RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Ferguson Grand Jury Decision
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19035



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/24/14 5:36 pm    ::: Ferguson Grand Jury Decision Reply Reply with quote

Coming later today. Can't venture a guess as to what the decision will be or, honestly, what the right decision is in this case.

I've lost track of the details of the incident. I know two shots were fired inside the SUV. That indicates to me, at least, that the big out-of-control bully from the convenience store video may have tried to indeed engage the officer inside the police vehicle. I'm not sure if I heard this correct... but I seem to remember hearing that the two shots actually STRUCK inside the vehicle. If that's true then that kid tried to take the cops gun and the cop was shooting to save his own life.

And after that, after a guy would come physically into your police vehicle for any reason, you can pretty much wipe the slate clean for that officer's subsequent actions. In my opinion. Once anyone engages in the level of violence with a police officer that reaches him or her trying to take your weapon that person must be stopped... IMO... even if it means shooting him unarmed in the street. If he is continuing to refuse to comply with your instructions. At that point, I want MY police to assume this guy has to be stopped and not allowed to remain at large. Anyway.

But as I said, even those bullets did not hit inside the car but were from the inside to outside the vehicle... it still... taken with what we know about the Mr. Brown and given his friend's account that says Michael Brown was 'pulled' into the SUV (something I just don't believe for a second) I would say the truth is that kid did try to get that cops gun from him. Anyway.

I bailed on the other thread in terms of having any outrage over the shooting the second I saw the convenience store video. That showed me who Michael Brown was and once I saw that I became VERY inclined to believe that his encounter with a police officer ending his being shot to death 20 minutes or so later was on him. There may have been mistakes made by the officer. But my thinking was that this was a big waste of time as a landmark civil rights moment. People were full of shit, again, etc.

We shall all know soon what the grand jury has decided.


beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11025
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/24/14 6:49 pm    ::: Re: Ferguson Grand Jury Decision Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
Coming later today. Can't venture a guess as to what the decision will be or, honestly, what the right decision is in this case.

I've lost track of the details of the incident. I know two shots were fired inside the SUV. That indicates to me, at least, that the big out-of-control bully from the convenience store video may have tried to indeed engage the officer inside the police vehicle. I'm not sure if I heard this correct... but I seem to remember hearing that the two shots actually STRUCK inside the vehicle. If that's true then that kid tried to take the cops gun and the cop was shooting to save his own life.

And after that, after a guy would come physically into your police vehicle for any reason, you can pretty much wipe the slate clean for that officer's subsequent actions. In my opinion. Once anyone engages in the level of violence with a police officer that reaches him or her trying to take your weapon that person must be stopped... IMO... even if it means shooting him unarmed in the street. If he is continuing to refuse to comply with your instructions. At that point, I want MY police to assume this guy has to be stopped and not allowed to remain at large. Anyway.

But as I said, even those bullets did not hit inside the car but were from the inside to outside the vehicle... it still... taken with what we know about the Mr. Brown and given his friend's account that says Michael Brown was 'pulled' into the SUV (something I just don't believe for a second) I would say the truth is that kid did try to get that cops gun from him. Anyway.

I bailed on the other thread in terms of having any outrage over the shooting the second I saw the convenience store video. That showed me who Michael Brown was and once I saw that I became VERY inclined to believe that his encounter with a police officer ending his being shot to death 20 minutes or so later was on him. There may have been mistakes made by the officer. But my thinking was that this was a big waste of time as a landmark civil rights moment. People were full of shit, again, etc.

We shall all know soon what the grand jury has decided.


My very strong opinion on this is that there are only about 50 (maybe 100, tops) people who know enough about what actually happened to have an opinion on what happened. CN freakin N has a poll up in which it asked people whether Wilson should be indicted and it just makes me want to scream. (Apparently, the results are racially divided. Tell me something I didn't know already.)

But one point: If you assume a sequence of events that includes Wilson shooting and wounding Brown, essentially disabling him, and the killing shot came either at some distance or some time after the other shots, then, no, you can't "wipe the slate clean" for those subsequent actions. It's not much different than if you shoot an intruder in your house, and that person is lying on the floor bleeding, and then you walk up and shoot him in the head. The first shots are justified; the last one is murder.

I'm not saying that's what happened here - I know I don't know - and I'm not saying you could prove it unless there's a video nobody knows about out there. I'm just saying that even if Brown did attack Wilson, there are circumstances in which it not only would be murder as a matter of law, but also would be a morally reprehensible act deserving of punishment.


