|
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 06:15 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 06:09 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 06:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Brown had already struck Wilson multiple times and there seems to have been a struggle over Wilson's gun. It is entirely reasonable then for Wilson to assume that Brown's continued advances were hostile. This is why the orbital socket propaganda was spread, the video of the store, and evidence that shots were fired in the car but 0 accounts of what happened after he left his car. So that whatever happened after that would be justified in people's minds. I don't think he would of been convicted of anything based on the evidence, my point is that with some better training and rules, incidents like this can be avoided, lives can be saved, and it doesn't have to put the officers in significantly more danger. Just assessing/proceeding with threats would make a huge difference. Think the rookie cop who just shot an innocent unarmed man just outside his own door (inside his apartment building). yeah, if only Wilson was a trained MMA fighter with years of hand to hand combat experience, he could just knocked Brown the fuck out with a single right straight instead of using his fire arm. Completely rational expectation of a regular police officer. No. I'm saying he never needed to get in a situation where he felt his life was in imminent danger after Brown fled. Your MMA fighter non-sense has nothing to do with anything. You mean he never needed to do his job to apprehend a dangerous criminal that has just proven to be dangerous by attacking an officer while he was still in his vehicle???
Don't confuse the matter with facts, punching the officer in the head was justified because Brown was mad about being stopped for a crime that he totally committed, but felt the officer shouldn't know about it. Do not let the physical assault of the office get in the way of the narrative.
|
On November 26 2014 06:16 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 06:13 wei2coolman wrote:
No one would dare attack two cops while having a taser attached to their chest! Wow you have literally found one person that attacked two cops. That obviously invalidates the whole idea of keeping the life of the criminal in mind and don't engaging in situation that will end in some kind of John Wayne like shootout.
I mean it was more of a joke, but I mean I definitely agree having 2 cops per patrol is best, but it's not like police get unlimited bodies on the street and unlimited funding.
On November 26 2014 06:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 06:15 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 06:09 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 06:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Brown had already struck Wilson multiple times and there seems to have been a struggle over Wilson's gun. It is entirely reasonable then for Wilson to assume that Brown's continued advances were hostile. This is why the orbital socket propaganda was spread, the video of the store, and evidence that shots were fired in the car but 0 accounts of what happened after he left his car. So that whatever happened after that would be justified in people's minds. I don't think he would of been convicted of anything based on the evidence, my point is that with some better training and rules, incidents like this can be avoided, lives can be saved, and it doesn't have to put the officers in significantly more danger. Just assessing/proceeding with threats would make a huge difference. Think the rookie cop who just shot an innocent unarmed man just outside his own door (inside his apartment building). yeah, if only Wilson was a trained MMA fighter with years of hand to hand combat experience, he could just knocked Brown the fuck out with a single right straight instead of using his fire arm. Completely rational expectation of a regular police officer. No. I'm saying he never needed to get in a situation where he felt his life was in imminent danger after Brown fled. Your MMA fighter non-sense has nothing to do with anything. You mean he never needed to do his job to apprehend a dangerous criminal that has just proven to be dangerous by attacking an officer while he was still in his vehicle??? Don't confuse the matter with facts, punching the officer in the head was justified because Brown was mad about being stopped for a crime that he totally committed, but felt the officer shouldn't know about it. Do not let the physical assault of the office get in the way of the narrative.
technically he was pulled up to Brown in regards to jaywalking. JUST SAYING.
|
On November 26 2014 06:18 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 06:16 Nyxisto wrote:On November 26 2014 06:13 wei2coolman wrote:
No one would dare attack two cops while having a taser attached to their chest! Wow you have literally found one person that attacked two cops. That obviously invalidates the whole idea of keeping the life of the criminal in mind and don't engaging in situation that will end in some kind of John Wayne like shootout. I mean it was more of a joke, but I mean I definitely agree having 2 cops per patrol is best, but it's not like police get unlimited bodies on the street and unlimited funding.
And I bet Wilson didn't think the theft of a candy bar was going to lead to Brown attempting to take his fire arm. I mean, its is petty theft, which normally does not escalate into being punched in the head.
