Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Re: Michael Brown

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    If most of the following things are true then I would disagree
    • IF Wilson knew that Brown just engaged in a strong arm robbery

    • IF Brown had physically assaulted Wilson to the extent described in the press

    • IF Brown had tried to take Wilson's sidearm

    • IF Brown was charging back toward Wilson


    All of these contentions are disputable but if true then all bets are off especially when dealing with a 6.4' 300 lb. man.
    Let's say they were all true. Is the only option to kill Brown?

    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    1. Please stop responding to everyone in one post. I don't have to wade through your replies to everyone else to see mine in the middle. And then edit out all of the others to respond to you.

    2. It was a domestic dispute, so he did not draw his gun. A man and his wife were arguing with each other and they were there to break it up. IF he had drawn his gun, people like you would have complained against an excessive show of force, but my brother would not have been attacked and almost die.

    3. The guy was unarmed and almost killed him, and that shows that an unarmed criminal does present a danger to the life of a police officer or other people.

    4. I believe my brother's partner did draw his gun and that is when the guy ran off.
    1. Okay, I'll try to limit the number of responses per post.

    2. So the situation had nothing to do with whether or not a gun should be used against an unarmed person. It had to do with an unexpected turn that a gun didn't make a difference in.

    3. Do you know if there was new training or policy after the incident?

    4. Do you think the situation would have turned out worse if it took place in the UK?

    and you also mentioned tasers and pepper spray in one of your posts.

    tasers have a very limited range, they have very little accuracy and would not be useful in a situation where someone is rushing the cop. They are usually used when the suspect is standing still, but threatening harm to others, or even himself. They also have to penetrate the clothes which doesn't always work. and they don't always stop someone, especially if they have a lot of adrenaline in their system. It basically causes muscles to seize up. Not all muscles either, it depends where the taser hits. and as soon as the officer stops the electricity, the person gets instant control back. It doesn't knock people out like on TV.

    Pepper spray is even worse. It doesn't affect everyone, some are immune. It just burns your eyes, so it has to reach the eyes. Spraying anywhere else doesnt work. Many people can still function even with the burning. It is very inaccurate, and the officer could end up getting it in his own eyes and be even more defenseless.
    I don't know much about how the gunless police in other countries do their job. I know that they are still effective and I named tasers and pepper spray as two tools that I can imagine an unarmed officer use.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
      If you are going to take me out of context in order to further your agenda, then there is no point in trying to have an honest discussion with you.
      Since WHEN have you ever been here for an "honest discussion"?

      You know what I meant CP, all those who were purposely preventing the officers from performing their duty should have been arrested.
      Not what you said, Jimmy --- and I asked REPEATEDLY for an explanation, but you just dug yourself in deeper, as is your "agenda".
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
        Then stop insinuating that the fact that you think he was a gang member is relevant!
        Jimmy, calm yourself, buddy. The fact that he MAY or MAY NOT have signed up for college is irrelevant. And you're getting even more confused than usual. I was NOT insinuating that he was a gang member. I DID, however, show you MULTIPLE pictures of him flashing gang signs with his buddies, and I had to go back and delete some of them because they were ALSO... um... "digitally communicating" in other manners.

        This is NOT the poster boy for good citizenship, Jimmy.
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
          Let's say they were all true. Is the only option to kill Brown?
          If they were true Wilson would have been put into the position of having to stop Brown. That Brown died in the process was unfortunate but might not have been avoidable given the circumstances.

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
            I don't know much about how the gunless police in other countries do their job.
            The call in armed units, but often AFTER one of their own, or somebody they are protecting, is dead.

            I know that they are still effective and I named tasers and pepper spray as two tools that I can imagine an unarmed officer use.
            Please stop imagining, and step into the world of reality.
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post

              I don't know much about how the gunless police in other countries do their job. I know that they are still effective and I named tasers and pepper spray as two tools that I can imagine an unarmed officer use.
              Pepper spray is way overrated. In some cases it has merely enraged the assailant. Mace OTOH... But that leads to the problem that many community activists have been vigorously protesting the use of tasers as well as mace (because of its potentially toxic nature).

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                Let's say they were all true. Is the only option to kill Brown?



                1. Okay, I'll try to limit the number of responses per post.

                2. So the situation had nothing to do with whether or not a gun should be used against an unarmed person. It had to do with an unexpected turn that a gun didn't make a difference in.
                what? did you not read my post at all. I was showing that a gun might have prevented the entire incident and that an unarmed person can indeed harm or even kill a person. Assume he killed my brother, took his gun and began shooting everyone? If my brother's partner did not have a gun that might have happened.