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19035



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/24/14 7:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Essentially disabling him? You're saying you don't know what happened and of course we don't... but that's the kind of predicate assumption (sorry, I don't know how else to put it) that people build on. And I'm not saying I haven't done it I'm just saying that you kind of lose me after that because I don't know that Michael Brown was ever essentially disabled until he was lying on that pavement... BUT... AND... beknighted.... I DO know that most often that's not considered the end of the threat by police officers... by a mile... not until the cuffs are on is that suspect in custody and under control.

So... a COP... who is excited, scared shitless, etc... who as already been attacked in his own vehicle by a really big dude who tried to take his gun... shots fired... I don't think that cop is going to assume that THAT guy is not a threat to him as long as he is moving.

I'm not a cop. I don't really like cops and I'd like to see a revolution in police procedures for dealing with citizens in the field. But if I were a cop and a guy came through the window of my vehicle trying to get my gun and shots were fired and then when I got out of the vehicle that guy didn't do an immediate face plant or follow instructions but continued to present a threat (which anything other than complete compliance to my instructions would indicate) I can't say I wouldn't have shot him until he went down and was no longer a threat. I wouldn't let the dude get away. I would consider (in my non-cop thinking) him to be an active deadly threat to me and to the public and to other officers who MUST be apprehended or stopped.


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19035



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/24/14 7:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Washington Post is reporting that a half a dozen black eyewitnesses testified before the grand jury whose testimony was consistent with Officer Wilson's account of the incident.


cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 7942
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump is not president.


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/24/14 7:26 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Indict him and let him tell his side of the story on the witness stand.

This drawn-out drama is bullshit.

As it is often said, "you can indict a ham sandwich". (although, i've never actually heard w/ what charge).



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19035



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/24/14 7:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
Indict him and let him tell his side of the story on the witness stand.

This drawn-out drama is bullshit.

As it is often said, "you can indict a ham sandwich". (although, i've never actually heard w/ what charge).


Deliciousness in a restricted diet zone.

I know what to charge a fucking ham sandwich with. Twisted Evil


Wink


cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 7942
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump is not president.


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/24/14 9:21 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Smile


Ok, get to the damn decision for crissakes!



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 53631
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/24/14 9:24 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The cop is the only one armed and he should be trained in how to handle these situations. It is his responsibility to de-escalate things.



_________________
She wants to dance, she loves to dance, she's got to dance
Ex-Ref



Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 4226



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/24/14 9:25 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I'm thinking that it has to go to trial. Like was said earlier, get everything out in the open and let the grand jurors off the hook.


Ex-Ref



Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 4226



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/24/14 9:26 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Ex-Ref wrote:
I'm thinking that it has to go to trial. Like was said earlier, get everything out in the open and let the grand jurors off the hook.


WOW!!!!!!!!! Just saw the results.


cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 7942
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump is not president.


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/24/14 9:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

surprise surprise



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 8250



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/24/14 9:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Trayvon Martin...Michael Brown...let the extinction of the black male continue. I see my life isn't worth a damn, but then I been knew that.


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19035



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/24/14 9:39 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Bullet struck inside drivers side door at a downward angle. That means that Michael Brown was a violent criminal who fought a cop inside his vehicle and tried to take his gun. Michael Brown stinks as a civil rights lightening rod.


Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 8250



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/24/14 9:39 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Well Black Boys in America, you can't stand at your door holding a wallet, you can't wear a hood. you can't wear a white tee, You Just Can't.


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19035



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/24/14 9:42 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
The cop is the only one armed and he should be trained in how to handle these situations. It is his responsibility to de-escalate things.


De-escalate what? An argument? A disagreement? lol. Oh that cops could de-escalate violent criminals who are on the rampage.


Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 8250



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/24/14 9:42 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ABC News ‏@ABC 3h3 hours ago NEW: Michael Brown's family: "We are profoundly disappointed that the killer of our child will not face the consequence of his actions."


Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 8250



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/24/14 9:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
surprise surprise


I hate how he thinks he needs to reprimand everyone because we "might not like the outcome." WTF, how dare you? Now he thinks he's a civil rights leader, I can't y'all.


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19035



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/24/14 9:45 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Genero36 wrote:
Well Black Boys in America, you can't stand at your door holding a wallet, you can't wear a hood. you can't wear a white tee, You Just Can't.


I think you're right. The reason that is the case, however, is because people have long lumped everything into everything else. Guilty by the color of skin. Just as you're doing in attaching this stuff to the fact that, in my opinion, what seems like a heroic cop wasn't indicted for stopping a violent criminal. You're saying he's guilty because he's white and a cop. JMO.


Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 8250



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/24/14 9:45 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

This report is basically a trial against Mike Brown. He never stood a chance. It's sad. From the moment that shop footage was released i could tell where it was heading. They vilified him and made it seem like he deserved to die. They did the SAME thing to Trayvon.

I'm sad right now. He chased after him and mowed him down and no charges?

I remember when they used to shoot you in the leg to stop you. Now they just shoot to kill.

Mike Brown isn't the first, and he won't be the last. This will happen year after year after year.


Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 8250



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/24/14 9:46 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

This mealy-mouthed MF came out and in depth dragged the witnesses for Michael Brown but when asked about the jury breakdown he has nothing to say?

Bullshit.


Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 8250



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/24/14 9:47 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jelani cobb ‏@jelani9 6s7 seconds ago
Heard gunshots near police station. #Fergsuon


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19035



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/24/14 9:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Genero36 wrote:
This report is basically a trial against Mike Brown. He never stood a chance. It's sad. From the moment that shop footage was released i could tell where it was heading. They vilified him and made it seem like he deserved to die. They did the SAME thing to Trayvon.

I'm sad right now. He chased after him and mowed him down and no charges?

I remember when they used to shoot you in the leg to stop you. Now they just shoot to kill.

Mike Brown isn't the first, and he won't be the last. This will happen year after year after year.


Well what do you think of the store footage? What do you see? We know now that that officer, contrary to what we'd been told earlier, had TWICE heard of the convenience store theft, what was stolen, and had heard a description of the suspects and their clothing. All before he encountered Michael Brown. He also REPORTED seeing cigarillos in his hand.

DA is stating that all the witnessess who said that Michael Brown was charging at the officer when he was shot were ALL African American.

What if this is a good cop and a hero?


beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11025
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/24/14 9:58 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
Essentially disabling him? You're saying you don't know what happened and of course we don't... but that's the kind of predicate assumption (sorry, I don't know how else to put it) that people build on. And I'm not saying I haven't done it I'm just saying that you kind of lose me after that because I don't know that Michael Brown was ever essentially disabled until he was lying on that pavement... BUT... AND... beknighted.... I DO know that most often that's not considered the end of the threat by police officers... by a mile... not until the cuffs are on is that suspect in custody and under control.

So... a COP... who is excited, scared shitless, etc... who as already been attacked in his own vehicle by a really big dude who tried to take his gun... shots fired... I don't think that cop is going to assume that THAT guy is not a threat to him as long as he is moving.

I'm not a cop. I don't really like cops and I'd like to see a revolution in police procedures for dealing with citizens in the field. But if I were a cop and a guy came through the window of my vehicle trying to get my gun and shots were fired and then when I got out of the vehicle that guy didn't do an immediate face plant or follow instructions but continued to present a threat (which anything other than complete compliance to my instructions would indicate) I can't say I wouldn't have shot him until he went down and was no longer a threat. I wouldn't let the dude get away. I would consider (in my non-cop thinking) him to be an active deadly threat to me and to the public and to other officers who MUST be apprehended or stopped.


First, I'll quote pilight here:

plight wrote:
The cop is the only one armed and he should be trained in how to handle these situations. It is his responsibility to de-escalate things.


This is correct. Police are *supposed* to be trained that way. Lately, they're not (or at least they act like they're not), and that's a problem.

Second, I think I was pretty clear that I was positing a *hypothetical* scenario, which was no more or less hypothetical than your comment about "anything other than complete compliance."

On a somewhat different topic, I did not watch the performance of the DA, but from what I've read, he really couldn't have done much more to inflame passion in the Ferguson community. He spent an awful lot of time essentially saying that witnesses lied to the grand jury, for instance. That's not going to go over very well with some people.


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19035



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/24/14 10:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Genero36 wrote:
Well Black Boys in America, you can't stand at your door holding a wallet, you can't wear a hood. you can't wear a white tee, You Just Can't.


Did this officer kill Michael Brown for wearing a hood? For wearing a white tee? For holding a wallet?

No. Michael Brown, a suspect (and the actual perpetrator) in a strong-arm robbery, DID climb into a police vehicle and fought with this officer inside his own vehicle.

Again, so what I think you're doing is taking all these other situations and saying this white cop in THIS unique situation is guilty of murder, BECAUSE he is white, and a cop, and Michael Brown was black.




