|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 26 2014 03:46 RCMDVA wrote:
re: how fast somebody can cover distance.
Standard catch-to-kick timings for a punter in highschool/college is 2.2 seconds.
That's 15 yards / 45 feet somebody coming off the edge will get to the punter in 2.5 - 2.7 seconds.
Coming untouched up the middle its less. Alot less.
So if he was charging for 7 seconds that means Wilson was shooting at him from ~100 ft away... How in the hell is someone who is unarmed and ~100ft away putting ones life in such mortal danger the only option is shooting him to death?
|
On November 26 2014 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 03:46 RCMDVA wrote:
re: how fast somebody can cover distance.
Standard catch-to-kick timings for a punter in highschool/college is 2.2 seconds.
That's 15 yards / 45 feet somebody coming off the edge will get to the punter in 2.5 - 2.7 seconds.
Coming untouched up the middle its less. Alot less. So if he was charging for 7 seconds that means Wilson was shooting at him from ~100 ft away... How in the hell is someone who is unarmed and ~100ft away putting ones life in such mortal danger the only option is shooting him to death?
He wasn't 100 feet away, he was 30. You do know the transcript is in the thread right? You can just read it and get the facts for yourself, rather than just stumbling through it.
|
On November 26 2014 03:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 03:42 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 03:37 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 26 2014 03:15 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 03:14 DeepElemBlues wrote: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.
You'd get a conviction if some of the people in this thread were on that jury
|
On November 26 2014 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 03:46 RCMDVA wrote:
re: how fast somebody can cover distance.
Standard catch-to-kick timings for a punter in highschool/college is 2.2 seconds.
That's 15 yards / 45 feet somebody coming off the edge will get to the punter in 2.5 - 2.7 seconds.
Coming untouched up the middle its less. Alot less. So if he was charging for 7 seconds that means Wilson was shooting at him from ~100 ft away... How in the hell is someone who is unarmed and ~100ft away putting ones life in such mortal danger the only option is shooting him to death?
Where are you getting 7 seconds from?
On November 26 2014 03:50 TheMusiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 03:45 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 03:42 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 03:37 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 26 2014 03:15 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 03:14 DeepElemBlues wrote: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. You'd get a conviction if some of the people in this thread were on that jury
Because they're horrible jurors. They've heard too much from Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.
|
On November 26 2014 03:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:40 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 03:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:25 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 02:06 Efane wrote:On November 26 2014 01:52 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 01:48 Efane wrote:On November 26 2014 00:37 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:32 Efane wrote:
[quote]
This clarifies the whole grand jury thing for me, but it just doesnt sit well at all that shooting a random person, even if intimidating, until he goes down, is a proper, lawful way of communication between a policeman and a citizen... 9/11 really fucked US up. I visited the states once, and while i loved the country and the people, being treated as a potential criminal while crossing the border left an unfavorable impression. It's like the UK asking you to basicly tell them you biography on tape during the visa procedures, but it just doesnt stop there...
I'm just going to take a wild guess that the cops in Russia are allowed to shoot people that attack them. I have no idea why you are characterizing this event as the shooting of a random person. You couldn't be much farther from the truth. The 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.
Not surprising. It's called backpedaling. where you move backwards and face forwards, perhaps you've seen it? Again it's not like they were face to face (or even within 45ft of each other) when he started shooting (if we are to believe that Brown was 'charging').
|
On November 26 2014 03:51 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:46 RCMDVA wrote:
re: how fast somebody can cover distance.
Standard catch-to-kick timings for a punter in highschool/college is 2.2 seconds.
That's 15 yards / 45 feet somebody coming off the edge will get to the punter in 2.5 - 2.7 seconds.
Coming untouched up the middle its less. Alot less. So if he was charging for 7 seconds that means Wilson was shooting at him from ~100 ft away... How in the hell is someone who is unarmed and ~100ft away putting ones life in such mortal danger the only option is shooting him to death? Where are you getting 7 seconds from?