Edit: Or jaywalking, which totally leads to being punched in the head. Happens all the time where I am from.
|
On November 26 2014 06:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 06:18 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 06:16 Nyxisto wrote:On November 26 2014 06:13 wei2coolman wrote:
No one would dare attack two cops while having a taser attached to their chest! Wow you have literally found one person that attacked two cops. That obviously invalidates the whole idea of keeping the life of the criminal in mind and don't engaging in situation that will end in some kind of John Wayne like shootout. I mean it was more of a joke, but I mean I definitely agree having 2 cops per patrol is best, but it's not like police get unlimited bodies on the street and unlimited funding. And I bet Wilson didn't think the theft of a candy bar was going to lead to Brown attempting to take his fire arm. I mean, its is petty theft, which normally does not escalate into being punched in the head.
cigalleros*, wouldn't want people here to think you're making light of the situation by using "candy bar" instead of cigalleros.
On November 26 2014 06:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 06:18 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 06:16 Nyxisto wrote:On November 26 2014 06:13 wei2coolman wrote:
No one would dare attack two cops while having a taser attached to their chest! Wow you have literally found one person that attacked two cops. That obviously invalidates the whole idea of keeping the life of the criminal in mind and don't engaging in situation that will end in some kind of John Wayne like shootout. I mean it was more of a joke, but I mean I definitely agree having 2 cops per patrol is best, but it's not like police get unlimited bodies on the street and unlimited funding. And I bet Wilson didn't think the theft of a candy bar was going to lead to Brown attempting to take his fire arm. I mean, its is petty theft, which normally does not escalate into being punched in the head. Edit: Or jaywalking, which totally leads to being punched in the head. Happens all the time where I am from.
All I know is, when I went to college. Cops would hand out tickets without warning for jaywalking, as opposed to give warning as to walk on the sidewalk... (not that this has anything to do with this specific case, just personal experience yo).
|
On November 26 2014 05:57 Vegetarian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 26 2014 05:33 Vegetarian wrote:On November 26 2014 05:27 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 05:24 ZenithM wrote:On November 26 2014 05:17 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 05:15 ZenithM wrote:On November 26 2014 05:08 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 04:36 wei2coolman wrote:
[quote]
If you're too lazy to read, that's your own fault.
I posted the link to the transcripts just a few post above. I read the part discussing the shooting, I didn't see it unless it is somewhere else, it isn't there. Are you referring to what he said to another officer? http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/11/us/ferguson-grand-jury-docs/index.htmlit's under witness interviews. On November 26 2014 05:07 ZenithM wrote:
The fact is that Brown wasn't hit in the back. But for me it doesn't really conflict with witnesses saying he was shot in the back. Wilson could very well have fired while he was fleeing and missed, and witnesses could have seen him fire and believed he hit the mark. I think it would have made a big difference if he did shoot at a man fleeing, because it doesn't seem like self-defense to me. except conflicting witness testimonies, ya know.... Well yeah, that's why Wilson wasn't indicted, isn't it? It doesn't make it the truth. Conflicting witness testimonies don't mean that he didn't shoot Brown in the back, it just means the case is dropped. I know it's no use dwelling over speculations like these, but still, it's hard to not understand why people would be pissed off. Got bad new for you, if something is the "truth" doesn't matter in court. Thats not its job. If the evidence doesn't support bringing a case, one isn't brought. And the court should never concern itself with public opinion. Got good news for you, I knew that already, I never said justice should concern itself with it. I just meant for all the guys in this thread to get off their high horses and not tell people in the streets to shut their whining and to read the transcripts, when in fact, the transcripts don't say much. They sure damn say that the case doesn't hold up, they aren't clear enough to know what indeed happened (at least for me they aren't, but I'm lucid enough to see why the case was ruled out). And for the last time, dAPhREAk, I fucking know already that he wasn't hit in back. My point is that it would make a big difference if Wilson even attempted to shoot the guy down while he was fleeing the scene. Actually would it? I don't even know haha, I don't really know how it works in the US. Maybe you can just shoot down a guy who hits you and then flees, and that's still self-defense. Except you know... witness testimonies... All the ones that did say he shot brown while running away changed their story. It sounds like you only read 1-2 of the witness testimonies. The general consensus from the witness testimonies is that the officer shot to kill after brown had stopped charging and was barely moving forward at all due to the gunshot wounds he had sustained at which point the officer unloaded a second volley of rounds executing brown when he posed no real threat to the officer. I'm reading a lot of Brown was always moving towards Wilson and Wilson was telling Brown to stop. I don't think we can ascertain the exact speed of Brown's movement. I don't think it's particularly relevant either. Brown had already struck Wilson multiple times and there seems to have been a struggle over Wilson's gun. It is entirely reasonable then for Wilson to assume that Brown's continued advances were hostile. At least one witness seemed to think that Brown's advances were a sign of surrender, but that logic is really bizarre. If wilson was scared for his life, then why does he exit his vehicle and chase after brown instead of waiting for back up? If a suspect is fleeing a scene you can't really wait for backup. The suspect will be gone by then.