Last edited by jammerbirdi on 11/24/14 10:04 pm; edited 1 time in total
stever



Joined: 16 Nov 2004
Posts: 6145
Location: Ann Arbor


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/24/14 10:03 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

live feed:
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/bassemmasri



_________________
Women's Basketball Daily
Celebrating the Women's Game Since 2005
WBBDaily Mobile Edition
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 53631
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/24/14 10:03 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
pilight wrote:
The cop is the only one armed and he should be trained in how to handle these situations. It is his responsibility to de-escalate things.


De-escalate what? An argument? A disagreement? lol. Oh that cops could de-escalate violent criminals who are on the rampage.


Violent criminal? No one in this case has been convicted of or even charged with a violent crime.



_________________
She wants to dance, she loves to dance, she's got to dance
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19035



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/24/14 10:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
pilight wrote:
The cop is the only one armed and he should be trained in how to handle these situations. It is his responsibility to de-escalate things.


De-escalate what? An argument? A disagreement? lol. Oh that cops could de-escalate violent criminals who are on the rampage.


Violent criminal? No one in this case has been convicted of or even charged with a violent crime.


pilight. you know that's ridiculous. if you're encountering and engaging with a violent suspect... my eyes are rolling around in my head.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 5823
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/24/14 10:46 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

In my mind, there are two separate issues here: the specifics of the Brown shooting and the overall state of conflict between the police and minority citizens--especially African Americans.

One of the problems with making the first issue a centerpiece for protests is that it undermines the second issue.

As beknighted noted earlier, as of right now the people with the best understanding of what actually happened are the people on the Grand Jury. They spent an extraordinary amount of time parsing all of the forensics and all of the eye-witness testimony. It is unfair and illogical to dismiss their findings out of hand, without having some factual basis to do so--and one specific to this case. The burden of proof for a Grand Jury to indict is fairly low. They are simply looking for "probable cause". So for them to come back without an indictment suggests that the actual evidence supported the officers account of events.

However, the deeper issue is still very much out there. There are far greater problems than this one specific case. The adversarial nature between the police and the community they are supposed to serve is frightening. And the responsibility for ending this belongs to the police. They should, as noted earlier, be able to deescalate situations. They should not be interacting with the populace from a position of power, but rather from subservience. They are meant to serve the public good. Their first interaction should not be aggressive. They should be able to talk to and reason with individuals with civility and even friendliness. They should not approach every individual with the assumption that they are breaking some law. Think more Andy Griffith and less Vic Mackey.

It is clear that this doesn't happen in urban areas. And it is clear that both poverty and race add to this adversarial nature. This leads to situations that don't need to happen. Yes, the officer was probably defending himself. But why did it get to that point? What are the conditions present within that community and within that police force that create such a volatile and antagonistic relationship between the two? What is it that put this officer and this young man on such a tragic collision course, and what is it that we can do to stop this from happening in the future?

Unfortunately, when the protesters don't make this point, and instead make it about the specifics of this one case it becomes too easy for the rest of the world to dismiss. The argument becomes too narrow. It becomes about one person and one situation rather than the community as a whole. The fight becomes over whether or not this was "justified" instead of asking, justified or not, "why did it have to happen in the first place?.



_________________
Woe to that land that's governed by a child.


Last edited by justintyme on 11/24/14 10:54 pm; edited 2 times in total
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 7942
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump is not president.


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/24/14 10:47 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

and why did the dickhead DA wait until night to deliver this decision....so he could be on primetime?

this stinks sooooo bad.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 7942
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump is not president.


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/24/14 11:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

he should have been indicted, just to avoid all this shit.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19035



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/24/14 11:12 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

beknighted wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
Essentially disabling him? You're saying you don't know what happened and of course we don't... but that's the kind of predicate assumption (sorry, I don't know how else to put it) that people build on. And I'm not saying I haven't done it I'm just saying that you kind of lose me after that because I don't know that Michael Brown was ever essentially disabled until he was lying on that pavement... BUT... AND... beknighted.... I DO know that most often that's not considered the end of the threat by police officers... by a mile... not until the cuffs are on is that suspect in custody and under control.

So... a COP... who is excited, scared shitless, etc... who as already been attacked in his own vehicle by a really big dude who tried to take his gun... shots fired... I don't think that cop is going to assume that THAT guy is not a threat to him as long as he is moving.