The audio recording of the shots.
|
On November 26 2014 03:50 TheMusiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 03:45 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 03:42 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 03:37 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 26 2014 03:15 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 03:14 DeepElemBlues wrote: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. You'd get a conviction if some of the people in this thread were on that jury
Yes, and then the defense attorney would move the court for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and win that argument easily.
|
On November 26 2014 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 03:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:40 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 03:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:25 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 02:06 Efane wrote:On November 26 2014 01:52 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 01:48 Efane wrote:On November 26 2014 00:37 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I'm just going to take a wild guess that the cops in Russia are allowed to shoot people that attack them. I have no idea why you are characterizing this event as the shooting of a random person. You couldn't be much farther from the truth. The 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. Not surprising. It's called backpedaling. where you move backwards and face forwards, perhaps you've seen it? Again it's not like they were face to face (or even within 45ft of each other) when he started shooting (if we are to believe that Brown was 'charging').
Okay, so you'd just have the officer wait a little bit longer for the decedent, who again is charging with intent to kill/injure the officer, to get closer before opening fire? This is just idiotic parsing at this point.
|
On November 26 2014 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 03:51 Millitron wrote:On November 26 2014 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:46 RCMDVA wrote:
re: how fast somebody can cover distance.
Standard catch-to-kick timings for a punter in highschool/college is 2.2 seconds.
That's 15 yards / 45 feet somebody coming off the edge will get to the punter in 2.5 - 2.7 seconds.
Coming untouched up the middle its less. Alot less. So if he was charging for 7 seconds that means Wilson was shooting at him from ~100 ft away... How in the hell is someone who is unarmed and ~100ft away putting ones life in such mortal danger the only option is shooting him to death? Where are you getting 7 seconds from? The audio recording of the shots.
Yeah, but a few of those shots were from in the car. The gun fired at least once while they were struggling in the car.
|
On November 26 2014 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 03:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:40 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 03:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:25 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 02:06 Efane wrote:On November 26 2014 01:52 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 01:48 Efane wrote:On November 26 2014 00:37 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I'm just going to take a wild guess that the cops in Russia are allowed to shoot people that attack them. I have no idea why you are characterizing this event as the shooting of a random person. You couldn't be much farther from the truth. The 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. Not surprising. It's called backpedaling. where you move backwards and face forwards, perhaps you've seen it? Again it's not like they were face to face (or even within 45ft of each other) when he started shooting (if we are to believe that Brown was 'charging').
And you, of course, have either personal experience or multiple examples of similar situations where "backpedaling" from an advancing person who had already assaulted you resulted in no further injuries or deaths, arrest made, everything okay.
Keep talking about 45 feet, 7 seconds, 60 feet, whatever, it all amounts to the same: nothing. 7 seconds is nothing in a fight.
On November 26 2014 03:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:40 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 03:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:25 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 02:06 Efane wrote:On November 26 2014 01:52 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 01:48 Efane wrote:
[quote]
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. Not surprising. It's called backpedaling. where you move backwards and face forwards, perhaps you've seen it? Again it's not like they were face to face (or even within 45ft of each other) when he started shooting (if we are to believe that Brown was 'charging'). Okay, so you'd just have the officer wait a little bit longer for the decedent, who again is charging with intent to kill/injure the officer, to get closer before opening fire? This is just idiotic parsing at this point.
What it is is an enraged wail that reality should conform to his opinion instead of the other way around. 7 seconds and 45 feet away should be long enough to retreat and "reassess." Doesn't matter that in the real world in no way shape or form is 7 seconds and 45 feet enough time and distance to do that, it should be.
|
a guy chipping in on what an obscure far-left activist jotted down? from deb? funny!
actually riot is used in dagbladet 2009 one, my bad. however both incidents (2008 / 2009) are described
as pro-palestine demonstrations in response to the gaza-war, where the violent demonstrators were a
small minority. these demos would have happened regardless of how many immigrants lived in oslo.
decidedly different than is sweden / us.
|
On November 26 2014 03:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:51 Millitron wrote:On November 26 2014 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:46 RCMDVA wrote:
re: how fast somebody can cover distance.