Why after firing multiple shots and seeing brown stagger does he not retreat further?
If I'm not mistaken, Wilson did claim to have backpedaled during the shooting.
Why does the officer have to stand his ground and kill a civilian who it is his job to protect, instead of just running away? His job is to protect the public and enforce the law. If officers just ran away from criminals, they couldn't protect the public or enforce the law.
Can wilson really not out run a 300 pound man? Lol, I don't know. It would be nice if they were in a friendly footrace instead, that's for sure.
Some of the witnesses seemed to think brown stopped advancing, curled over, and started barely advancing forward when he was clearly injured and incapable of rapid movement. Doesn't seem that bizarre when your talking about a 300 pound man who gets shot a few times and is going to have a little difficulty stopping his momentum. There was a pause in the shooting and repeated calls for Brown to stop. You can't just imagine whatever you want to imagine, you have to look at the evidence of what happened.
|
On November 26 2014 06:19 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 06:19 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 06:18 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 06:16 Nyxisto wrote:On November 26 2014 06:13 wei2coolman wrote:
No one would dare attack two cops while having a taser attached to their chest! Wow you have literally found one person that attacked two cops. That obviously invalidates the whole idea of keeping the life of the criminal in mind and don't engaging in situation that will end in some kind of John Wayne like shootout. I mean it was more of a joke, but I mean I definitely agree having 2 cops per patrol is best, but it's not like police get unlimited bodies on the street and unlimited funding. And I bet Wilson didn't think the theft of a candy bar was going to lead to Brown attempting to take his fire arm. I mean, its is petty theft, which normally does not escalate into being punched in the head. cigalleros*, wouldn't want people here to think you're making light of the situation by using "candy bar" instead of cigalleros. Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 06:19 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 06:18 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 06:16 Nyxisto wrote:On November 26 2014 06:13 wei2coolman wrote:
No one would dare attack two cops while having a taser attached to their chest! Wow you have literally found one person that attacked two cops. That obviously invalidates the whole idea of keeping the life of the criminal in mind and don't engaging in situation that will end in some kind of John Wayne like shootout. I mean it was more of a joke, but I mean I definitely agree having 2 cops per patrol is best, but it's not like police get unlimited bodies on the street and unlimited funding. And I bet Wilson didn't think the theft of a candy bar was going to lead to Brown attempting to take his fire arm. I mean, its is petty theft, which normally does not escalate into being punched in the head. Edit: Or jaywalking, which totally leads to being punched in the head. Happens all the time where I am from. All I know is, when I went to college. Cops would hand out tickets without warning for jaywalking, as opposed to give warning as to walk on the sidewalk... (not that this has anything to do with this specific case, just personal experience yo).
Depends on where you live.
No one cares about jaywalking in Maryland/Virginia/DC.
|
On November 26 2014 06:12 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 06:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 06:08 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 06:06 Nyxisto wrote:On November 26 2014 06:03 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 06:01 Nyxisto wrote:On November 26 2014 05:59 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 05:57 Vegetarian wrote:On November 26 2014 05:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 26 2014 05:33 Vegetarian wrote:
[quote]
It sounds like you only read 1-2 of the witness testimonies.