I'm not a cop. I don't really like cops and I'd like to see a revolution in police procedures for dealing with citizens in the field. But if I were a cop and a guy came through the window of my vehicle trying to get my gun and shots were fired and then when I got out of the vehicle that guy didn't do an immediate face plant or follow instructions but continued to present a threat (which anything other than complete compliance to my instructions would indicate) I can't say I wouldn't have shot him until he went down and was no longer a threat. I wouldn't let the dude get away. I would consider (in my non-cop thinking) him to be an active deadly threat to me and to the public and to other officers who MUST be apprehended or stopped.


First, I'll quote pilight here:

plight wrote:
The cop is the only one armed and he should be trained in how to handle these situations. It is his responsibility to de-escalate things.


This is correct. Police are *supposed* to be trained that way. Lately, they're not (or at least they act like they're not), and that's a problem.



Where do you (and pilight) get this idea that cops are supposed or are trained to de-escalate their encounters with violent criminals? That's not true at all. Here is what is true. Cops are trained to achieve complete control over any situation that presents danger to themselves or the public. Their very indiscriminate application of that primary duty what leads them to shoot and kill disturbed teenagers acting out when their own families dial 911 looking for some help.

Pussy cops shoot kids all the time in this country. About ten years ago a bunch of cops down in Orange County shot to death a 19 year-old black girl sleeping in her car who might have been overcome by carbon monoxide and actually in need of their HELP. After Michael Brown was shot in what seem to me a justifiable case of officer involved shooting... a half dozen unarmed black guys were shot to death by the LAPD. Every one of those cases were stronger civil rights cases and actual examples of fucked up and unwarranted shootings of black men by the police than was this Ferguson incident. This shit happens ALL THE TIME in LA.

Hell we were watching a chase late one rainy night earlier this year... a 50 year white old guy driving his own corvette.... the guy had problems and had really gone over the edge... so there was a high speed chase. And on surface streets near downtown. Not good if you want to stay alive. Cause the LAPD ain't gonna have non of that shit. So this guy wrecks into a couple of ladies in an intersection near downtown and bounces off a telephone poll (or a tree)..

He jumps out of the car and raises his hands and is moving way to fast for the police because... hey, he's NUTS... and suddenly he goes down like a ton of bricks. Shot so many times.

I could see his hands raised in the air when he was shot ALL the way here in my living room. But he's dead.

Anyway. The police and how they go about their business of dealing with the public must change. But I don't know if that can ever happen if people as smart as you too are so mistaken about what cops who encounter actually violent perps are supposed to do.


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19035



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/24/14 11:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
In my mind, there are two separate issues here: the specifics of the Brown shooting and the overall state of conflict between the police and minority citizens--especially African Americans.

One of the problems with making the first issue a centerpiece for protests is that it undermines the second issue.


When you're right, you're REALLY right.


beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11025
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/24/14 11:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
beknighted wrote:

First, I'll quote pilight here:

plight wrote:
The cop is the only one armed and he should be trained in how to handle these situations. It is his responsibility to de-escalate things.


This is correct. Police are *supposed* to be trained that way. Lately, they're not (or at least they act like they're not), and that's a problem.



Where do you (and pilight) get this idea that cops are supposed or are trained to de-escalate their encounters with violent criminals? That's not true at all. Here is what is true. Cops are trained to achieve complete control over any situation that presents danger to themselves or the public. Their very indiscriminate application of that primary duty what leads them to shoot and kill disturbed teenagers acting out when their own families dial 911 looking for some help.

Pussy cops shoot kids all the time in this country. About ten years ago a bunch of cops down in Orange County shot to death a 19 year-old black girl sleeping in her car who might have been overcome by carbon monoxide and actually in need of their HELP. After Michael Brown was shot in what seem to me a justifiable case of officer involved shooting... a half dozen unarmed black guys were shot to death by the LAPD. Every one of those cases were stronger civil rights cases and actual examples of fucked up and unwarranted shootings of black men by the police than was this Ferguson incident. This shit happens ALL THE TIME in LA.

Hell we were watching a chase late one rainy night earlier this year... a 50 year white old guy driving his own corvette.... the guy had problems and had really gone over the edge... so there was a high speed chase. And on surface streets near downtown. Not good if you want to stay alive. Cause the LAPD ain't gonna have non of that shit. So this guy wrecks into a couple of ladies in an intersection near downtown and bounces off a telephone poll (or a tree)..

He jumps out of the car and raises his hands and is moving way to fast for the police because... hey, he's NUTS... and suddenly he goes down like a ton of bricks. Shot so many times.

I could see his hands raised in the air when he was shot ALL the way here in my living room. But he's dead.