Standard catch-to-kick timings for a punter in highschool/college is 2.2 seconds.
That's 15 yards / 45 feet somebody coming off the edge will get to the punter in 2.5 - 2.7 seconds.
Coming untouched up the middle its less. Alot less. So if he was charging for 7 seconds that means Wilson was shooting at him from ~100 ft away... How in the hell is someone who is unarmed and ~100ft away putting ones life in such mortal danger the only option is shooting him to death? Where are you getting 7 seconds from? The audio recording of the shots. Yeah, but a few of those shots were from in the car. The gun fired at least once while they were struggling in the car.
Seriously?
I thought these were the guys that knew the facts... The audio obviously isn't of the shot's in the car, unless he kept shooting as he ran away. The body was recovered ~130 ft from Wilson's car.
http://rt.com/usa/183540-ferguson-shooting-audio-recording/
|
On November 26 2014 03:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 03:54 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:51 Millitron wrote:On November 26 2014 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:46 RCMDVA wrote:
re: how fast somebody can cover distance.
Standard catch-to-kick timings for a punter in highschool/college is 2.2 seconds.
That's 15 yards / 45 feet somebody coming off the edge will get to the punter in 2.5 - 2.7 seconds.
Coming untouched up the middle its less. Alot less. So if he was charging for 7 seconds that means Wilson was shooting at him from ~100 ft away... How in the hell is someone who is unarmed and ~100ft away putting ones life in such mortal danger the only option is shooting him to death? Where are you getting 7 seconds from? The audio recording of the shots. Yeah, but a few of those shots were from in the car. The gun fired at least once while they were struggling in the car. Seriously? I thought these were the guys that knew the facts... The audio obviously isn't of the shot's in the car, unless he kept shooting as he ran away. The body was recovered ~130 ft from Wilson's car. http://rt.com/usa/183540-ferguson-shooting-audio-recording/
I have not heard that audio and don't know where it was from. I did read the break down of the report by NPR and have looked at the evidence. And you keep bringing up the amount of time like it matters in a fight or that some amazing decision making could be made during that time. Brown was 30 feet away from Wilson when he started firing from the evidence, unless you have something else that says otherwise.
|
On November 26 2014 03:57 nunez wrote:
a guy chipping in on what an obscure far-left activist jotted down? from deb? funny!
actually riot is used in dagbladet 2009 one, my bad. however both incidents (2008 / 2009) are described
as pro-palestine demonstrations in response to the gaza-war, where the violent demonstrators were a
small minority. these demos would have happened regardless of how many immigrants lived in oslo.
decidedly different than is sweden / us.
eh its just a small minority i say, death to the jews and burning buildings not such a big deal.
it's funny because you're employing a classic logical fallacy by saying it's funny, but not otherwise.
On November 26 2014 03:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 03:54 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:51 Millitron wrote:On November 26 2014 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:46 RCMDVA wrote:
re: how fast somebody can cover distance.
Standard catch-to-kick timings for a punter in highschool/college is 2.2 seconds.
That's 15 yards / 45 feet somebody coming off the edge will get to the punter in 2.5 - 2.7 seconds.
Coming untouched up the middle its less. Alot less. So if he was charging for 7 seconds that means Wilson was shooting at him from ~100 ft away... How in the hell is someone who is unarmed and ~100ft away putting ones life in such mortal danger the only option is shooting him to death? Where are you getting 7 seconds from? The audio recording of the shots. Yeah, but a few of those shots were from in the car. The gun fired at least once while they were struggling in the car. Seriously? I thought these were the guys that knew the facts... The audio obviously isn't of the shot's in the car, unless he kept shooting as he ran away. The body was recovered ~130 ft from Wilson's car. http://rt.com/usa/183540-ferguson-shooting-audio-recording/
Wilson did not shoot Brown while standing by his car. He chased after him and started shooting when Brown turned around and came back towards him, variously described by eyewitnesses as a "full charge," a "stumble," a "stagger," and a normal walking pace.
|
The drones came for Ayman Zawahiri on 13 January 2006, hovering over a village in Pakistan called Damadola. Ten months later, they came again for the man who would become al-Qaida’s leader, this time in Bajaur.
