize yourselves with the facts of the case before commenting on it.
1. He shot 12 times the last shot was the only one (besides the two in the car) where Brown was even close enough to hit him with a bat let alone threaten him.
2. People need to quit talking about it like they were face to face when Wilson continued to shoot him after he ran away. (especially the ones saying others don't know the 'facts')
3. He was shooting at him from far enough for Brown to allegedly sprint for at least 7 seconds (a minimum of ~45ft @walking speed ~100ft @ 10mph run ~150ft @15 mph [human top speed is a bit under 28mph) before he got within 8-10 ft (which is the closest he got after running away).
4. Wilson is just lucky he didn't shoot some innocent bystander spraying bullets at such a range like he did. He never once mentioned checking his backdrop and explicitly says he had tunnel vision so the real possibility of shooting innocent people never even crossed his mind (according to his testimony).
1. Irrelevant. He'd already assaulted Wilson and grabbed or tried to grab his gun, and was coming back at the officer, not stopping despite, according to Wilson, two separate shouted commands to stop. He presented a credible threat to the officer's life based on what he had already done and his attempt to continue the attack.
2. It doesn't matter that they weren't face to face until the last. Brown had already assaulted him and grabbed or attempted to grab his weapon, and was coming back for more, or what a reasonable person would think was more, if you believe Wilson's testimony that Brown appeared, to him, to be in a rage to a degree Wilson claimed he had never seen before in a human being. Which the grand jury apparently did believe.
3. And?
4. Yes, he is lucky. That is irrelevant to the death of Michael Brown, though.
On November 26 2014 00:10 xDaunt wrote: [quote] Well, it wasn't the job of the grand jury to determine the legality of what the cop did. They're only task was to determine whether there's a good enough chance that the cop's actions could be criminal. The grand jury decided the answer to that question was no. It still is yet to be decided whether the killing was otherwise unlawful under civil law. I would expect the family's attorney to ask the same question you did regarding emptying half the clip into the kid. I have no doubt, however, that the defense will put on an expert to talk about how cops are trained to keep shooting until the target goes down, which is apparently what happened here.
This clarifies the whole grand jury thing for me, but it just doesnt sit well at all that shooting a random person, even if intimidating, until he goes down, is a proper, lawful way of communication between a policeman and a citizen... 9/11 really fucked US up. I visited the states once, and while i loved the country and the people, being treated as a potential criminal while crossing the border left an unfavorable impression. It's like the UK asking you to basicly tell them you biography on tape during the visa procedures, but it just doesnt stop there...
I'm just going to take a wild guess that the cops in Russia are allowed to shoot people that attack them. I have no idea why you are characterizing this event as the shooting of a random person. You couldn't be much farther from the truth.
The 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
You're in luck again! This is exactly what happened!
FFS, it'd be nice if some of y'all actually made a half-assed attempt to familiarize yourselves with the facts of the case before commenting on it.
He shot 12 times the last shot was the only one (besides the two in the car) where Brown was even close enough to hit him with a bat let alone threaten him.
People need to quit talking about it like they were face to face when Wilson continued to shoot him after he ran away. (especially the ones saying others don't know the 'facts')
He was shooting at him from far enough for Brown to allegedly sprint for at least 7 seconds (a minimum of ~45ft @walking speed ~100ft @ 10mph run ~150ft @15 mph [human top speed is a bit under 28mph) before he got within 8-10 ft (which is the closest he got after running away).
Wilson is just lucky he didn't shoot some innocent bystander spraying bullets at such a range like he did. He never once mentioned checking his backdrop and explicitly says he had tunnel vision so the real possibility of shooting innocent people never even crossed his mind (according to his testimony).
The GreenHorizons self-defense rule: You can only shoot a 300 pound man who is charging at you with the intent to kill you when he gets close enough to actually hit you with a bat. Brilliant.
No obviously not. You just don't need to start shooting him when he is at least a 7 second 'charge' away. You get behind cover and reassess.
No need to be so ignorant about it.
No, there is no need for you to be so ignorant about it with your armchair quarterbacking. Oh, he should have gotten behind cover and reassessed. Are you a police officer? Have you had any training about what to do when you're in a situation like that? Were Michael Brown and Wilson the only people there? No, Brown's friend Johnson was still there. No telling what he does while Wilson tries to find cover to "reassess."
7 seconds is not a long time in a fight. It is a hell of a lot shorter than 7 seconds sitting at your keyboard.
Get behind cover and reassess. Yeah, so you can reassess with the guy on top of you again because you wasted time following GreenHorizon's Polite Rules of Armchair Combat.
On November 26 2014 00:10 xDaunt wrote: [quote] Well, it wasn't the job of the grand jury to determine the legality of what the cop did. They're only task was to determine whether there's a good enough chance that the cop's actions could be criminal. The grand jury decided the answer to that question was no. It still is yet to be decided whether the killing was otherwise unlawful under civil law. I would expect the family's attorney to ask the same question you did regarding emptying half the clip into the kid. I have no doubt, however, that the defense will put on an expert to talk about how cops are trained to keep shooting until the target goes down, which is apparently what happened here.
This clarifies the whole grand jury thing for me, but it just doesnt sit well at all that shooting a random person, even if intimidating, until he goes down, is a proper, lawful way of communication between a policeman and a citizen... 9/11 really fucked US up. I visited the states once, and while i loved the country and the people, being treated as a potential criminal while crossing the border left an unfavorable impression. It's like the UK asking you to basicly tell them you biography on tape during the visa procedures, but it just doesnt stop there...
I'm just going to take a wild guess that the cops in Russia are allowed to shoot people that attack them. I have no idea why you are characterizing this event as the shooting of a random person. You couldn't be much farther from the truth.
The 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
You're in luck again! This is exactly what happened!
FFS, it'd be nice if some of y'all actually made a half-assed attempt to familiarize yourselves with the facts of the case before commenting on it.
He shot 12 times the last shot was the only one (besides the two in the car) where Brown was even close enough to hit him with a bat let alone threaten him.
People need to quit talking about it like they were face to face when Wilson continued to shoot him after he ran away. (especially the ones saying others don't know the 'facts')
He was shooting at him from far enough for Brown to allegedly sprint for at least 7 seconds (a minimum of ~45ft @walking speed ~100ft @ 10mph run ~150ft @15 mph [human top speed is a bit under 28mph) before he got within 8-10 ft (which is the closest he got after running away).
Wilson is just lucky he didn't shoot some innocent bystander spraying bullets at such a range like he did. He never once mentioned checking his backdrop and explicitly says he had tunnel vision so the real possibility of shooting innocent people never even crossed his mind (according to his testimony).
The GreenHorizons self-defense rule: You can only shoot a 300 pound man who is charging at you with the intent to kill you when he gets close enough to actually hit you with a bat. Brilliant.
No obviously not. You just don't need to start shooting him when he is at least a 7 second 'charge' away. You get behind cover and reassess.
No need to be so ignorant about it.
So you'd have the officer turn his back to a 300 pound guy that his charging him with intent to kill him? Are you insane? If I was the officer, I shoot every time in that circumstance without thinking twice.
EPT