Anyway. The police and how they go about their business of dealing with the public must change. But I don't know if that can ever happen if people as smart as you too are so mistaken about what cops who encounter actually violent perps are supposed to do.


I think you're misunderstanding me. I could go on at great length, but I'll try for the short version:

I know what cops are supposed to do, because it's the same thing that the rest of us are supposed to do. And if there's an actual threat, they (and the rest of us) have a right to respond to that threat, including with deadly force. But what I expect of the police - and we all should expect the same thing - is that they will have better judgment than the average person because they are trained for those situations and because they have a duty to protect the citizenry, not just themselves.

My hypothetical situation assumed that Brown *obviously* was no threat, but I never did say (and am not saying now) that was the actual case. Still, if it had been the case, then Wilson would not have been justified in shooting him again. The law does not let anybody put another round in someone "just to make sure," and surely does not permit killing someone who obviously is no position to hurt you. And, you know, that includes someone who tried to punch you before you shot him.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 53631
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/24/14 11:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Let's take a look at the damage this "violent criminal" did to the officer in question...







Perhaps the police need to learn the value of a proportional response...



_________________
She wants to dance, she loves to dance, she's got to dance
p_d_swanson



Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 9715



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/24/14 11:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Pierce: Dead of Night: The Ferguson Decision
Quote:
There is something gone badly wrong in the way police are taught to look at civilians these days. This is the logic of an occupying power being employed on American citizens. Ever since 9/11, when we all began to be told that we were going to have to bend a little bit, and then a little bit more, to authority or else we'd all die, the police in this country have been militarized in their tactics and in their equipment, which is bad enough, but in their attitudes and their mentality, which is far, far worse. Suspicion has bled into weaponized paranoia, especially in the case of black and brown people, especially in the case of young men who are black or brown, but this is not About Race because nothing ever is About Race.



hyperetic



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 4980
Location: Fayetteville


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 1:27 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
pilight wrote:
The cop is the only one armed and he should be trained in how to handle these situations. It is his responsibility to de-escalate things.


De-escalate what? An argument? A disagreement? lol. Oh that cops could de-escalate violent criminals who are on the rampage.


They didn't seem to have a problem doing it with James Holmes, Jared Loughner, Timothy McVeigh, etc. all of whom were armed.

Why are policeman taught hand to hand combat skills if they're main option is to shoot even if the alleged perpetrator is unarmed? Why are there readily available non-lethals to be used on unarmed combatants?

So what you are saying is Timothy Brown deserves to die because he allegedly wrestled with a cop? Even if he tried to get the gun, he did not get it.

The armed cop's life is worth more than any unarmed person's?

Do you think you would get off scot free if you saw an unarmed man coming at you in what you perceived as a menacing manner and you shot him multiple times til he was dead?

Are you saying you honestly believe that all the recent killings of unarmed or armed with toys men and boys of color are all legally justified? That race was not a factor and that police never coverup wrongdoing?
sambista



Joined: 25 Sep 2004
Posts: 16262
Location: cidade maravilhosa


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 5:40 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

i won't post too much because it's emotionally exhausting. but i did want to share this link, which is an extremely rare release of the grand jury documents, posted - page by page - by the nyt for anyone to read.

evidence released in michael brown case



_________________
no justice, no peace.
TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 6:48 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:

Did this officer kill Michael Brown for wearing a hood? For wearing a white tee? For holding a wallet?

No. Michael Brown, a suspect (and the actual perpetrator) in a strong-arm robbery, DID climb into a police vehicle and fought with this officer inside his own vehicle.


I don't have the energy for this one, so this is probably my only comments. There was never any question of an encounter between Wilson and Brown at/in the car. All the initial witnesses reported that. The question is whether Brown was attacking or trying to get away. That Brown's blood and DNA were found on the door and inside the car is not inconsistent - especially after shots were fired from inside he car. If Wilson withdrew his gun inside the car, it's not a stretch to believe that Brown would then try to reach for Wilson and his gun hand.

I don't know who's story is true. But to believe Wilson's story, you have to believe that Brown was willing to resist arrest and assault a police officer over a $35 box of cigars.

Just want to be clear that this WAS NOT a trial. It's a hearing to see if there is enough evidence/doubt that this should go to trial, evidence be presented and a jury decide on the veracity of the evidence. My understanding is that the St Louis prosecutor didn't even recommend any charges to the Grand Jury which is unusual.