Eight years later, Zawahiri is still alive. Seventy-six children and 29 adults, according to reports after the two strikes, are not.
However many Americans know who Zawahiri is, far fewer are familiar with Qari Hussain. Hussain was a deputy commander of the Pakistani Taliban, a militant group aligned with al-Qaida that trained the would-be Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad, before his unsuccessful 2010 attack. The drones first came for Hussain years before, on 29 January 2008. Then they came on 23 June 2009, 15 January 2010, 2 October 2010 and 7 October 2010.
Finally, on 15 October 2010, Hellfire missiles fired from a Predator or Reaper drone killed Hussain, the Pakistani Taliban later confirmed. For the death of a man whom practically no American can name, the US killed 128 people, 13 of them children, none of whom it meant to harm.
A new analysis of the data available to the public about drone strikes, conducted by the human-rights group Reprieve, indicates that even when operators target specific individuals – the most focused effort of what Barack Obama calls “targeted killing” – they kill vastly more people than their targets, often needing to strike multiple times. Attempts to kill 41 men resulted in the deaths of an estimated 1,147 people, as of 24 November.
Reprieve, sifting through reports compiled by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, examined cases in which specific people were targeted by drones multiple times. Their data, shared with the Guardian, raises questions about the accuracy of US intelligence guiding strikes that US officials describe using words like “clinical” and “precise.”
Source
|
On November 26 2014 04:02 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 03:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:54 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:51 Millitron wrote:On November 26 2014 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:46 RCMDVA wrote:
re: how fast somebody can cover distance.
Standard catch-to-kick timings for a punter in highschool/college is 2.2 seconds.
That's 15 yards / 45 feet somebody coming off the edge will get to the punter in 2.5 - 2.7 seconds.
Coming untouched up the middle its less. Alot less. So if he was charging for 7 seconds that means Wilson was shooting at him from ~100 ft away... How in the hell is someone who is unarmed and ~100ft away putting ones life in such mortal danger the only option is shooting him to death? Where are you getting 7 seconds from? The audio recording of the shots. Yeah, but a few of those shots were from in the car. The gun fired at least once while they were struggling in the car. Seriously? I thought these were the guys that knew the facts... The audio obviously isn't of the shot's in the car, unless he kept shooting as he ran away. The body was recovered ~130 ft from Wilson's car. http://rt.com/usa/183540-ferguson-shooting-audio-recording/ I have not heard that audio and don't know where it was from. I did read the break down of the report by NPR and have looked at the evidence. And you keep bringing up the amount of time like it matters in a fight or that some amazing decision making could be made during that time. Brown was 30 feet away from Wilson when he started firing from the evidence, unless you have something else that says otherwise.
Like DEB pointed out, GreenHorizons is more interested making the facts comport to what he wants to have happened as opposed to what actually happened. That audio doesn't prove anything other than the fact that the cop fired two volleys at Brown, which isn't remarkable in and of itself.
|
I still don't get how this shit can be ruled out so easily. Reading the transcript, my humble opinion is that Wilson did indeed shoot to defend himself at his car, so that's fine, then it becomes really blurry. What are the evidence? When you have a dead guy with 6 bullets in his body and another guy with a red bruise on his cheek who litterally emptied his charger, I'd say you look a bit more.