                3. Do you know if there was new training or policy after the incident?
                No.
                4. Do you think the situation would have turned out worse if it took place in the UK?
                perhaps.

                I don't know much about how the gunless police in other countries do their job. I know that they are still effective and I named tasers and pepper spray as two tools that I can imagine an unarmed officer use.
                Do you expect every police officer to be Bruce Lee or something? It is what you sound like.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  Pepper spray is way overrated. In some cases it has merely enraged the assailant. Mace OTOH... But that leads to the problem that many community activists have been vigorously protesting the use of tasers as well as mace (because of its potentially toxic nature).
                  Mace and pepper spray have two more problems...
                  A) Wind direction -- in the heat of the moment, the officer has to consider which direction it's going to go, including the possibility of back in his own face
                  2) Eventually, I'm going to have to put that guy in the back of my car and endure that irritant in close quarters.

                  And, yeah, it usually, in my experience, just makes people mad, and they start blindly flailing around hitting ANYBODY, including innocent bystanders.
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • So, JUST FOR GRINS, let's say Saint Michael had a juvenile arrest record involving second degree murder. Would that matter with regards to the current issue?
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      So, JUST FOR GRINS, let's say Saint Michael had a juvenile arrest record involving second degree murder. Would that matter with regards to the current issue?

                      Not at trial - inadmissible, you know that.

                      Would totally ruin the PR image, however....
                      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                      My Personal Blog

                      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                      Quill Sword

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                        Not at trial - inadmissible, you know that.
                        Yup (well, except I don't claim to know Missouri law -- if the prosecution opens up "what a good guy" Michael was, it might open the door to character)

                        Would totally ruin the PR image, however....
                        I don't know --- I think Jimmy would dismiss that as irrelevant.
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                          Yup (well, except I don't claim to know Missouri law -- if the prosecution opens up "what a good guy" Michael was, it might open the door to character)
                          Eh, it could if prosecution and defense are both incompetent. Neither one should want the victim's character to be on trial in this case.

                          Originally posted by CP
                          I don't know --- I think Jimmy would dismiss that as irrelevant.
                          I'd actually agree. Along with his college admission, hair style and what brand of corn flakes he preferred - none of that has any real bearing on state of mind at the time of the incident. The robbery DOES have bearing (because it goes both to state of mind and possible motive) but not his juvie record.

                          Here's where I think the whole thing is flawed - if it legitimately was a bad shooting then the victim's lack of sainthood doesn't matter a bit; the early claims of 'gentle giant' strike me both as irrelevant and potentially inflammatory. People get riled if an innocent is killed in a bad shooting incident; not so much if the kid has a record longer than an average arm. The victim's status becomes mere PR in an anti-police war and that is just as wrong as if the police had made false allegations about the victim.

                          If it is a justifiable shooting, the victim's sainthood also doesn't matter a bit. Anyone can do something wrong even if they wouldn't normally - if the facts support the officer, so be it. A good kid making a bad mistake doesn't have the right to take an officer's life or harm innocents any more than a bad kid.

                          State of mind is important to the facts of the case: it can explain atypical or otherwise incongruent behavior and provide motive for a given act or action. It is not important to the right or wrong of the event - angel or devil, the shooting must be justified by the actual events/facts of the case and not who the victim was.
                          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                          My Personal Blog

                          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                          Quill Sword

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                            Eh, it could if prosecution and defense are both incompetent. Neither one should want the victim's character to be on trial in this case.
                            In a civil trial (which I personally think is more likely than a criminal trial) it would probably be an issue.

                            I'd actually agree. Along with his college admission, hair style and what brand of corn flakes he preferred - none of that has any real bearing on state of mind at the time of the incident. The robbery DOES have bearing (because it goes both to state of mind and possible motive) but not his juvie record.
                            IF he was involved in a second degree murder as a youth, I think that'd have a WHOLE lot more bearing than his breakfast cereal.

                            Here's where I think the whole thing is flawed - if it legitimately was a bad shooting then the victim's lack of sainthood doesn't matter a bit; the early claims of 'gentle giant' strike me both as irrelevant and potentially inflammatory. People get riled if an innocent is killed in a bad shooting incident; not so much if the kid has a record longer than an average arm. The victim's status becomes mere PR in an anti-police war and that is just as wrong as if the police had made false allegations about the victim.
                            Which is what I've been saying all along -- the only REAL thing that matters is the law, and the testimony UNDER OATH and subject to cross examination -- not a bunch of "witness statements" unchallenged.