Queenie



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 14857
Location: Queens


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 7:25 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammer, just because pilight has joined the voice of the majority does not automatically mean someone else has to step up and be the contrarian.



_________________
"Silence must be heard, noise should be observed
The time has come to learn, that silence...
SILENCE MUST BE HEARD..."
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 53631
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 8:19 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

hyperetic wrote:
Do you think you would get off scot free if you saw an unarmed man coming at you in what you perceived as a menacing manner and you shot him multiple times til he was dead?


Am I in Florida in this hypothetical?



_________________
She wants to dance, she loves to dance, she's got to dance
Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 8250



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 8:53 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

TonyL222 wrote:
I don't have the energy for this one


I have now reached that point. I will just say a prayer for the Brown family.


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19035



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 10:57 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Queenie wrote:
jammer, just because pilight has joined the voice of the majority does not automatically mean someone else has to step up and be the contrarian.


Don't forget justintyme. Laughing I'm not the only one.

I honestly don't get it. It's like so many of you are new to the hating on police for unjustified shootings parlor game. Back when Dreamweaver was the coolest thing on the planet I used it to make and publish a handful of websites. One of them was a jammer-rant-stand against the police. I made it to publicize and characterize for the world-wide-web the never ended cycle of unjustified police shootings here in Southern California. I had the story of the girl sleeping in her car. The unstable 130 lb 16-year-old whose family called 911 because they were worried about his erratic behavior and who, when surrounded by police, was whirling in a circle keeping the police at bay with a broom stick and who was shot 9 times. The homeless 90 lb woman in her 60s who was shot for pulling out a screwdriver when stopped by police for having a shopping cart back when the police were instructed to arrest homeless people for shopping cart theft.

pilight and beknighted are two brilliant people who I admire so much... but they are both off their chimp on this one.

pilight says the police should 'learn' something about 'proportional response.' lol. God it is NOT about proportional response with the police. That is a hoot. Proportional response is something you teach children. The police have a POLICY of utilizing something called OVERWHELMING FORCE. That is their policy. And I'll tell you something about police policies in a second.

beknighted says we're not understanding each other and that he knows what police are 'supposed to do' and that is to do basically as the rest of us are supposed to do, etc. Holy cow! Okay. We're aren't understanding each other, that much is correct. But you apparently don't know what the police are supposed to do. Police are supposed to ALWAYS do what is outlined for them to do in all situations by their policy and procedures. And that stuff doesn't look anything at all like what you or I or regular people would think they're supposed to do in almost any circumstance.

Pollice respond with overwhelming force. Police resolve threats and situations. Police secure the perimeter. When police officers discharge their weapons it is never as a warning and they are forbidden from shooting to disable or wound. Shoot to kill is their POLICY.

Police policies and procedures are largely written by the police with a big assist from police unions. In all the years that these shooting have been happening in Southern California, through multiple federal investigations and consent decrees imposed on multiple law enforcement agencies... the one thing that has remained almost untouchable by civilian oversight or the government is policies and procedures. They've changed very little. The police continue to get away with discharging their service weapons into human beings who did not need to be shot to death.

If you want to fight the police the way to do it is find a way to impose civilian oversight over the re-writing of THEIR OWN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. Good luck with that because the way things are done now with oversight boards containing one or two community leaders, it's the same old run around. Even one of my personal heroes, the super intelligent Connie Rice, (Condeleeza's cousin) who made her fame as a critic of the LAPD and who has been able to ascend to some pretty powerful positions of influence on police actions hasn't been able to turn this issue completely around.

I bailed on the revolution when I saw the convenience story video. I don't like that guy. He's not an innocent person he's a creep and bully and a criminal. There's a lot of things you should do when stopped by the police, violently opposing them is not one of them. He PUNCHED a cop in the head? That cop is sitting on a service weapon and I'm sure either a tactical shotgun or an assault weapon in the trunk. Society demands that that police officer maintain control of his weaponry and not let it fall into the hands of a violent criminal who is fighting him. So yeah, you can call me a contrarian but from what I know about this situation based on my own reading of certain facts that are not in dispute, Michael Brown's shooting (I don't like the word 'deserved' in these situations) by that officer was a) justified and b) within (my understanding of) the duties, responsible, policies and procedures of most police departments.