The general consensus from the witness testimonies is that the officer shot to kill after brown had stopped charging and was barely moving forward at all due to the gunshot wounds he had sustained at which point the officer unloaded a second volley of rounds executing brown when he posed no real threat to the officer. I'm reading a lot of Brown was always moving towards Wilson and Wilson was telling Brown to stop. I don't think we can ascertain the exact speed of Brown's movement. I don't think it's particularly relevant either. Brown had already struck Wilson multiple times and there seems to have been a struggle over Wilson's gun. It is entirely reasonable then for Wilson to assume that Brown's continued advances were hostile. At least one witness seemed to think that Brown's advances were a sign of surrender, but that logic is really bizarre. If wilson was scared for his life, then why does he exit his vehicle and chase after brown instead of waiting for back up? Why after firing multiple shots and seeing brown stagger does he not retreat further? Why does the officer have to stand his ground and kill a civilian who it is his job to protect, instead of just running away? Can wilson really not out run a 300 pound man? So police are supposed to run away when criminals are scary? No, you should obviously be shot for stealing a candybar and the police officer should be promoted for ridding the world of such a dangerous criminal. I think you missed the part where he attacked the officer and attempted to take his gun. It was more a general point regarding the question whether a police officer should rather retreat or "do his job". And if the police officer retreats instead of getting into a situation that ends up with one dead person, I think he should most definitely retreat. So once again, if a criminal attacks a police officer, is unarmed and then feels, the officer should not go after him because it might end with someone dead? Great, I feel super safe now. Police should stop chasing criminals because "someone might get hurt". Mind you, by not chasing them, someone else might get hurt. We have laws like that for high-speed chases? which entails keeping space away from the vehicle (but following) without trying to incite more reckless driving. Of which, Wilson kept chase with distance from Brown, telling him to get on the ground.
Letting them get away is what the law requires if the situation is dangerous enough (although that wasn't really a concern for 300lb Brown). For instance, if the suspect is traveling at a high rate of speed the officers can be legally capped at how fast they can go in pursuit, because you know it doesn't make sense for a cop to kill an innocent person while chasing someone who just strong-armed a convenience store and knocked down a cop in their escape.
Just saying this isn't all that dissimilar, and that it's something we should consider.
Wilson missed ~6 shots. Those could of hit anyone. He notably never mentions making sure his backdrop was clear or that he was confident that he could safely discharge his weapon.
|
On November 26 2014 06:11 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 06:08 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 06:06 Nyxisto wrote:On November 26 2014 06:03 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 06:01 Nyxisto wrote:On November 26 2014 05:59 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 05:57 Vegetarian wrote:On November 26 2014 05:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 26 2014 05:33 Vegetarian wrote:On November 26 2014 05:27 wei2coolman wrote:
[quote]
Except you know... witness testimonies... All the ones that did say he shot brown while running away changed their story. It sounds like you only read 1-2 of the witness testimonies. The general consensus from the witness testimonies is that the officer shot to kill after brown had stopped charging and was barely moving forward at all due to the gunshot wounds he had sustained at which point the officer unloaded a second volley of rounds executing brown when he posed no real threat to the officer. I'm reading a lot of Brown was always moving towards Wilson and Wilson was telling Brown to stop. I don't think we can ascertain the exact speed of Brown's movement. I don't think it's particularly relevant either. Brown had already struck Wilson multiple times and there seems to have been a struggle over Wilson's gun. It is entirely reasonable then for Wilson to assume that Brown's continued advances were hostile. At least one witness seemed to think that Brown's advances were a sign of surrender, but that logic is really bizarre. If wilson was scared for his life, then why does he exit his vehicle and chase after brown instead of waiting for back up? Why after firing multiple shots and seeing brown stagger does he not retreat further? Why does the officer have to stand his ground and kill a civilian who it is his job to protect, instead of just running away? Can wilson really not out run a 300 pound man? So police are supposed to run away when criminals are scary? No, you should obviously be shot for stealing a candybar and the police officer should be promoted for ridding the world of such a dangerous criminal. I think you missed the part where he attacked the officer and attempted to take his gun. It was more a general point regarding the question whether a police officer should rather retreat or "do his job". And if the police officer retreats instead of getting into a situation that ends up with one dead person, I think he should most definitely retreat. So once again, if a criminal attacks a police officer, is unarmed and then feels, the officer should not go after him because it might end with someone dead? Great, I feel super safe now. Police should stop chasing criminals because "someone might get hurt". Mind you, by not chasing them, someone else might get hurt. Yes, I think a thief should rather get away for the moment than to risk his life. He has the right to be protected to, you know? Criminals don't stop being people. The police officers job is to get him in front of a court, not execute him. In my opinion police officers should at least work ins groups of two because this would probably will these confrontations altogether. No one is going to attack two cops at the same time.
No one is going to attack an armed cop barehanded.
Oh wait...
Ofc criminals don't stop being people. Cops don't roam the street executing criminals left and right.
|
On November 26 2014 05:57 dAPhREAk wrote:
greenhorizons, i am still waiting for you to show me which states you can legally shoot someone in the back while fleeing. i am very curious.
A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, ]it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.
—Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner
|
On November 26 2014 06:16 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 06:13 wei2coolman wrote:
No one would dare attack two cops while having a taser attached to their chest! Wow you have literally found one person that attacked two cops. That obviously invalidates the whole idea of keeping the life of the criminal in mind and don't engaging in situation that will end in some kind of John Wayne like shootout.
It's not uncommon for one person to engage with multiple cops.
|
The Justice Department still has two opportunities to bring criminal charges and overhaul the Ferguson Police Department in the case that grew from the fatal police shooting of Michael Brown.
In September, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. launched a federal investigation of the Missouri city’s police force to examine whether officers routinely engaged in racial profiling or showed a pattern of excessive force. Investigators from Justice’s Civil Rights Division are reviewing the training officers receive on racial profiling and the use of force, including deadly force.
The Civil Rights Division is conducting a separate investigation of the Aug. 9 shooting of Brown, who was unarmed, to determine whether there is a civil rights case to be brought against Officer Darren Wilson, whose fatal shooting of Brown sparked months of protests.
Holder urged protesters in Ferguson last week to avoid violence in response to a St. Louis County grand jury’s report on its investigation of the shooting. Justice officials also privately reached out to Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon (D) to express Holder’s displeasure and “frustration” that Nixon declared a state of emergency and activated the National Guard in advance of the grand jury’s findings.
The Justice Department’s broad investigation of the policing practices of the Ferguson Police Department could result in wholesale reforms and reorganization of the force, according to Justice Department officials.
The probe, which could take months to complete, follows a process that Civil Rights Division attorneys have used in investigations of 20 other police departments across the country. The Justice Department is also conducting a review of racial profiling and other practices by the St. Louis County Police Department, which voluntarily agreed to the review.
At a news conference announcing the investigation, Holder said that “anecdotal accounts underscore the history of mistrust of law enforcement in Ferguson.”
What’s next? Justice continues its probe of Ferguson Police Department.
|
On November 26 2014 06:26 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 06:19 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 06:19 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 06:18 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 06:16 Nyxisto wrote:On November 26 2014 06:13 wei2coolman wrote:
No one would dare attack two cops while having a taser attached to their chest! Wow you have literally found one person that attacked two cops. That obviously invalidates the whole idea of keeping the life of the criminal in mind and don't engaging in situation that will end in some kind of John Wayne like shootout. I mean it was more of a joke, but I mean I definitely agree having 2 cops per patrol is best, but it's not like police get unlimited bodies on the street and unlimited funding. And I bet Wilson didn't think the theft of a candy bar was going to lead to Brown attempting to take his fire arm. I mean, its is petty theft, which normally does not escalate into being punched in the head. cigalleros*, wouldn't want people here to think you're making light of the situation by using "candy bar" instead of cigalleros. On November 26 2014 06:19 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 06:18 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 06:16 Nyxisto wrote:On November 26 2014 06:13 wei2coolman wrote:
No one would dare attack two cops while having a taser attached to their chest! Wow you have literally found one person that attacked two cops. That obviously invalidates the whole idea of keeping the life of the criminal in mind and don't engaging in situation that will end in some kind of John Wayne like shootout. I mean it was more of a joke, but I mean I definitely agree having 2 cops per patrol is best, but it's not like police get unlimited bodies on the street and unlimited funding. And I bet Wilson didn't think the theft of a candy bar was going to lead to Brown attempting to take his fire arm. I mean, its is petty theft, which normally does not escalate into being punched in the head. Edit: Or jaywalking, which totally leads to being punched in the head. Happens all the time where I am from. All I know is, when I went to college. Cops would hand out tickets without warning for jaywalking, as opposed to give warning as to walk on the sidewalk... (not that this has anything to do with this specific case, just personal experience yo). Depends on where you live. No one cares about jaywalking in Maryland/Virginia/DC.
There was a big scary sign at a bus stop at K and 21st a few months ago talking about MPD's new super aggressive jaywalking enforcement problem. You can't make this shit up. I imagine they got short on money...
|
On November 26 2014 06:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 06:16 Nyxisto wrote:On November 26 2014 06:13 wei2coolman wrote:
No one would dare attack two cops while having a taser attached to their chest! Wow you have literally found one person that attacked two cops. That obviously invalidates the whole idea of keeping the life of the criminal in mind and don't engaging in situation that will end in some kind of John Wayne like shootout. It's not uncommon for one person to engage with multiple cops.