                            If it is a justifiable shooting, the victim's sainthood also doesn't matter a bit. Anyone can do something wrong even if they wouldn't normally - if the facts support the officer, so be it. A good kid making a bad mistake doesn't have the right to take an officer's life or harm innocents any more than a bad kid.

                            State of mind is important to the facts of the case: it can explain atypical or otherwise incongruent behavior and provide motive for a given act or action. It is not important to the right or wrong of the event - angel or devil, the shooting must be justified by the actual events/facts of the case and not who the victim was.
                            Perhaps you're more versed in specific Missouri law than I am. And what is technically irrelevant in court is often managed by an attorney blurting something out, the opposing counsel objecting, and the judge admonishing the jury to disregard the question/statement.
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              In a civil trial (which I personally think is more likely than a criminal trial) it would probably be an issue.
                              Possibly, but I still doubt it. In the penalty phase, if it got that far, without a doubt, but in the trial phase you run the risk of the jury voiding on the basis of the victim - something that this victim might just provoke.



                              Originally posted by CP
                              IF he was involved in a second degree murder as a youth, I think that'd have a WHOLE lot more bearing than his breakfast cereal.
                              No, not in court, it isn't. Prior bad acts tell us nothing about the act at issue - hence they are usually inadmissible.


                              Originally posted by CP
                              Which is what I've been saying all along -- the only REAL thing that matters is the law, and the testimony UNDER OATH and subject to cross examination -- not a bunch of "witness statements" unchallenged.
                              Eh, close enough. I don't disagree.

                              Originally posted by CP
                              Perhaps you're more versed in specific Missouri law than I am. And what is technically irrelevant in court is often managed by an attorney blurting something out, the opposing counsel objecting, and the judge admonishing the jury to disregard the question/statement.
                              No, I was speaking in general about the legal principle. Missouri's mileage may vary (but really shouldn't).

                              Sure, those things happen - and judges can also call a mistrial or the thing be thrown back for retrial on appeal. if your case is built on the victim's character you're already in trouble and you can't get a whole lot in that way.

                              "Mr Doe, the altar boy..."

                              "Objection!"

                              "Sustained."

                              "Mr Doe, the honor student..."

                              "Objection!"

                              "Sustained. Counsel?"

                              "Sorry, Your Honor. Mr Doe, the wonderfulpersonthateveryonelovedandwhowaskindtosma llanimals..."

                              "Object..."

                              "Counsel! GET UP HERE!!!!"
                              "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                              "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                              My Personal Blog

                              My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                              Quill Sword

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                                No, I am speaking of the Ferguson police report. The Missouri ACLU, who filed the FOI request and filed suit and won, say that the county report was "redacted" and that the police report was "heavily redacted". This is from their own website, which I linked to earier in this thread: http://www.aclu-mo.org/

                                On the same day, it was reported by NBC:
                                Critics and news media outlets have questioned why Ferguson police released an incident report from a robbery in which Brown was a suspect, as well as security video showing the robbery, but not the report on the shooting of the unarmed 18-year-old a short time later by Officer Darren Wilson.

                                The reason, according to the office of St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert P. McCulloch, is that it doesn’t exist.

                                The St. Louis County police department presumably did file an incident report, but any such documents will not be made public until a grand jury investigating the officer-involved shooting concludes its investigation, according to officials from the office who briefed NBC News on the case.

                                http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/mic...report-n186431
                                Not sure what you are getting at Robrecht. Two reports have been released, both long after the event, the both of which are blank. Also, you have right there in the link you provided where it states that Wilson never filed an incident report.
                                No, that is entirely too simplistic. If you read the supreme court ruling I quoted for you, you will see that it also considers it germane whether the fleeing felon is violent or there is probably cause that he fleeing from a violent crime. This is why the earlier incident is so important. If Michael Brown assaulted Officer Wilson, if there was a struggle for his gun, then Wilson had more than probably cause that Brown was fleeing from a violent felony.
                                Well we will have to agree to disagree on that and I have heard law professionals argue both sides as well. But that is not the law that this case rests on anyway, so it is a moot point either way. The heart of the matter is whether or not Brown was surrendering when he was shot dead. The witnesses say that he was. Wilson on the other hand didn't file a report, and the County investigators have not released any details. There is only one reason for that, and that reason is a cover-up so that they can counteract any incriminating evidence that might emerge in the interim.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                124 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                326 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                111 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                196 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                360 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X