Could someone point out to me any relevant witness testimony before the grand jury? I only read Johnson's and Wilson's. Other evidence sources seem worthless, the forensics team's camera was out of battery at the scene, the sound recordings say what we already know (a fucking buttload of shots fired), the analysis of the body says he was only hit from the front (fine) 6 fucking times, killing him. Seems weird to me that you can't find probable cause when all you have is the killer's testimony and some guy's body crippled with bullets. I'm sure I'm only missing something here. The only thing I read that backs Wilson's story is well, Wilson's story.
|
On November 26 2014 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 03:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:40 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 03:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:25 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 02:06 Efane wrote:On November 26 2014 01:52 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 01:48 Efane wrote:On November 26 2014 00:37 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I'm just going to take a wild guess that the cops in Russia are allowed to shoot people that attack them. I have no idea why you are characterizing this event as the shooting of a random person. You couldn't be much farther from the truth. The 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. Not surprising. It's called backpedaling. where you move backwards and face forwards, perhaps you've seen it? Again it's not like they were face to face (or even within 45ft of each other) when he started shooting (if we are to believe that Brown was 'charging').
that's exactly what he did, and brown still got within 8 to 10 ft of him despite teh rounds being shot at him. that's how insane the whole situation was.
wilson backpedaled while firing, all while the initial charge started within 30 ft.
|
On November 26 2014 04:05 ZenithM wrote:
I still don't get how this shit can be ruled out so easily. Reading the transcript, my humble opinion is that Wilson did indeed shoot to defend himself at his car, so that's fine, then it becomes really blurry. What are the evidence? When you have a dead guy with 6 bullets in his body and another guy with a red bruise on his cheek who litterally emptied his charger, I'd say you look a bit more.
Could someone point out to me any relevant witness testimony before the grand jury? I only read Johnson's and Wilson's. Seems weird to me that you can't find probable cause when all you have is the killer's testimony and some guy's body crippled with bullets. I'm sure I'm only missing something here. The only thing I read that backs Wilson's story is well, Wilson's story.
posted transcripts a page or two back in this thread.
there was a witness testimony that pretty much mirrored exactly what wilson said.
|
On November 26 2014 04:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The drones came for Ayman Zawahiri on 13 January 2006, hovering over a village in Pakistan called Damadola. Ten months later, they came again for the man who would become al-Qaida’s leader, this time in Bajaur.
Eight years later, Zawahiri is still alive. Seventy-six children and 29 adults, according to reports after the two strikes, are not.
However many Americans know who Zawahiri is, far fewer are familiar with Qari Hussain. Hussain was a deputy commander of the Pakistani Taliban, a militant group aligned with al-Qaida that trained the would-be Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad, before his unsuccessful 2010 attack. The drones first came for Hussain years before, on 29 January 2008. Then they came on 23 June 2009, 15 January 2010, 2 October 2010 and 7 October 2010.
Finally, on 15 October 2010, Hellfire missiles fired from a Predator or Reaper drone killed Hussain, the Pakistani Taliban later confirmed. For the death of a man whom practically no American can name, the US killed 128 people, 13 of them children, none of whom it meant to harm.
A new analysis of the data available to the public about drone strikes, conducted by the human-rights group Reprieve, indicates that even when operators target specific individuals – the most focused effort of what Barack Obama calls “targeted killing” – they kill vastly more people than their targets, often needing to strike multiple times. Attempts to kill 41 men resulted in the deaths of an estimated 1,147 people, as of 24 November.
Reprieve, sifting through reports compiled by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, examined cases in which specific people were targeted by drones multiple times. Their data, shared with the Guardian, raises questions about the accuracy of US intelligence guiding strikes that US officials describe using words like “clinical” and “precise.” Source
And yet, despite the dishonest implication of the article, drone strikes have resulted in a 3:1 or 4:1 terrorist/fighter/whatever you want to call them:civilian death ratio, the best ratio for aerial bombing in history.
All the irrelevant little editorializing is funny too. Practically no American can name him, so what? Zero relevance. The US killed 128 people it did not meant to harm to kill Hussain? Bullshit. Most of those 128 were Hussain's little jihadi buddies. The US might not have specifically meant to harm them, but the impression (again, dishonest) is that those 128 were civilians. Most of them weren't. The same with the dishonest impression that an attempt was being made to create by saying 1,147 people were killed to get 41. Sorry, most of those 1,147 weren't innocent civilians either. I don't give a shit if 300 other terrorists were killed in 8 strikes targeting one particular terrorist who finally died also, and neither does anyone else except organizations like Reprieve and the Grauniad who run interference for terrorists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