But it's probably less common than in situations where you face only one cop. The general point is that the police should avoid creating a unnecessary situation in which a fleeing suspect could think they could get away with attacking the police. A criminal on the chase is not a rational person. Putting everybody into a dangerous situation and just gunning someone down if things go south is terrible, even if the shooting in a vacuum would be considered "justified".
|
On November 26 2014 06:34 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 06:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 26 2014 06:16 Nyxisto wrote:On November 26 2014 06:13 wei2coolman wrote:
No one would dare attack two cops while having a taser attached to their chest! Wow you have literally found one person that attacked two cops. That obviously invalidates the whole idea of keeping the life of the criminal in mind and don't engaging in situation that will end in some kind of John Wayne like shootout. It's not uncommon for one person to engage with multiple cops. But it's probably less common than in situations where you face only one cop. The general point is that the police should avoid creating a unnecessary situation in which a fleeing suspect could think they could get away with attacking the police. A criminal on the chase is not a rational person. Putting everybody into a dangerous situation and just gunning someone down if things go south is terrible, even if the shooting in a vacuum would be considered "justified".
Except Brown did not flee. He was told to stop and rather than doing, advanced on the officer. The only way that Wilson could have avoided that was to just sit in his car and not even attempt to apprehend the criminal that just assaulted him.
|
On November 26 2014 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:57 dAPhREAk wrote:
greenhorizons, i am still waiting for you to show me which states you can legally shoot someone in the back while fleeing. i am very curious. Show nested quote +A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, ]it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.
—Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner
ignoring the fact that you are now discussing police officers instead of normal citizens, that does not state that you can shoot someone in the back when they are fleeing. it says you can prevent serious physical harm to yourself or third parties through deadly force. it is a rare occurrence where fleeing presents an imminent threat of harm to anyone; indeed, it is the primary example in law schools of when you CANNOT use deadly force. note, the police officer in Tennessee (who shot someone while fleeing) was allowed to be sued for the act. he was not absolved of liability.
The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=471&invol=1
|
On November 26 2014 06:34 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 06:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 26 2014 06:16 Nyxisto wrote:On November 26 2014 06:13 wei2coolman wrote:
No one would dare attack two cops while having a taser attached to their chest! Wow you have literally found one person that attacked two cops. That obviously invalidates the whole idea of keeping the life of the criminal in mind and don't engaging in situation that will end in some kind of John Wayne like shootout. It's not uncommon for one person to engage with multiple cops. But it's probably less common than in situations where you face only one cop. The general point is that the police should avoid creating a unnecessary situation in which a fleeing suspect could think they could get away with attacking the police. A criminal on the chase is not a rational person. Putting everybody into a dangerous situation and just gunning someone down if things go south is terrible, even if the shooting in a vacuum would be considered "justified".
The police do try to avoid unnecessary force, or creating situations where more force becomes warranted.
Police do not just gun people down when they flee.
|
On November 26 2014 06:38 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 06:34 Nyxisto wrote:On November 26 2014 06:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 26 2014 06:16 Nyxisto wrote:On November 26 2014 06:13 wei2coolman wrote:
No one would dare attack two cops while having a taser attached to their chest! Wow you have literally found one person that attacked two cops. That obviously invalidates the whole idea of keeping the life of the criminal in mind and don't engaging in situation that will end in some kind of John Wayne like shootout. It's not uncommon for one person to engage with multiple cops. But it's probably less common than in situations where you face only one cop. The general point is that the police should avoid creating a unnecessary situation in which a fleeing suspect could think they could get away with attacking the police. A criminal on the chase is not a rational person. Putting everybody into a dangerous situation and just gunning someone down if things go south is terrible, even if the shooting in a vacuum would be considered "justified". Except Brown did not flee. He was told to stop and rather than doing, advanced on the officer. The only way that Wilson could have avoided that was to just sit in his car and not even attempt to apprehend the criminal that just assaulted him.
He could of put more following distance between him and Brown (He ran at least 150ft away). Giving him enough time to retreat if he charged.
The presumption is that he was going to shoot him if he came back toward him (as he clearly had no other plan to deal with Brown confronting him). Without knowing that his several missed shots wouldn't hit innocent bystanders, following at a range where if the suspect turns around and advances you have to shoot, is unnecessarily dangerous.
Like the high speed chase analogy.
|
On November 26 2014 06:38 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 06:34 Nyxisto wrote:On November 26 2014 06:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 26 2014 06:16 Nyxisto wrote:On November 26 2014 06:13 wei2coolman wrote:
No one would dare attack two cops while having a taser attached to their chest! Wow you have literally found one person that attacked two cops. That obviously invalidates the whole idea of keeping the life of the criminal in mind and don't engaging in situation that will end in some kind of John Wayne like shootout. It's not uncommon for one person to engage with multiple cops. But it's probably less common than in situations where you face only one cop. The general point is that the police should avoid creating a unnecessary situation in which a fleeing suspect could think they could get away with attacking the police. A criminal on the chase is not a rational person. Putting everybody into a dangerous situation and just gunning someone down if things go south is terrible, even if the shooting in a vacuum would be considered "justified". Except Brown did not flee. He was told to stop and rather than doing, advanced on the officer. The only way that Wilson could have avoided that was to just sit in his car and not even attempt to apprehend the criminal that just assaulted him.
Yes, that's what he should have done. Call in assistance and figure out what to do. Why would you need to chase someone down who does not pose an immediate threat?
|
On November 26 2014 06:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 06:38 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 06:34 Nyxisto wrote:On November 26 2014 06:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 26 2014 06:16 Nyxisto wrote:On November 26 2014 06:13 wei2coolman wrote:
No one would dare attack two cops while having a taser attached to their chest! Wow you have literally found one person that attacked two cops. That obviously invalidates the whole idea of keeping the life of the criminal in mind and don't engaging in situation that will end in some kind of John Wayne like shootout. It's not uncommon for one person to engage with multiple cops. But it's probably less common than in situations where you face only one cop. The general point is that the police should avoid creating a unnecessary situation in which a fleeing suspect could think they could get away with attacking the police. A criminal on the chase is not a rational person. Putting everybody into a dangerous situation and just gunning someone down if things go south is terrible, even if the shooting in a vacuum would be considered "justified". Except Brown did not flee. He was told to stop and rather than doing, advanced on the officer. The only way that Wilson could have avoided that was to just sit in his car and not even attempt to apprehend the criminal that just assaulted him. He could of put more following distance between him and Brown (He ran at least 150ft away). Giving him enough time to retreat if he charged. The presumption is that he was going to shoot him if he came back toward him (as he clearly had no other plan to deal with Brown confronting him). Without knowing that his several missed shots wouldn't hit innocent bystanders, following at a range where if the suspect turns around and advances you have to shoot, is unnecessarily dangerous. Like the high speed chase analogy.
You can only let a suspect get so far away from you before you've lost him / are likely to lose him.
In a high speed chase officers will often have helicopter support, which allows them to keep a wide distance without losing the suspect.
|
On November 26 2014 06:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 06:38 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 06:34 Nyxisto wrote:On November 26 2014 06:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 26 2014 06:16 Nyxisto wrote:On November 26 2014 06:13 wei2coolman wrote:
No one would dare attack two cops while having a taser attached to their chest! Wow you have literally found one person that attacked two cops. That obviously invalidates the whole idea of keeping the life of the criminal in mind and don't engaging in situation that will end in some kind of John Wayne like shootout. It's not uncommon for one person to engage with multiple cops. But it's probably less common than in situations where you face only one cop. The general point is that the police should avoid creating a unnecessary situation in which a fleeing suspect could think they could get away with attacking the police. A criminal on the chase is not a rational person. Putting everybody into a dangerous situation and just gunning someone down if things go south is terrible, even if the shooting in a vacuum would be considered "justified". Except Brown did not flee. He was told to stop and rather than doing, advanced on the officer. The only way that Wilson could have avoided that was to just sit in his car and not even attempt to apprehend the criminal that just assaulted him. He could of put more following distance between him and Brown (He ran at least 150ft away). Giving him enough time to retreat if he charged. The presumption is that he was going to shoot him if he came back toward him (as he clearly had no other plan to deal with Brown confronting him). Without knowing that his several missed shots wouldn't hit innocent bystanders, following at a range where if the suspect turns around and advances you have to shoot, is unnecessarily dangerous. Like the high speed chase analogy.
This is a classic case of 20/20 hind sight being way easier than making decisions in the moment. Also, the next officer who came across Brown might not have been as lucky as Wilson and maybe Brown is armed by then or worse, had other people with him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