If you don't like any of that you're going to have to change it somehow. I'd be there with you on many points. But not over Michael Brown. Sorry. I WANT the police to apprehend that guy and when he physically fights the police I want the police to respond with the force necessary to apprehend that individual. Had there been a bunch more officers wherein the police are in control of events then certainly many other things could have been done (and SHOULD be done) to resolve the situation. But Wilson was the only cop there. Brown was a very big dude who decided to attack the police officer who was engaging him. The cop was doing his job, the job society has placed him there to do. Michael Brown was, however, dictating events by not behaving as a lawful member of society. And by actually attacking a police, he made his own killing justifiable. IMO.




Last edited by jammerbirdi on 11/25/14 11:03 am; edited 1 time in total
beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11025
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 11:00 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Lest we forget, it's pretty much beyond dispute that the entire incident began when Wilson decided he needed to order Brown and his friend not to walk in the street.


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19035



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 11:05 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

beknighted wrote:
Lest we forget, it's pretty much beyond dispute that the entire incident began when Wilson decided he needed to order Brown and his friend not to walk in the street.


Oh no. It's not beyond dispute. Lest we forget, the entire incident began with a strong arm convenience store robbery twenty minutes earlier by Michael Brown. Shocked


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 53631
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 11:14 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
beknighted wrote:
Lest we forget, it's pretty much beyond dispute that the entire incident began when Wilson decided he needed to order Brown and his friend not to walk in the street.


Oh no. It's not beyond dispute. Lest we forget, the entire incident began with a strong arm convenience store robbery twenty minutes earlier by Michael Brown. Shocked


Not sure how that is related to the shooting, given that the killer cop had no way of knowing the alleged robbery had even occurred, let alone that Brown might have been involved.



_________________
She wants to dance, she loves to dance, she's got to dance
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19035



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 11:29 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
beknighted wrote:
Lest we forget, it's pretty much beyond dispute that the entire incident began when Wilson decided he needed to order Brown and his friend not to walk in the street.


Oh no. It's not beyond dispute. Lest we forget, the entire incident began with a strong arm convenience store robbery twenty minutes earlier by Michael Brown. Shocked


Not sure how that is related to the shooting, given that the killer cop had no way of knowing the alleged robbery had even occurred, let alone that Brown might have been involved.


While that was widely reported as fact for many long months we learned yesterday that it was not the case. Officer Wilson actually heard two reports on his radio of the convenience store robbery in the twenty minute span from the robbery to his shooting of Brown. First was while he was attending to a child in distress call and the second, which contained a description of the perpetrators matching Michael Brown, as well as the item taken from the store, cigarillos (which Officer Wilson said he saw in Michael Brown's hand) came through on his radio in the police vehicle.

I don't know what else to say here. Shocked


smenko



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 4074
Location: metro detroit


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 11:45 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

As a white woman, I cannot even begin to imagine what it must feel like today or any day to be black in America. The fear for the safety of your child's welfare is a given for any race...but, the fear of a black mother for her son/s goes beyond anything I can conjure in my mind.

Prayers for all.


mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 17480



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 11:59 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Jammer, "proportional response" is the self defense law. That's not something that you teach a child. That's something that is tried in court.

This was a pathetic decision. But it's also not surprising. And not just because of race issues, but also because it's damn near impossible to hold police officers accountable for anything.



_________________
TALENT

What it takes to play a gay pirate, a gay candymaker, and a gay mad hatter, and still land a role as John Dilinger.
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19035



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 12:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
Jammer, "proportional response" is the self defense law. That's not something that you teach a child. That's something that is tried in court.


You're questioning a rhetorical flourish but my response to you would be that the police do not proceed through their responsibilities according to self-defense laws intended for the public. The police enforce laws according to policies and procedures that are designed to ensure their own safety with a questionable nod to public safety. I'm editorializing there a bit but nothing compared to what some of you guys are doing so whatever.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 5823
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 12:42 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
Jammer, "proportional response" is the self defense law. That's not something that you teach a child. That's something that is tried in court.

This was a pathetic decision. But it's also not surprising. And not just because of race issues, but also because it's damn near impossible to hold police officers accountable for anything.

What, exactly, makes it a "pathetic decision"? Are you basing this on the actual evidence that the jury had to weigh? The eye witness testimony and forensics?

How would you have ruled, using the evidence and not some preconceived belief of guilt or innocence?

Having read it all, it seems fairly clear that there was no way for them to indict. The evidence pretty much stood lock-step with the officer's account. Yet I see so many people just discount this jury's desicion out of hand.

This isn't to say there is not a serious problem in the way the police relate with minorities. There are numerous cases which demonstrate this. The frustration in these communities is more than warrented, but there are better examples of this out there than this specific case.



_________________
Woe to that land that's governed by a child.
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin