Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: AUChizad on August 10, 2014, 02:38:05 PM
-
Watch the video:
http://fox2now.com/2014/08/09/man-shot-killed-in-ferguson-apartment-complex/ (http://fox2now.com/2014/08/09/man-shot-killed-in-ferguson-apartment-complex/)
What we know so far:
-Witnesses claim Brown was walking in the middle of the street unarmed. Yelled at him to "get the fuck on the sidewalk", and then shot at him twice from the police car, got out and shot him multiple more times from outside the vehicle.
-The police have changed their story multiple times so far. First they said they were pursuing him for stealing from a store. At one time they said he was armed. Later they had a press conference that made no mention of any stealing from any store, and they mentioned he was unarmed. They said that Brown attacked the officer in his vehicle, there was a struggle inside the vehicle, and the officer overpowered Brown and shot and killed him.
Right now it's pretty difficult to tell exactly what went down, but that won't stop both sides of the political argument.
From what we know NOW it sounds like the police are lying and definitely did not act appropriately. How much was provoked remains to be seen. Even if the officer was provoked, it hardly seems that lethal force was warranted.
I'm sure we'll find out lots more about this in the coming news cycles.
-
This doesn't really seem like the Trayvon case to me. An assault led to that shooting, that was never in question. This is a different animal. If the friend and at least 1 witness is telling the truth, the police officer is a cold blooded murderer who apparently just shot the shit out of a kid for not walking on the sidewalk. If the officer and at least 1 other witness is telling the truth, the kid was being arrested, or at least placed in the back seat of a vehicle, when a struggle ensued and the kid was shot.
This will be a tough investigation because the truth will be almost impossible to get. The best possible solution for this case will be the video, if the officer was recording. I sure hope he was in that type of situation.
-
This doesn't really seem like the Trayvon case to me. An assault led to that shooting, that was never in question. This is a different animal. If the friend and at least 1 witness is telling the truth, the police officer is a cold blooded murderer who apparently just shot the shit out of a kid for not walking on the sidewalk. If the officer and at least 1 other witness is telling the truth, the kid was being arrested, or at least placed in the back seat of a vehicle, when a struggle ensued and the kid was shot.
This will be a tough investigation because the truth will be almost impossible to get. The best possible solution for this case will be the video, if the officer was recording. I sure hope he was in that type of situation.
In your opinion, would lack of video imply guilt on the police officer's part? That they're trying to cover something up?
-
They've been rioting and burning stores in Ferguson, MO.
-
In your opinion, would lack of video imply guilt on the police officer's part? That they're trying to cover something up?
No. There is an investigation into the shooting. Physical evidence along with witness statements will be collected. All of this will be presented to a grand jury, and they will decide to charge the officer or not.
Having video will definetly help into the justification of the shooting. If there are other officers involved, then maybe one of them had a camera on.
Watch the video:
http://fox2now.com/2014/08/09/man-shot-killed-in-ferguson-apartment-complex/ (http://fox2now.com/2014/08/09/man-shot-killed-in-ferguson-apartment-complex/)
What we know so far:
-Witnesses claim Brown was walking in the middle of the street unarmed. Yelled at him to "get the fuck on the sidewalk", and then shot at him twice from the police car, got out and shot him multiple more times from outside the vehicle.
-The police have changed their story multiple times so far. First they said they were pursuing him for stealing from a store. At one time they said he was armed. Later they had a press conference that made no mention of any stealing from any store, and they mentioned he was unarmed. They said that Brown attacked the officer in his vehicle, there was a struggle inside the vehicle, and the officer overpowered Brown and shot and killed him.
Right now it's pretty difficult to tell exactly what went down, but that won't stop both sides of the political argument.
From what we know NOW it sounds like the police are lying and definitely did not act appropriately. How much was provoked remains to be seen. Even if the officer was provoked, it hardly seems that lethal force was warranted.
I'm sure we'll find out lots more about this in the coming news cycles.
Just a guess here, but maybe the first statement was off of the cuff before al facts were gathered. I'm not sayong that they are just outright lying. What I am saying is that in a high stress situation such as a fatal shooting, the officer should not give a final statement until after two sleep cycles.
-
They've been rioting and burning stores in Ferguson, MO.
Of course. Never let a good tragedy go to waste.
Its sad that even in cases like this one where the cop WAS probably in the wrong, someone on that side of the argument is gonna take full advantage of the situation to benefit themselves. Riot, looting, demanding free shit, demanding millions yadda yadda. Like Chizad said, this thing will be full blown on both sides of the aisle for all the wrong reasons. :facepalm:
-
http://youtu.be/tfy5FiqzWHI (http://youtu.be/tfy5FiqzWHI)
-
http://youtu.be/tfy5FiqzWHI (http://youtu.be/tfy5FiqzWHI)
All I got out of that was "bro".
-
In your opinion, would lack of video imply guilt on the police officer's part? That they're trying to cover something up?
Not necessarily. Most cars have cameras, but they generally only come on when lights initiate. Even then, the standard patrol camera would only record the front of the vehicle....they are basically set up for traffic stops.
Most agencies are moving into the direction of body cameras though. If I were that officer and was involved in that situation, I would hope I had a body camera that would have recorded the entire incident. But it isn't mandated that all LEO wear body cameras....yet.
End of the day, a different agency is now investigating the shooting. And they have no dog in the fight. If the officer honestly just pulled up and shot an unarmed kid for not getting out of the road, then he should be in prison. I'm biased, but even as a reasonable thinking person, that story just doesn't sound believable. But, unless I read this wrong, this happened at 2:36pm. Plenty of daylight. Officer better have a damn good reason for shooting an unarmed person.
-
Not necessarily. Most cars have cameras, but they generally only come on when lights initiate. Even then, the standard patrol camera would only record the front of the vehicle....they are basically set up for traffic stops.
Most agencies are moving into the direction of body cameras though. If I were that officer and was involved in that situation, I would hope I had a body camera that would have recorded the entire incident. But it isn't mandated that all LEO wear body cameras....yet.
End of the day, a different agency is now investigating the shooting. And they have no dog in the fight. If the officer honestly just pulled up and shot an unarmed kid for not getting out of the road, then he should be in prison. I'm biased, but even as a reasonable thinking person, that story just doesn't sound believable. But, unless I read this wrong, this happened at 2:36pm. Plenty of daylight. Officer better have a damn good reason for shooting an unarmed person.
Let me remind you that wearing a body camera could hinder your receiving doughnut and sexual act bribes.
-
If the officer honestly just pulled up and shot an unarmed kid for not getting out of the road, then he should be in prison. I'm biased, but even as a reasonable thinking person, that story just doesn't sound believable. But, unless I read this wrong, this happened at 2:36pm. Plenty of daylight. Officer better have a damn good reason for shooting an unarmed person.
This is kind of where I'm at. I could be wrong, there are certainly sick fucks in this world. But I find it hard to default to it being logical that a cop shot a kid with plenty of witnesses in broad daylight for no other reason than he wanted to kill a black kid. Cops can certainly be corrupt dicks, and even racists, but I just can't perceive a cop being that evil and the issue being that black & white (pardon the pun).
On the other hand, I don't like the idea that there are that many eyewitnesses claiming they saw what they saw, and then on the other side of it we just have this cop and I guess his partner. Clearly neither of them are going to say "Yeah, I shot this kid in cold blood cause I didn't like his skin color," so that pretty much rules them out. Until at least one eyewitness says "Yeah, I saw what went down and Brown attacked the officer and reached for his gun" or whatever, I find it hard to purely take the police's word on this as well. As with most things, I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle. I doubt he was as innocent an angel as is being portrayed. But I also doubt he deserved to die for whatever went down.
As mentioned though, the rioting and shit is inexcusable. Mike Brown's family has condemned it. It's disgusting that people will respond that irrationally to the situation, but it really doesn't have anything to do with the incident itself.
-
As mentioned though, the rioting and shoot is inexcusable. Mike Brown's family has condemned it. It's disgusting that people will respond that irrationally to the situation, but it really doesn't have anything to do with the incident itself.
What you really want to say is that you do not want blacks to have a voice.
-
What you really want to say is that you do not want blacks to have a voice.
Starting with one WiregrassTiger.
-
I got nothing to say...yet.
-
I got nothing to say...yet.
I do. Don't try to fight a cop. You will lose.
-
I do. Don't try to fight a cop. You will lose.
I don't know. Was he on the phone with his girlfriend? Was the cop acting like a "creepy old cracker"?
Were ant Skittles or iced tea spilled?
Die he have his hoodie pulled up?
These are things we must know in order to hang the cop in public BEFORE any real evidence come to light.
Oh. And we must go burn somebody else's shit so they wil know we fo reals!
-
This is kind of where I'm at. I could be wrong, there are certainly sick fucks in this world. But I find it hard to default to it being logical that a cop shot a kid with plenty of witnesses in broad daylight for no other reason than he wanted to kill a black kid. Cops can certainly be corrupt dicks, and even racists, but I just can't perceive a cop being that evil and the issue being that black & white (pardon the pun).
On the other hand, I don't like the idea that there are that many eyewitnesses claiming they saw what they saw, and then on the other side of it we just have this cop and I guess his partner. Clearly neither of them are going to say "Yeah, I shot this kid in cold blood cause I didn't like his skin color," so that pretty much rules them out. Until at least one eyewitness says "Yeah, I saw what went down and Brown attacked the officer and reached for his gun" or whatever, I find it hard to purely take the police's word on this as well. As with most things, I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle. I doubt he was as innocent an angel as is being portrayed. But I also doubt he deserved to die for whatever went down.
As mentioned though, the rioting and shit is inexcusable. Mike Brown's family has condemned it. It's disgusting that people will respond that irrationally to the situation, but it really doesn't have anything to do with the incident itself.
I agree with all of this, with one exception. IF he tried to take the officer's gun, I think he deserved to die. There is only one reason to take a police officer's gun, and that is to kill him with it. BUT, with that said, if he reached for the gun and didn't get it, and the officer was able to gain a position of power over him afterwards (cause him to surrender), I don't believe he should have shot him anyway. Once a person is no longer a threat, in broad daylight, in front of witnesses, shooting him is no longer an option.
When I was almost killed in a car wreck by an idiot who drove into my lane at 80 mph and struck me head on as I was waiting at a traffic light, after I was able to climb out of my vehicle, I wanted to shoot him in the face. I saw the look on his face as he drove straight into my vehicle, nobody will ever convince me that he wasn't trying to kill me. But in front of witnesses, in daylight, when he was no longer a threat to my life, stomping his ass and/or killing him was no longer an option.
Again, I really really hope there is a video of this entire ordeal. That's the only way a peaceful resolution will come out of this.
-
I agree with all of this, with one exception. IF he tried to take the officer's gun, I think he deserved to die. There is only one reason to take a police officer's gun, and that is to kill him with it. BUT, with that said, if he reached for the gun and didn't get it, and the officer was able to gain a position of power over him afterwards (cause him to surrender), I don't believe he should have shot him anyway. Once a person is no longer a threat, in broad daylight, in front of witnesses, shooting him is no longer an option.
When I was almost killed in a car wreck by an idiot who drove into my lane at 80 mph and struck me head on as I was waiting at a traffic light, after I was able to climb out of my vehicle, I wanted to shoot him in the face. I saw the look on his face as he drove straight into my vehicle, nobody will ever convince me that he wasn't trying to kill me. But in front of witnesses, in daylight, when he was no longer a threat to my life, stomping his ass and/or killing him was no longer an option.
Again, I really really hope there is a video of this entire ordeal. That's the only way a peaceful resolution will come out of this.
I agree with all of that as well.
IF Brown reached for the cop's gun.
Just seems convenient that the one conceivable justification to shoot an unarmed kid is what this cop is claiming. After he changed his story from stealing candy & cigarettes from that store that looters have since burned to the ground. And also convenient that there is no dash cam available. Even if it didn't get video of inside the car, you'd think it would at least be running in front of the car to possibly capture audio of the alleged struggle in the back OR Brown allegedly running from the cops. The lack of video kind of sounds like Lois Lerner "losing" her emails to me...
-
And also convenient that there is no dash cam available.
That's because the city of Ferguson doesn't have dash cams on it's police cars.
-
That's because the city of Ferguson doesn't have dash cams on it's police cars.
The department that I work for doesn't either. However, we have body worn cameras. Depending on the situation, that can be even better than a dash cam. Not everything happens squarely at the front of a police car. It would be great to have both.
-
The department that I work for doesn't either. However, we have body worn cameras. Depending on the situation, that can be even better than a dash cam. Not everything happens squarely at the front of a police car. It would be great to have both.
I'd like to see this be a requirement at all police departments. I would imagine it would dramatically help both sides of this issue.
-
I'd like to see this be a requirement at all police departments. I would imagine it would dramatically help both sides of this issue.
This is why I believe body cameras are a good thing.
http://youtu.be/eqxaP4t9gEc (http://youtu.be/eqxaP4t9gEc)
That just a security guard, but that bitch deserved to go to jail. Actually, they both did. So did the sorry ass baby daddy who cant control his woman or kids. Camera didn't save his job, but at least you can see what he was dealing with when he tased her. And she most certainly deserved it.
-
I'd like to see this be a requirement at all police departments. I would imagine it would dramatically help both sides of this issue.
Like I said, not everything happens conveniently in front of the car. A dash camera doesn't document anything in a foot pursuit, it doesn't see you tase that guy inside a house on a domestic call, etc etc. If you're doing what you're supposed to be doing then 99% of the time a body camera will be your best friend. Especially in court, and when it comes to a complaint against you.
You would be surprised how much use of force reports go way down too.
-
This is why I believe body cameras are a good thing.
http://youtu.be/eqxaP4t9gEc (http://youtu.be/eqxaP4t9gEc)
That just a security guard, but that bitch deserved to go to jail. Actually, they both did. So did the sorry ass baby daddy who cant control his woman or kids. Camera didn't save his job, but at least you can see what he was dealing with when he tased her. And she most certainly deserved it.
I know dats rite! Sho nuff be.
Hey, that doesn't too much LOOK like a welfare office. Productive bunch of citizens, that group. And teaching their kids well I see.
-
I'd like to see this be a requirement at all police departments. I would imagine it would dramatically help both sides of this issue.
Totally agree, but I imagine that most residents would be on board, until they realize their taxes will go up to pay for it.
-
Totally agree, but I imagine that most residents would be on board, until they realize their taxes will go up to pay for it.
No need for new taxes. there is no reason for a police officer to have a gun if they have a cell phone and a body camera. Sell the gun, buy the camera.
-
If it is proven that this was a straight up murder can we please stop referring to the perpetrator as "police officer" or "cop"? If he wasn't acting under color of law and did something illegal in he doesn't get that title or the protections that come with it. If it is proven.
If it is proven, I submit that forever we refer to him as "murdering asshole"
-
As to the body cams you get what you pay for, and it comes with the normal ups and downs and hiccups.
A local department got the cheapest cameras they could find. They had enough battery power/memory to run for about 4 hours. The department had 12 hour shifts. It had confusing interface involving a single button and to understand what the camera was telling you you had to interpret a series of flashing lights (meaning if you were working on night shift you always had a light blinking on your chest, which is not ideal). The administration was good enough to mandate in policy that cameras needed to be on during any and all contact with the public, but not mandate what to do in the event your camera runs out of battery or memory. Further complicating matters the single, small button that was used to turn the camera on, off, start recording and stop recording was difficult to manipulate with speed and under stress, and to make sure it was recording you had to take your eyes off whatever it was you were recording (traffic stop, domestic call ect..) and interpret the series of flashing lights. The problem with that is almost all the incidents you really want recorded happen so quickly most of the time the poor bastards couldn't turn the camera on, or at least devote the attention it would take to make sure the flailing, mid run button push they executed had the desired result. The end result was a drop in productivity.
1: If you do things the right way you don't mind a camera
2: yeah it looks bad if your camera ain't on but that doesn't necessarily mean you did anything wrong.
3: On a personal note, it is super weird watching yourself post incident
-
This is why I believe body cameras are a good thing.
http://youtu.be/eqxaP4t9gEc (http://youtu.be/eqxaP4t9gEc)
That just a security guard, but that bitch deserved to go to jail. Actually, they both did. So did the sorry ass baby daddy who cant control his woman or kids. Camera didn't save his job, but at least you can see what he was dealing with when he tased her. And she most certainly deserved it.
:facepalm:
That's borderline child abuse. I'm sure those kids will be productive members of society now that it is well ingrained in their heads to loathe cops. "You gay!"
And that guy ended up getting fired for that?? Is what happened at 3:10, after entering the premises they refused to leave, after screaming at the cop face-to-face for several minutes, not justification to tase? He didn't shoot her or anything...
-
As to the body cams you get what you pay for, and it comes with the normal ups and downs and hiccups.
A local department got the cheapest cameras they could find. They had enough battery power/memory to run for about 4 hours. The department had 12 hour shifts. It had confusing interface involving a single button and to understand what the camera was telling you you had to interpret a series of flashing lights (meaning if you were working on night shift you always had a light blinking on your chest, which is not ideal). The administration was good enough to mandate in policy that cameras needed to be on during any and all contact with the public, but not mandate what to do in the event your camera runs out of battery or memory. Further complicating matters the single, small button that was used to turn the camera on, off, start recording and stop recording was difficult to manipulate with speed and under stress, and to make sure it was recording you had to take your eyes off whatever it was you were recording (traffic stop, domestic call ect..) and interpret the series of flashing lights. The problem with that is almost all the incidents you really want recorded happen so quickly most of the time the poor bastards couldn't turn the camera on, or at least devote the attention it would take to make sure the flailing, mid run button push they executed had the desired result. The end result was a drop in productivity.
1: If you do things the right way you don't mind a camera
2: yeah it looks bad if your camera ain't on but that doesn't necessarily mean you did anything wrong.
3: On a personal note, it is super weird watching yourself post incident
By the way, where is your fucking camera?
-
I don't understand what the big deal is. Everyone is acting like they didn't know that cops are either murderers or on the take.
-
This is why I believe body cameras are a good thing.
http://youtu.be/eqxaP4t9gEc (http://youtu.be/eqxaP4t9gEc)
That just a security guard, but that bitch deserved to go to jail. Actually, they both did. So did the sorry ass baby daddy who cant control his woman or kids. Camera didn't save his job, but at least you can see what he was dealing with when he tased her. And she most certainly deserved it.
I'm lovin it! ©
-
By the way, where is your fudgeing camera?
I threw it in the river.
By the way as a trainer I'm going to focus on getting away from the PIT maneuver and implementing the tony Stewart
-
Auburn grad arrested. I bet he is also friends with Cam.
#thuglife
http://yellowhammernews.com/nationalpolitics/auburn-grad-among-arrested-ferguson-chaos/ (http://yellowhammernews.com/nationalpolitics/auburn-grad-among-arrested-ferguson-chaos/)
-
$5 says that it happened exactly the way the witness stated...her story hasn't changed multiple times.
Also, the State Senator was maced Monday during a peaceful protest. She even asked the Sheriff if she needed to worry about getting maced again in another peaceful protest, like Monday, then she stated I'm your State Senator...the Sheriff about swallowed his balls when she said that, LOL.
The Sheriff's wife took to Facebook explaining why the Police/Swat/National Guard is shooting tear gas, rubber bullets and flash grenades into the crowds and into residential neighborhoods, while blazing ear drum piercing sound...she comes off as pretty racist.
-
Must admit that when I first saw original story, I found it hard to believe. But this town and PD continues to get more weird. Arresting alderman, a state senator, reporters, etc.
These boys are asking for it. And pretty sure DoJ was on the way already. I predict they will tear them a new one. i wouldve been suspending mofos left and right. Chief will be gone shortly I think.
-
A guy that used to work at our agency now works at one of the agencies around that area. I spoke with him the other night, and he said it is complete anarchy up there. It has already started spilling over to other suburbs. People are looting, burning buildings, attacking police officers that don't even have anything to do with Ferguson. Anonymous has already posted personnel information online about all of the Ferguson officers. Apparently none of them can even go home at this point because they're so scared.
From what he says, the officer pulls up on two guys in the street. Asks them to get out of the street, and they get irate. The guy that got shot ends up attacking the officer, pushing him back into the car and hitting him in the face while trying to get his gun. This causes the gun to go off in the car. The officer gains control of the situation and his gun and the guy surrenders himself. Apparently the officer can't shut it down emotionally and the whole thing goes south. Apparently the officer has some facial injuries (not greatly substantial, but definitely there), so this seems like a likely scenario. The problem for the officer is going to be if the guy had discontinued the assault on the officer and surrendered himself.
-
It has already started spilling over to other suburbs.
http://www.kmov.com/home/Interactive-Map-of-Shooting-Looting-and-VIolence-270801281.html (http://www.kmov.com/home/Interactive-Map-of-Shooting-Looting-and-VIolence-270801281.html)
Not sure I'd call that other suburbs. Maybe you could say Florrisant.
Honestly shocked we haven't seen anything in ESL, though.
-
http://www.kmov.com/home/Interactive-Map-of-Shooting-Looting-and-VIolence-270801281.html (http://www.kmov.com/home/Interactive-Map-of-Shooting-Looting-and-VIolence-270801281.html)
Not sure I'd call that other suburbs. Maybe you could say Florrisant.
Honestly shocked we haven't seen anything in ESL, though.
I know the facts will eventually come out and hopefully, soon. I know so many want to make this a race issue and I guess in today's environment, there are so those that won't allow it to be anything else. We still don't know what race the officer is at this point. In your mind, is this strictly about race or is this as much about this PD having a bad reputation in general. I keep reading and hearing things about the department as a whole crossing the line on other occasions. How far from you is this going on?
-
http://youtu.be/hwBoa-NbNL8 (http://youtu.be/hwBoa-NbNL8)
-
I know the facts will eventually come out and hopefully, soon. I know so many want to make this a race issue and I guess in today's environment, there are so those that won't allow it to be anything else. We still don't know what race the officer is at this point. In your mind, is this strictly about race or is this as much about this PD having a bad reputation in general. I keep reading and hearing things about the department as a whole crossing the line on other occasions. How far from you is this going on?
Once you attack the po-po, it don't matter what race you are.
I mean, hell, that's like getting out of your car on track during a race!
-
A guy that used to work at our agency now works at one of the agencies around that area. I spoke with him the other night, and he said it is complete anarchy up there. It has already started spilling over to other suburbs. People are looting, burning buildings, attacking police officers that don't even have anything to do with Ferguson. Anonymous has already posted personnel information online about all of the Ferguson officers. Apparently none of them can even go home at this point because they're so scared.
From what he says, the officer pulls up on two guys in the street. Asks them to get out of the street, and they get irate. The guy that got shot ends up attacking the officer, pushing him back into the car and hitting him in the face while trying to get his gun. This causes the gun to go off in the car. The officer gains control of the situation and his gun and the guy surrenders himself. Apparently the officer can't shut it down emotionally and the whole thing goes south. Apparently the officer has some facial injuries (not greatly substantial, but definitely there), so this seems like a likely scenario. The problem for the officer is going to be if the guy had discontinued the assault on the officer and surrendered himself.
Wow, another story...not shocked. Eventually it'll be, "I was surrounded by 5 heavily armored men all pointing their guns at me, after I politely asked them to move off the road...after getting punched in the face 5 times, I did a roundhouse kick to the biggest guy's head, knocking him out. I then politely asked that the other four guys to please move along while I detained the guy I had just knocked out. They didn't disperse, so after multiple pleading, the all attacked me, so I began judo chopping while pleading for them to stop. After knocking out the other three guys, the fourth guy grabbed for my gun, I was fighting with him for the gun that he'd tried to get. He started shooting himself as I was pleading for him to stop. I decided not to arrest the other four men, because I was so distraught."
-
The Sheriff's wife took to Facebook explaining why the Police/Swat/National Guard is shooting tear gas, rubber bullets and flash grenades into the crowds and into residential neighborhoods, while blazing ear drum piercing sound...she comes off as pretty racist.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bu9bSPRCIAAnntQ.jpg)
-
Damn. That should really smooth things over.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bu9bSPRCIAAnntQ.jpg)
I read it twice to find the racism. All I found was opinion and fact.
-
I read it twice to find the racism. All I found was opinion and fact.
It was a good post, but I wanted to see more about the damn jews
-
It was a good post, but I wanted to see more about the damn jews
I think this is a good time to announce the birth of a new Auburn message board: WT'sTigersx.com
READ BEFORE THIS GETS DELETED! It is time for a change.
This will be a place that a diverse group of Auburn people can intelligently discuss politics, religion and Auburn. Most races and religions are welcome. (Jews and Mexicans pay an additional $10 per month and two months in advance)
There will be an ask WT section on the site, where you can ask WT anything from financial advice, questions about how to improve your sex life, home remedies and repair questions and of course; Auburn football. It is a self improvement site where WT will coach you into becoming successful.
WT'stigersx will also have a dating section, where WT will match you with the AU partner of your dreams. Ladies just need to send photos (swimsuit or nude), which will be kept confidential.
WT will try to answer difficult questions, like: Can Auburn repeat 2013's success? And: Can Auburn win right away this year?
WT'sTigersx will kick the season off with a raffle in which you will have a chance to win a surprise meeting with Auburn greats: Bo Jackson, Pat Sullivan, Cam Newton, Pat Dye, Gus Malzahn and many, many more. Send in your $25 now for this once in a lifetime opportunity.
The bylaws and rules aren't complete but here are a few of the NO's, to give you an idea of what to expect.
1. No homos 2. No racists 4. No Updykes 5. No Pigs 6. No washed up attorneys 7. No communists/liberals (i.e. homos) 8. No inappropriate behavior (WT's discretion) 9. No AUChizad
First month is free and then you will be charged the incredibly great value of $12.99 per month ($29.99 for Jews and Mexicans)
War Eagle and we look forward to seeing you on WT'sTigersx.com. The new #1 forum to talk Auburn sports.
-
This is what I truly do not understand?
If the cop is asking you to do something why argue what is right and wrong right then?
All that does is get your ass tazered/beat/shot. Do what the cop asks then if he is in the wrong hammer his ass afterward. Is this that hard of a concept to figure out? Especially in the this day and time of easy access to blast a story or wrong doing out to the masses.
Not saying that cops are always in the right. There are a lot of them that are assholes and on a power trip but how do people not know what is the best course of action in dealing with the assholes?
-
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-shooting/ferguson-chief-names-darren-wilson-cop-who-shot-michael-brown-n181326 (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-shooting/ferguson-chief-names-darren-wilson-cop-who-shot-michael-brown-n181326)
(http://media3.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2014_33/620236/140815-surveilance-videostills-mn-1100_d501af54f1fa057203fce7a8e17c3d43.nbcnews-ux-680-800.jpg)
IF that is Michael Brown, it appears as though he was involved in a robbery 10 minutes before being shot to death.
-
It was really nice of the employers of those people in the video to let them off from work to protest.
-
Well I think the State was kind enough to let that police chief off too, so it was only fair.
-
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-shooting/ferguson-chief-names-darren-wilson-cop-who-shot-michael-brown-n181326 (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-shooting/ferguson-chief-names-darren-wilson-cop-who-shot-michael-brown-n181326)
(http://media3.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2014_33/620236/140815-surveilance-videostills-mn-1100_d501af54f1fa057203fce7a8e17c3d43.nbcnews-ux-680-800.jpg)
IF that is Michael Brown, it appears as though he was involved in a robbery 10 minutes before being shot to death.
Not surprised.
You mean he wasn't just a little angel teenager walking to the park to play on the swingset? He's actually a large person who is prone to violence and stealing and may resort to physical threats and actions in order to intimidate others?
-
He was badass enough to wear white socks and sandals and be damn proud of it.
-
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-shooting/ferguson-chief-names-darren-wilson-cop-who-shot-michael-brown-n181326 (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-shooting/ferguson-chief-names-darren-wilson-cop-who-shot-michael-brown-n181326)
(http://media3.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2014_33/620236/140815-surveilance-videostills-mn-1100_d501af54f1fa057203fce7a8e17c3d43.nbcnews-ux-680-800.jpg)
IF that is Michael Brown, it appears as though he was involved in a robbery 10 minutes before being shot to death.
This is bullshit!
This teenage kid was just walking down the street minding his own business when he was shot just because he is black. Matter of fact, he put his hands up and asked the police officer to "please stop shooting Mr. Officer."
-
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-shooting/ferguson-chief-names-darren-wilson-cop-who-shot-michael-brown-n181326 (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-shooting/ferguson-chief-names-darren-wilson-cop-who-shot-michael-brown-n181326)
(http://media3.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2014_33/620236/140815-surveilance-videostills-mn-1100_d501af54f1fa057203fce7a8e17c3d43.nbcnews-ux-680-800.jpg)
IF that is Michael Brown, it appears as though he was involved in a robbery 10 minutes before being shot to death.
looks like a Saints fan to me.
-
I'm pissed about this and I'm not going to take it anymore. Come on, let's go throw a brick through that store window and steal that 50" Magnavox.
-
I'm pissed about this and I'm not going to take it anymore. Come on, let's go throw a brick through that store window and steal that 50" Magnavox.
Why are you robbing an antique store?
-
My oh my how this case has done a complete 180 in the last 2 days. :facepalm:
Little angel shot in the back just walking home from grandma's by a racist honkey ass cop to......
Pictures throwing up gang signs, robbery, assaulting a cop.
Ferguson just got much quieter.
-
Why are you robbing an antique store?
It's a console
-
My oh my how this case has done a complete 180 in the last 2 days. :facepalm:
Little angel shot in the back just walking home from grandma's by a racist honkey ass cop to......
Pictures throwing up gang signs, robbery, assaulting a cop.
Ferguson just got much quieter.
IDK man, I just saw it on the news and it looks like the new evidence hadn't made much of an impact amongst the various protesters. Perhaps the looters/rioters will be more reasonable and open minded.
-
IDK man, I just saw it on the news and it looks like the new evidence hadn't made much of an impact amongst the various protesters. Perhaps the looters/rioters will be more reasonable and open minded.
All that matters is that Brown was black and shot by the police.
-
IDK man, I just saw it on the news and it looks like the new evidence hadn't made much of an impact amongst the various protesters. Perhaps the looters/rioters will be more reasonable and open minded.
the narrative amongst the locals has went from:
"that little angel was just walking home and got shot for no reason other than he was black!"
to
"well, ok, yeah so he robbed a store...is that so bad? that doesnt mean he should have died! That cop is still a racist."
-
IDK man, I just saw it on the news and it looks like the new evidence hadn't made much of an impact amongst the various protesters. Perhaps the looters/rioters will be more reasonable and open minded.
:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :taunt: :taunt: :taunt: :taunt: :taunt: :taunt: :taunt: :taunt: :taunt: :taunt: :taunt: :taunt: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e184/ilovesilky101/fry.jpg) (http://media.photobucket.com/user/ilovesilky101/media/fry.jpg.html)
-
the narrative amongst the locals has went from:
"that little angel was just walking home and got shot for no reason other than he was black!"
to
"well, ok, yeah so he robbed a store...is that so bad? that doesnt mean he should have died! That cop is still a racist."
I like how many are refusing to admit that his violence in robbing the store is by no means indicative of his ability to assault and threaten a police officer. "Yeah he robbed the store. Yeah he choked that clerk. But no, there's no way he didn't get physical with a cop."
-
Ferguson just got much quieter.
Seriously?
You think that the rioters care about facts and injustice? Really?
-
What kullah was the officer? Enquiring minds want to know.
-
What kullah was the officer? Enquiring minds want to know.
Why does it always have to be about color with you people?
-
What kullah was the officer? Enquiring minds want to know.
Why does it always have to be about color with you people?
Because it always is with them.
-
Seriously?
You think that the rioters care about facts and injustice? Really?
No, it actually did. Not sure why but I read something that said the new Highway Patrol Guy settled it down a lot. They are still bitching and making excuses but in a less violent manner now. Who knows. But a lot of this new info and footage should be squashing it totally.
-
Mikey were a goot boy
-
I think this is a good time to announce the birth of a new Auburn message board: WT'sTigersx.com
READ BEFORE THIS GETS DELETED! It is time for a change.
This will be a place that a diverse group of Auburn people can intelligently discuss politics, religion and Auburn. Most races and religions are welcome. (Jews and Mexicans pay an additional $10 per month and two months in advance)
There will be an ask WT section on the site, where you can ask WT anything from financial advice, questions about how to improve your sex life, home remedies and repair questions and of course; Auburn football. It is a self improvement site where WT will coach you into becoming successful.
WT'stigersx will also have a dating section, where WT will match you with the AU partner of your dreams. Ladies just need to send photos (swimsuit or nude), which will be kept confidential.
WT will try to answer difficult questions, like: Can Auburn repeat 2013's success? And: Can Auburn win right away this year?
WT'sTigersx will kick the season off with a raffle in which you will have a chance to win a surprise meeting with Auburn greats: Bo Jackson, Pat Sullivan, Cam Newton, Pat Dye, Gus Malzahn and many, many more. Send in your $25 now for this once in a lifetime opportunity.
The bylaws and rules aren't complete but here are a few of the NO's, to give you an idea of what to expect.
1. No homos 2. No racists 4. No Updykes 5. No Pigs 6. No washed up attorneys 7. No communists/liberals (i.e. homos) 8. No inappropriate behavior (WT's discretion) 9. No AUChizad
First month is free and then you will be charged the incredibly great value of $12.99 per month ($29.99 for Jews and Mexicans)
War Eagle and we look forward to seeing you on WT'sTigersx.com. The new #1 forum to talk Auburn sports.
Come on its like you don't even know your stereotypes. Them dirty jews ain't gonna pay extra, everyone knows that. How would you even identify them? Maybe if we get 'em to wear some sort of badge...
Furthermore, meeting all of those upstanding gentlemen would be an honor but I would personally pay more for you to set up a secret meeting between updyke and myself. Cash, unmarked and non-sequential.
-
the narrative amongst the locals has went from:
"that little angel was just walking home and got shot for no reason other than he was black!"
to
"well, ok, yeah so he robbed a store...is that so bad? that doesnt mean he should have died! That cop is still a racist."
I said on day one that I severely doubted he was an angel.
But the robbery shit doesn't matter since the police chief announced that the cop who killed Brown had zero knowledge of this taking place.
And regardless, last I checked, stealing a couple bucks worth of cigars is not an executable offense, and even if it were, that would be up to a jury, not some cop.
What does matter is whether or not he in fact reached for the cop's gun.
-
I said on day one that I severely doubted he was an angel.
But the robbery shit doesn't matter since the police chief announced that the cop who killed Brown had zero knowledge of this taking place.
And regardless, last I checked, stealing a couple bucks worth of cigars is not an executable offense, and even if it were, that would be up to a jury, not some cop.
What does matter is whether or not he in fact reached for the cop's gun.
Thievery should be an executable offense!
-
I said on day one that I severely doubted he was an angel.
But the robbery shit doesn't matter since the police chief announced that the cop who killed Brown had zero knowledge of this taking place.
And regardless, last I checked, stealing a couple bucks worth of cigars is not an executable offense, and even if it were, that would be up to a jury, not some cop.
What does matter is whether or not he in fact reached for the cop's gun.
Right now, this is a public perception issue. The story that came out - much like Trayvon - was that Mike Brown was an innocent little kid who was just walking down the street. An officer didn't like it so he yelled at Brown to get off the street then forced Brown into a physical altercation then shot him up execution style while Brown was begging for his life.
The story's changed. Brown was involved in a violent robbery just before an officer asked him to get out of the street. Therefore, he most definitely was capable of instigating a violent altercation with the cop and was not just some innocent kid going to get ice cream.
Maybe the lawyers can opine, but could the robbery be used in court?
-
And regardless, last I checked, stealing a couple bucks worth of cigars is not an executable offense, and even if it were, that would be up to a jury, not some cop.
I've executed men for less.
-
Although the LEO didnt know that Brown had been involved in a strong armed robbery, Brown knew he had been. I think it's reasonable to think that Brown believed the LEO was getting out of his car because Brown was involved in a robbery. I'm starting to believe there will be evidence that suggests the shooting was justified. Maybe it wasn't, but it's clearly starting to look that way. And if the lone eye witness was present during the robbery, he loses his credibility.
-
Although the LEO didnt know that Brown had been involved in a strong armed robbery, Brown knew he had been. I think it's reasonable to think that Brown believed the LEO was getting out of his car because Brown was involved in a robbery. I'm starting to believe there will be evidence that suggests the shooting was justified. Maybe it wasn't, but it's clearly starting to look that way. And if the lone eye witness was present during the robbery, he loses his credibility.
I'm starting to think the same thing.
-
We need to pass another gun law. This new law
Will help keep more of Obama's so
ns alive!
-
My oh my how this case has done a complete 180 in the last 2 days. :facepalm:
Little angel shot in the back just walking home from grandma's by a racist honkey ass cop to......
Pictures throwing up gang signs, robbery, assaulting a cop.
Ferguson just got much quieter.
Did he wear his hat backwards in those photos?
-
So, your atty general of the U.S. tells the Mo. national guard to move the damn tanks. The message isn't about the rioting, stealing, and havoc in the streets. It's a message to the gov and law enforcement, telling them to "move the damn tanks".
This should make us all feel really good about our leadership.
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2014/08/missouri_national_guard_headed.html#incart_most-comments (http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2014/08/missouri_national_guard_headed.html#incart_most-comments)
The Missouri National Guard is being sent to Ferguson, Mo., to help quell unrest following another night of clashes between police and protesters upset over the shooting death of an unarmed black teenager.
Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon signed an executive order Monday deploying National Guard troops to the St. Louis suburb, CNN is reporting.
"Given these deliberate, coordinated and intensifying violent attacks on lives and property in Ferguson, I am directing the highly capable men and women of the Missouri National Guard ... in restoring peace and order to this community," Nixon said in a statement.
The move comes after the eighth night of unrest following the Aug. 9 shooting death of Michael Brown, 18. Brown was killed by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, and an autopsy released Sunday showed Brown was shot six times, including twice in the head. The Department of Justice will also conduct its own autopsy.
Two civilians were shot Sunday, though not by police, according to Missouri State Highway Patrol Capt. Ron Johnson, a Ferguson native who has become the face of law enforcement brought in to calm the situation. Johnson said officers stepped up enforcement – including using tear gas against the crowds – after protesters fired at police and threw Molotov cocktails.
"Tonight, a Sunday that started with prayers and messages of unity, peace and justice took a very different turn after dark," Johnson said early Monday morning.
St. Louis Alderman and Auburn University graduate Antonio French sent out the following via social media Monday.
Start of school delayed
The Ferguson-Florissant School District, along with three neighboring districts, announced they would not be open today. Students in the Ferguson district were supposed to start school last Thursday, but that was delayed. On Monday, the district announced it would delay the start of school yet again.
Schools are expected to start Tuesday, but students are being asked not to walk to class.
Justice Department plans autopsy
On Sunday it was announced the U.S. Justice Department will conduct a third autopsy on Brown. Dozens of Federal Bureau of Investigation agents have also arrived in the town, the Wall Street Journal reports, and federal officials are conducting a probe into whether Brown's civil rights were violated.
Federal officials had earlier criticized Ferguson police for releasing a video showing Brown apparently robbing a local convenience store shortly before he was shot. The video's release set off another round of protests in the St. Louis suburb, as questions over the techniques used by police continue to mount.
On Thursday, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder talked to law-enforcement officials on how to scale back the militarized presence of police.
"Tell them to remove the damn tanks," Holder said, according to the Wall-Street Journal report.
Brown family calls for arrest
Brown's family is calling for the arrest the officer involved in the shooting.
Brown family attorney Daryl Parks said the call comes after an independent autopsy shows the unarmed teenager was shot six times, including twice in the head.
"Why would he be shot in the very top of his head, a 6-foot-4 man?" Parks asked. "It makes no sense."
The family contends Brown was shot from behind and above, though Dr. Michael Baden, who conducted the autopsy, cautioned that several scenarios could have resulted in the wounds. In a widely-televised live news conference Monday, Baden said nothing in the autopsy suggested Brown died during a struggle though police maintained he was killed after he reached into Officer Darren Wilson's car as the two were fighting for the policeman's weapon.
Baden said the autopsy showed one bullet hit Brown on the top of the head and another entered just above the right eyebrow. Four other wounds were all to the arm.
(The wounds) "could be consistent with (Brown) going forward or going backward," Baden said.
The shots that killed Brown were fired from between 1 and 30 feet away.
Brown's family is calling for the arrest the officer involved in the shooting.
Brown family attorney Daryl Parks said the call comes after an independent autopsy shows the unarmed teenager was shot six times, including twice in the head.
"Why would he be shot in the very top of his head, a 6-foot-4 man?" Parks asked. "It makes no sense."
The family contends Brown was shot from behind and above, though Dr. Michael Baden, who conducted the autopsy, cautioned that several scenarios could have resulted in the wounds. In a widely-televised live news conference Monday, Baden said nothing in the autopsy suggested Brown died during a struggle though police maintained he was killed after he reached into Officer Darren Wilson's car as the two were fighting for the policeman's weapon.
Baden said the autopsy showed one bullet hit Brown on the top of the head and another entered just above the right eyebrow. Four other wounds were all to the arm.
-
Brown family attorney Daryl Parks said the call comes after an independent autopsy shows the unarmed teenager was shot six times, including twice in the head.
"Why would he be shot in the very top of his head, a 6-foot-4 man?" Parks asked. "It makes no sense."
I've purposely avoided this topic. Haven't read the stuff here until today. Haven't watched the news about it. Essentially I don't care.
BUT..
This guy is a moron.
If they're struggling for a gun, falling into the car, he could have been at any angle. Trying to wrest the gun away from the officer and pushing his hand upward? Charging him from a crouch? It makes tons of sense.
A thug, who in the "family released" photo is flashing a fucking gang sign (which will incite all his thug gangster friends and rally them to come to his support as his family clearly knows), a punk ass fuck who robbed a store and was in the process of making his escape and surely thought the cop was coming for him due to that reason, an uneducated scum sewer dweller gets shot by an officer of the law. That's the story.
Bury his ass. Shoot anybody who "riots" to support his thug ass in the top of the head and above the eye. That will put a welcome end to this ridiculous shit.
-
I'm reading that most of the witnesses are claiming that Brown yelled for the cop to stop shooting. I'm assuming that if a cop has determined that lethal force is necessary, the perp yelling "stop" doesn't necessarily mean much if the cop feels his life is in danger.
Sort of like if I'm on the street and someone tries to mug me or hurt me and I pull out a gun which the criminal attempts to take from me. If I begin firing shots and he yells "Please no," I'm not going to stop the last few bullets from coming out of the gun.
-
I'm reading that most of the witnesses are claiming that Brown yelled for the cop to stop shooting. I'm assuming that if a cop has determined that lethal force is necessary, the perp yelling "stop" doesn't necessarily mean much if the cop feels his life is in danger.
Sort of like if I'm on the street and someone tries to mug me or hurt me and I pull out a gun which the criminal attempts to take from me. If I begin firing shots and he yells "Please no," I'm not going to stop the last few bullets from coming out of the gun.
I'll bet you've heard this a bunch of times.
-
Maybe the lawyers can opine, but could the robbery be used in court?
Depends on why they're trying to introduce it.
You can't bring in the robbery as evidence that Mike Brown is a violent person. You have to prove the facts that are involved with this particular instance. You can't bring in evidence of previous acts and say, "Well look here...he was violent against this cashier, therefore it's more likely that he was violent with this cop."
However, as Token mentioned, the robbery could be brought in to try to show Brown's state of mind during the encounter with the cop. If he robbed a store, then that illegal act is likely to affect how he interacted with police in this instance. It would be up to the jury to determine whether this lends any more credibility to the cop's story.
Whether the evidence can be brought in to show Brown's state of mind will also depend on the other evidence that is available, as the judge may determine that the evidence pertaining to the robbery would be more unfairly prejudicial than probative. If ballistic evidence and eye witness testimony show that Brown was, in fact, surrendering and posed no threat, then his state of mind is irrelevant; although the robbery evidence could show his state of mind, his state of mind would serve no purpose other than to prejudice the jury due to the existence of the other evidence that shows he surrendered or posed no threat.
-
Depends on why they're trying to introduce it.
You can't bring in the robbery as evidence that Mike Brown is a violent person. You have to prove the facts that are involved with this particular instance. You can't bring in evidence of previous acts and say, "Well look here...he was violent against this cashier, therefore it's more likely that he was violent with this cop."
However, as Token mentioned, the robbery could be brought in to try to show Brown's state of mind during the encounter with the cop. If he robbed a store, then that illegal act is likely to affect how he interacted with police in this instance. It would be up to the jury to determine whether this lends any more credibility to the cop's story.
Whether the evidence can be brought in to show Brown's state of mind will also depend on the other evidence that is available, as the judge may determine that the evidence pertaining to the robbery would be more unfairly prejudicial than probative. If ballistic evidence and eye witness testimony show that Brown was, in fact, surrendering and posed no threat, then his state of mind is irrelevant; although the robbery evidence could show his state of mind, his state of mind would serve no purpose other than to prejudice the jury due to the existence of the other evidence that shows he surrendered or posed no threat.
In other words, dude was paranoid about the cop. Got himself in a tizzy.
Actually makes perfect sense to me. And I think token, chizad and kaos all kind of touched on that theory.
-
Pretty funny (and accurate) take on the entire situation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUdHIatS36A#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUdHIatS36A#ws)
-
The issue I have with John Oliver's piece is that he starts immediately by claiming that the robbery video has absolutely nothing to do with what happened afterwards and should not be taken into account. He then goes on use clip after clip to portray the Ferguson police department in a bad light yet in a similar manner, none of which is relevant to the case. That inmate whose blood got onto a police officer's uniform? Irrelevant. How many blacks on the police force? Irrelevant.
If the robbery video is irrelevant, then so is everything else. All that matters is the letter of the law stating whether or not a police office can use lethal force in the scenario that occurred.
Also, aren't these contradicting?
You can't bring in the robbery as evidence that Mike Brown is a violent person. You have to prove the facts that are involved with this particular instance. You can't bring in evidence of previous acts and say, "Well look here...he was violent against this cashier, therefore it's more likely that he was violent with this cop."
However, as Token mentioned, the robbery could be brought in to try to show Brown's state of mind during the encounter with the cop. If he robbed a store, then that illegal act is likely to affect how he interacted with police in this instance. It would be up to the jury to determine whether this lends any more credibility to the cop's story.
You can't use the robbery video as evidence to claim he would be violent with a cop but you could use the robbery video to say that his state of mind would influence him to be violent with a cop. Am I misunderstanding your point?
-
If he can "bow up" on the convenience store clerk, is it not reasonable to believe he could "bow up" on the officer?
-
I believe that the robbery has a lot to do with the shooting. I've read that the chief said that the officer didn't know about the robbery and I've read that the officer did know about the robbery and that he saw the thugs with cigars.
Whether the officer knew of the robbery, Michael Brown did. And he probably didn't want to go to jail.
My thoughts are that he really didn't believe that the cop would shoot him. He thought he didn't have the balls to do it, as he taunted him and ran toward him.
-
This whole incident is a good example of what can happen when keeping it real goes wrong.
-
If he can "bow up" on the convenience store clerk, is it not reasonable to believe he could "bow up" on the officer?
Indicates to me that if he had the state of mind at the time to rob a store and assault someone in it, he probably had the state of mind to assault someone else too. For something just as important or less.
-
The issue I have with John Oliver's piece is that he starts immediately by claiming that the robbery video has absolutely nothing to do with what happened afterwards and should not be taken into account.
The video doesn't have anything to do with the incident in question. And it is relatively improper for the police to release a video that is not related to this incident, as it does nothing but expose potential jurors to evidence that could otherwise be excluded in a criminal or civil trial.
The only potential relation that the video would have to this incident is in regard to Mike Brown's state of mind, and again, that's for a court of law to determine, not for the police department to prematurely release in a response to this incident, not in response to questions about the robbery.
He then goes on use clip after clip to portray the Ferguson police department in a bad light yet in a similar manner, none of which is relevant to the case. That inmate whose blood got onto a police officer's uniform? Irrelevant. How many blacks on the police force? Irrelevant.
True, but he's also using those clips in response to people saying there are no race issues in Ferguson. He never once stated that because cops have treated blacks poorly previously, then they did so in this case. He was making fun of the mayor for saying something that was patently false.
You can't use the robbery video as evidence to claim he would be violent with a cop but you could use the robbery video to say that his state of mind would influence him to be violent with a cop. Am I misunderstanding your point?
You can't bring in evidence of a separate incident in order to show that the person has a history of doing something. Just because I hit someone once before does not mean I will hit someone else in the future. It's prejudicial to try to paint me as a "habitual hitter" with a propensity to hit people just because it's happened previously. You judge an incident based on the facts involved in the incident, not facts from previous incidents. And before everyone starts arguing and whining about how unfair that is, I'm just pointing out what the rules of evidence state. You don't have to like it for it to be true.
However, if the previous incident of me hitting someone can somehow affect my state of mind in this instance, then it can be brought in. In Brown's case, he robbed a store and had not been confronted by police about it yet. Thus, it's reasonable to assume that if a police officer were to approach him, his state of mind would be that the officer was there to address the robbery.
If, on the other hand, Brown had robbed this store years ago, had been arrested, and had already served his sentence or had the charges dropped, then the robbery would be completely irrelevant to this case. It's not reasonable for Brown to assume that the police are there to ask him about a robbery that has already been addressed, so it's not reasonable to assume that his state of mind was affected by the previous robbery. A person's state of mind when the incident took place is relevant to the incident, and so evidence relating to his state of mind can be introduced, even if that evidence consists of prior acts.
-
Indicates to me that if he had the state of mind at the time to rob a store and assault someone in it, he probably had the state of mind to assault someone else too. For something just as important or less.
You're misusing the term "state of mind" as it pertains to evidence.
You're saying that because Brown has previously assaulted someone, he has the propensity to assault people. You can not bring forth evidence of prior acts to show that someone has a propensity to do something. It's prejudicial because it's forcing the jury to focus on what someone has done previously, and not what they did or didn't do in the present case.
"State of mind" refers to what the person was thinking or what emotional state they were in at the time that the current incident occurred. Trying to show that Brown is a habitual assaulter does not prove what his state of mind was. If you can show that the previous robbery affected his state of mind, then it's admissible. But it's not admissible if you're just trying to show that he has a propensity for assaulting people, because you have to specifically prove what he did in this instance, not what he did in prior instances.
-
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404)
(a) Character Evidence.
(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.
. . .
(b) Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts.
(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.
(2) Permitted Uses; Notice in a Criminal Case. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.
-
It's become nothing but a Blackfest up there. Anybody brought in has to be black. The head state trooper apologizing to the family talking about his own black son.. The black president and atty general.
This cop is done for. It doesn't matter what the evidence says.
This is now a race battle and it seems the blacks are currently winning.
Out president has emboldened race whores to play the card before truth.
We need leaders who put truth above race!
-
True, but he's also using those clips in response to people saying there are no race issues in Ferguson. He never once stated that because cops have treated blacks poorly previously, then they did so in this case. He was making fun of the mayor for saying something that was patently false.
But he was doing more than just making fun much like most of the media has been doing. He was trying to sway public opinion. Now granted, yes, the police office was wrong to release the robbery video. Outside of the court of law however, they were attempting to expose the people of Ferguson and the people in the media who have incited riots and looting and more violence. Without that video, the media was going full on with the innocent, little, sweet teenager going out for milk and cookies angle.
You can't bring in evidence of a separate incident in order to show that the person has a history of doing something. Just because I hit someone once before does not mean I will hit someone else in the future. It's prejudicial to try to paint me as a "habitual hitter" with a propensity to hit people just because it's happened previously. You judge an incident based on the facts involved in the incident, not facts from previous incidents. And before everyone starts arguing and whining about how unfair that is, I'm just pointing out what the rules of evidence state. You don't have to like it for it to be true.
However, if the previous incident of me hitting someone can somehow affect my state of mind in this instance, then it can be brought in. In Brown's case, he robbed a store and had not been confronted by police about it yet. Thus, it's reasonable to assume that if a police officer were to approach him, his state of mind would be that the officer was there to address the robbery.
If, on the other hand, Brown had robbed this store years ago, had been arrested, and had already served his sentence or had the charges dropped, then the robbery would be completely irrelevant to this case. It's not reasonable for Brown to assume that the police are there to ask him about a robbery that has already been addressed, so it's not reasonable to assume that his state of mind was affected by the previous robbery. A person's state of mind when the incident took place is relevant to the incident, and so evidence relating to his state of mind can be introduced, even if that evidence consists of prior acts.
That makes more sense but then it also makes the video of the robbery relevant to the case. Instead of brushing off - like John Oliver did - it should be a main point of conversation. We now have evidence that his state of mind could have been altered and may have influenced his ability to interact with a police officer making a routine request to not walk in the middle of a roadway. Does his propensity to robbing convenience stores and choking store clerks matter to this case? No. Does the fact that he had just minutes prior committed a crime matter to this case? Definitely.
-
It's become nothing but a Blackfest up there. Anybody brought in has to be black. The he'd state trooper apologizing to the family talking about his own black son.. The black president and atty general.
This cop is done for. It doesn't matter what the evidence says.
This is now a race battle and it seems the blacks are currently winning.
Out president has emboldened race wholes to play the card before truth.
We need leaders who put truth above race!
That's not true. None of it. I thought the same thing in the Trayvon Martin case as it carried many of the same elements.
But Zimmerman got off scott-free. Holder's digging, Obama's "son" comment, and the whole African American community in an uproar didn't affect the trial one iota.
-
That's not true. None of it. I thought the same thing in the Trayvon Martin case as it carried many of the same elements.
But Zimmerman got off scott-free. Holder's digging, Obama's "son" comment, and the whole African American community in an uproar didn't affect the trial one iota.
You are clueless then. This is a lot different than Trayvon. The race whoring by the state to placate the rioters is much more evident than it ever was with Trayvon.
At least in the Trayvon case they didn't try to import black leaders to quell the uprising.
Have you even listened to the head state trooper?
Zimmerman got off because he was innocent of murder. And the good folks of Ferguson are not gonna let that happen.
-
You're misusing the term "state of mind" as it pertains to evidence.
You're saying that because Brown has previously assaulted someone, he has the propensity to assault people. You can not bring forth evidence of prior acts to show that someone has a propensity to do something. It's prejudicial because it's forcing the jury to focus on what someone has done previously, and not what they did or didn't do in the present case.
"State of mind" refers to what the person was thinking or what emotional state they were in at the time that the current incident occurred. Trying to show that Brown is a habitual assaulter does not prove what his state of mind was. If you can show that the previous robbery affected his state of mind, then it's admissible. But it's not admissible if you're just trying to show that he has a propensity for assaulting people, because you have to specifically prove what he did in this instance, not what he did in prior instances.
Not saying its evidence. But I am saying he was apparently capable of it since there was a precedent. Thats all. Which is the total opposite picture that was being painted last week - that there was NO WAY Brown could have assaulted someone. Well, yes there is. Because he has.
-
Ooops....http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/168698-eyewitness-recalls-important-detail-background-video-mins-ferguson-shooting/ (http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/168698-eyewitness-recalls-important-detail-background-video-mins-ferguson-shooting/)
-
Not saying its evidence. But I am saying he was apparently capable of it since there was a precedent. Thats all. Which is the total opposite picture that was being painted last week - that there was NO WAY Brown could have assaulted someone. Well, yes there is. Because he has.
Yes but that was like 12 minutes before this particular incident took place. You shouldn't hold the man's past against him for that one little strong armed robbery incident. And, Brown is black. The cop that shot him is white. That's all that matters.
-
But he was doing more than just making fun much like most of the media has been doing. He was trying to sway public opinion.
Not sure if that was his intent or not. He literally posted a clip of the mayor claiming that race relations were never an issue, and then proceeds to post clips of previous race relations issues. Swaying public opinion on whether there is a race issue in Ferguson, yes, I can see that, but I don't see him trying to sway public opinion about whether the cops were in the wrong in relation to this specific incident.
Maybe people will interpret it that way, but to quote him from the very beginning of the segment, "there are so many unanswered questions regarding why an officer would shoot an unarmed teenager."
Without that video, the media was going full on with the innocent, little, sweet teenager going out for milk and cookies angle.
Doesn't matter whether he's a sweet little teenager or a mean ass kid. You still go by the facts related to this incident, not other unrelated incidents. A mean ass kid should be afforded the same protections as a sweet little teenager based upon their actions, not based upon their character. Unless, of course, you're suggesting that a straight A student with no criminal record or violent history should be given a free pass when he gets a wild hair and decides to try to steal a cop's gun.
I understand that the media is playing the angel vs. devil game, but in the grand scheme of things, that should not happen, as it does not matter, and both sides do nothing but prematurely sway the opinion of potential jurors.
That makes more sense but then it also makes the video of the robbery relevant to the case. Instead of brushing off - like John Oliver did - it should be a main point of conversation. We now have evidence that his state of mind could have been altered and may have influenced his ability to interact with a police officer making a routine request to not walk in the middle of a roadway. Does his propensity to robbing convenience stores and choking store clerks matter to this case? No. Does the fact that he had just minutes prior committed a crime matter to this case? Definitely.
Look at when and how the police released the video. No one asked for the video of the robbery, and no one was raising questions about Brown's state of mind. John Oliver was spot on: it was released in an attempt to sway public opinion about Brown and the officer's actions in this instance.
Had the police wanted to discuss Brown's state of mind, then that's a question that is for the court to decide. By releasing a video that has nothing to directly do with this incident, they've already tainted (cue the giggles) potential jurors. It should have been left up to a court to determine whether such evidence should be considered in light of this particular incident, but the police took it upon themselves to publish the video for their own purposes. Although Oliver may be incorrect to dismiss it as completely irrelevant, it is actually irrelevant at this point in time, as no court is addressing Brown's state of mind.
-
Not saying its evidence. But I am saying he was apparently capable of it since there was a precedent. Thats all. Which is the total opposite picture that was being painted last week - that there was NO WAY Brown could have assaulted someone. Well, yes there is. Because he has.
Guess I should have actually replied to AUTR, but effectively there were a couple of posts from THS and AUTR which appeared to be asking for clarification on why the robbery could not be used to show a propensity to act in a certain manner, but could be used to show state of mind.
I agree that the media continues to dig into the victim's background to try to show the character of a person, but from a legal perspective, it doesn't matter. And from a practical perspective, it also shouldn't matter. People can scream about thug mentality and how we should just kill them all any time they appear to be in the wrong, but as I've stated before, criminals still have rights. You have to prove that they were guilty of the crime they're charged with; you don't just assume they're guilty based on previous acts. The media does a lot of things wrong, and this is one of them.
And that goes both ways, including assuming that the killer is in the wrong because he is white and the victim is black.
-
The only thing I would like to interject about your informative discussion on court room procedure is this: this won't be a normal case, it will be a use of force case. In general until sentencing prior acts are hard to enter into evidence, but because it's use of force any and all background information can be used if it was known to the officer at the time of the shooting. Use of force is judged using the "totality of circumstances" doctrine. All facts and circumstance as they appear to the officer at the exact second he decides to use force are considered. This means if a cop knows a guy is the meanest sumbitch around, or he knows he's prone to violent action or he knows he just committed X violent crime then that knowledge is legally considered when it comes to use of force. I'm not saying he knows the guy or whatever, but I am clarifying that facts known to officers are absolutely considered in court.
-
The only thing I would like to interject about your informative discussion on court room procedure is this:
Any and all background information can be used if it was known to the officer at the time of the shooting. Use of force is judged using the "totality of circumstances" doctrine. All facts and circumstance as they appear to the officer at the exact second he decides to use force are considered. This means if a cop knows a guy is the meanest sumbitch around, or he knows he's prone to violent action or he knows he just committed X violent crime then that knowledge is legally considered when it comes to use of force. I'm not saying he knows the guy or whatever, but I am clarifying that facts known to officers are absolutely considered in court.
It can come in to show the police officer's state of mind, but it can also still be excluded if its prejudicial effect is greater than its probative value.
For instance, if the officer is merely stating that he knows that the defendant is prone to violent behavior based on his previous convictions, then there is likely going to be an objection, and that objection is likely to be sustained. You can't bring in evidence of a prior act to paint a picture of the defendant's character.
But if the officer is stating that he was aware of the defendant's previous convictions and that this affected his state of mind as to how he approached the defendant, that's generally admissible. However, if there's other evidence which shows that the defendant was never aggressive, never provoked the officer, and was completely compliant with the officer's requests, then the officer will not be allowed to testify as to the prior acts of the defendant. This is because those prior acts would be purely prejudicial, as there's enough other evidence to determine whether the use of force was proper in this particular instance when the defendant was not acting "in accordance" with his perceived character as defined by prior acts.
-
It can come in to show the police officer's state of mind, but it can also still be excluded if its prejudicial effect is greater than its probative value.
For instance, if the officer is merely stating that he knows that the defendant is prone to violent behavior based on his previous convictions, then there is likely going to be an objection, and that objection is likely to be sustained. You can't bring in evidence of a prior act to paint a picture of the defendant's character.
But if the officer is stating that he was aware of the defendant's previous convictions and that this affected his state of mind as to how he approached the defendant, that's generally admissible. However, if there's other evidence which shows that the defendant was never aggressive, never provoked the officer, and was completely compliant with the officer's requests, then the officer will not be allowed to testify as to the prior acts of the defendant. This is because those prior acts would be purely prejudicial, as there's enough other evidence to determine whether the use of force was proper in this particular instance when the defendant was not acting "in accordance" with his perceived character as defined by prior acts.
UofF determination is not the same as a normal trial. In a use of force trial every single fact and circumstance known to the officer at the time is considered. In determining the reasonableness of that officers use of force the officer is, in essence, the defendant. Whether or not the person seized is guilty is immaterial in determining the reasonableness of the officers use of force as long as the officer had probable cause to make the arrest or seizure. Graham v Connor set the standard which has been expanded upon from time to time but not changed. Again, the reasonableness of the use of force has nothing to do with the guilt of the suspect
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=490&invol=386 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=490&invol=386)
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SYNIH-hm_RA
This guy gets caught up in political name calling but makes some decent points
-
UofF determination is not the same as a normal trial.
If the question is being determined by a judicial court, then the rules of evidence apply. There aren't separate rules of evidence for different types of trials. Well, actually, I think 404(a) doesn't apply to civil trials, but 404(b) does apply to civil trials, and because we're talking about a prior act that consists of a crime, 404(b) is the applicable rule of evidence.
The officer's state of mind is certainly one of those exceptions, but again, the court will also have to weigh the evidence's probative value against its prejudicial effect pursuant to rule 403. It's not automatically admissible just because it goes to show the officer's state of mind and what was known when he used excessive force.
In a use of force trial every single fact and circumstance known to the officer at the time is considered. In determining the reasonableness of that officers use of force the officer is, in essence, the defendant. Whether or not the person seized is guilty is immaterial in determining the reasonableness of the officers use of force as long as the officer had probable cause to make the arrest or seizure. Graham v Connor set the standard which has been expanded upon from time to time but not changed. Again, the reasonableness of the use of force has nothing to do with the guilt of the suspect
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=490&invol=386 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=490&invol=386)
I don't see how that case applies to this discussion. The officer witnessed the guy acting suspiciously when he ran out of the store, and so he followed the car after they left and then proceeded to stop the car for investigatory purposes. The fact that the suspect was seen fleeing from the store is not a "prior act;" it is the act for which the officer was conducting the investigative stop.
In fact, no where in the opinion is rule 404 even mentioned, so this was not an evidentiary issue that the court addressed in the opinion you cited.
I can't seem to find a case on point that addresses the officer's knowledge; most of these excessive force claims hinge upon the suspect trying to bring in prior acts of the officer that relate to previous use of excessive force. Regardless, as you can see with the following case, rule 404(b) is still applied to use of force determinations, so your suggestion that a use of force determination is "not the same as a normal trial" is incorrect:
https://casetext.com/case/palmer-v-nassan#.U_LCV6O_6Bc (https://casetext.com/case/palmer-v-nassan#.U_LCV6O_6Bc)
Now, one thing to point out is that these are the federal rules of evidence to which I'm referring. Although most states do follow the federal rules, there can be some variations. I'm not aware of Missouri's specific version of 404(b), but I am assuming it's similar enough that there shouldn't be any difference in how it's applied.
-
The graham case applies because it is the standard upon which all use of force cases are weighed. In that case they did not specifically cite prior knowledge but the court created the "totality of circumstance" doctrine which has been expanded upon nearly every way you can imagine . As you said, I don't know what MO specifically does during those trials, but SCOTUS set that standard for use of force determinations.
From your beloved fletc training
https://www.fletc.gov/training/programs/legal-division/podcasts/hot-issues-podcasts/hot-issues-transcripts/use-of-force-myths-and-realities-part-i-podcast-transcript.html (https://www.fletc.gov/training/programs/legal-division/podcasts/hot-issues-podcasts/hot-issues-transcripts/use-of-force-myths-and-realities-part-i-podcast-transcript.html)
"The court should consider the facts the officer was aware of at the time he or she applied force"
" In Graham the court specifically mentioned things such as the severity of the crime, whether the suspect posed a threat, an immediate threat to the safety of the officer or others, whether the suspect was actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. Those are all important factors to determine reasonableness of Use of Force. There are other factors too. The court will also consider whether the suspect has a known violent history, the physical size, age and condition of the suspect, the type of crime involved; things such as that"
I wasn't trying to apply any of that to this case specifically, with all the conflicting reports none of us know what that officer knew or didn't know when he pressed the trigger, I was just pointing out that in use of force cases, if an officer knows about the suspect's prior acts, it is admissible because it is contained within the "totality". Your argument that the prior acts would be objected to because they might prejudice the jury against the defendant, in this case, don't really fit because he will not be on trial at all, he is deceased.
-
The graham case applies because it is the standard upon which all use of force cases are weighed. In that case they did not specifically cite prior knowledge but the court created the "totality of circumstance" doctrine which has been expanded upon nearly every way you can imagine . As you said, I don't know what MO specifically does during those trials, but SCOTUS set that standard for use of force determinations.
It's certainly something to consider; I'm not arguing with that. However, if you've got a case where there is evidence that the suspect was docile and cooperated with commands, yet the officer used excessive force, you're not going to find a judge that is going to allow the suspect's prior violent acts in as evidence. The suspect's prior violent acts is something that the officer can take into account, yes, and that may affect his state of mind, yes, but it is only one of the many factors that the officer is required to take into account when deciding what amount of force to use.
Otherwise, you're effectively stating that a suspect that is lying on the ground can be shot by an officer simply because he has a violent record and the officer is aware of that record. Again, the suspect's record is only one of the many factors that have to be considered, and the officer is expected to make a use of force determination based on all of the facts and circumstances made known to him.
Your argument that the prior acts would be objected to because they might prejudice the jury against the defendant, in this case, don't really fit because he will not be on trial at all, he is deceased.
Regardless of who is considered the defendant or whether the defendant is alive, rule 404(b) still applies. There is still a legal determination to be made, and the admission of evidence to assist with making that legal determination has to follow the rules of evidence.
*EDIT: Just as a clarification, I think there is a misinterpretation as to what is meant by "prejudicial." It's not that rule 404(b) is meant to protect the reputation of the defendant, and thus that if a defendant is dead, then their reputation is no longer a concern. Rather, it's meant to prevent the jury from considering irrelevant information and becoming prejudiced or biased against one party based on that irrelevant information.
The presented evidence must have some sort of probative value in relation to the question at hand, and can not be submitted solely to show that one party is a "bad person" and likely to be guilty based on prior acts. If the prior acts have probative value, such as establishing the officer's state of mind when he decided to use deadly force, then it can be admissible. But the probative value still has to be weighed against the prejudicial effect pursuant to rule 403. It's not automatically admissible just because it was a fact known to the officer at the time.
-
It's certainly something to consider; I'm not arguing with that. However, if you've got a case where there is evidence that the suspect was docile and cooperated with commands, yet the officer used excessive force, you're not going to find a judge that is going to allow the suspect's prior violent acts in as evidence. The suspect's prior violent acts is something that the officer can take into account, yes, and that may affect his state of mind, yes, but it is only one of the many factors that the officer is required to take into account when deciding what amount of force to use.
Otherwise, you're effectively stating that a suspect that is lying on the ground can be shot by an officer simply because he has a violent record and the officer is aware of that record. Again, the suspect's record is only one of the many factors that have to be considered, and the officer is expected to make a use of force determination based on all of the facts and circumstances made known to him.
Regardless of who is considered the defendant or whether the defendant is alive, rule 404(b) still applies. There is still a legal determination to be made, and the admission of evidence to assist with making that legal determination has to follow the rules of evidence.
The legal determination to be made is whether or not that use of force was legal. Not whether or not the deceased was guilty of a crime. The rules for determining that legal use of force are the ones listed above. SCOTUS took the time out of their busy day to tell the courts exactly how that determination is made and the modern interpretation of that ruling includes all facts known to the officer, historical data included. They are not saying, as you suggested, that all force is justified when the suspect has been previously violent, only that a reasonable officer reacts differently to someone he or she knows is violent. Surely you can see the wisdom in that.
Again, understand that I am not arguing for one side of THIS case or the other. I'm only pointing out the legal standard for ruling on use of force. I don't know who did what in reference to the shooting all I know is too much wrong has been done since.
-
Not sure if that was his intent or not. He literally posted a clip of the mayor claiming that race relations were never an issue, and then proceeds to post clips of previous race relations issues. Swaying public opinion on whether there is a race issue in Ferguson, yes, I can see that, but I don't see him trying to sway public opinion about whether the cops were in the wrong in relation to this specific incident.
Maybe people will interpret it that way, but to quote him from the very beginning of the segment, "there are so many unanswered questions regarding why an officer would shoot an unarmed teenager."
Doesn't matter whether he's a sweet little teenager or a mean ass kid. You still go by the facts related to this incident, not other unrelated incidents. A mean ass kid should be afforded the same protections as a sweet little teenager based upon their actions, not based upon their character. Unless, of course, you're suggesting that a straight A student with no criminal record or violent history should be given a free pass when he gets a wild hair and decides to try to steal a cop's gun.
I understand that the media is playing the angel vs. devil game, but in the grand scheme of things, that should not happen, as it does not matter, and both sides do nothing but prematurely sway the opinion of potential jurors.
Look at when and how the police released the video. No one asked for the video of the robbery, and no one was raising questions about Brown's state of mind. John Oliver was spot on: it was released in an attempt to sway public opinion about Brown and the officer's actions in this instance.
Had the police wanted to discuss Brown's state of mind, then that's a question that is for the court to decide. By releasing a video that has nothing to directly do with this incident, they've already tainted (cue the giggles) potential jurors. It should have been left up to a court to determine whether such evidence should be considered in light of this particular incident, but the police took it upon themselves to publish the video for their own purposes. Although Oliver may be incorrect to dismiss it as completely irrelevant, it is actually irrelevant at this point in time, as no court is addressing Brown's state of mind.
Guess I should have actually replied to AUTR, but effectively there were a couple of posts from THS and AUTR which appeared to be asking for clarification on why the robbery could not be used to show a propensity to act in a certain manner, but could be used to show state of mind.
I agree that the media continues to dig into the victim's background to try to show the character of a person, but from a legal perspective, it doesn't matter. And from a practical perspective, it also shouldn't matter. People can scream about thug mentality and how we should just kill them all any time they appear to be in the wrong, but as I've stated before, criminals still have rights. You have to prove that they were guilty of the crime they're charged with; you don't just assume they're guilty based on previous acts. The media does a lot of things wrong, and this is one of them.
And that goes both ways, including assuming that the killer is in the wrong because he is white and the victim is black.
The only thing I would like to interject about your informative discussion on court room procedure is this: this won't be a normal case, it will be a use of force case. In general until sentencing prior acts are hard to enter into evidence, but because it's use of force any and all background information can be used if it was known to the officer at the time of the shooting. Use of force is judged using the "totality of circumstances" doctrine. All facts and circumstance as they appear to the officer at the exact second he decides to use force are considered. This means if a cop knows a guy is the meanest sumbitch around, or he knows he's prone to violent action or he knows he just committed X violent crime then that knowledge is legally considered when it comes to use of force. I'm not saying he knows the guy or whatever, but I am clarifying that facts known to officers are absolutely considered in court.
It can come in to show the police officer's state of mind, but it can also still be excluded if its prejudicial effect is greater than its probative value.
For instance, if the officer is merely stating that he knows that the defendant is prone to violent behavior based on his previous convictions, then there is likely going to be an objection, and that objection is likely to be sustained. You can't bring in evidence of a prior act to paint a picture of the defendant's character.
But if the officer is stating that he was aware of the defendant's previous convictions and that this affected his state of mind as to how he approached the defendant, that's generally admissible. However, if there's other evidence which shows that the defendant was never aggressive, never provoked the officer, and was completely compliant with the officer's requests, then the officer will not be allowed to testify as to the prior acts of the defendant. This is because those prior acts would be purely prejudicial, as there's enough other evidence to determine whether the use of force was proper in this particular instance when the defendant was not acting "in accordance" with his perceived character as defined by prior acts.
UofF determination is not the same as a normal trial. In a use of force trial every single fact and circumstance known to the officer at the time is considered. In determining the reasonableness of that officers use of force the officer is, in essence, the defendant. Whether or not the person seized is guilty is immaterial in determining the reasonableness of the officers use of force as long as the officer had probable cause to make the arrest or seizure. Graham v Connor set the standard which has been expanded upon from time to time but not changed. Again, the reasonableness of the use of force has nothing to do with the guilt of the suspect
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=490&invol=386 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=490&invol=386)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SYNIH-hm_RA (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SYNIH-hm_RA)
This guy gets caught up in political name calling but makes some decent points
If the question is being determined by a judicial court, then the rules of evidence apply. There aren't separate rules of evidence for different types of trials. Well, actually, I think 404(a) doesn't apply to civil trials, but 404(b) does apply to civil trials, and because we're talking about a prior act that consists of a crime, 404(b) is the applicable rule of evidence.
The officer's state of mind is certainly one of those exceptions, but again, the court will also have to weigh the evidence's probative value against its prejudicial effect pursuant to rule 403. It's not automatically admissible just because it goes to show the officer's state of mind and what was known when he used excessive force.
I don't see how that case applies to this discussion. The officer witnessed the guy acting suspiciously when he ran out of the store, and so he followed the car after they left and then proceeded to stop the car for investigatory purposes. The fact that the suspect was seen fleeing from the store is not a "prior act;" it is the act for which the officer was conducting the investigative stop.
In fact, no where in the opinion is rule 404 even mentioned, so this was not an evidentiary issue that the court addressed in the opinion you cited.
I can't seem to find a case on point that addresses the officer's knowledge; most of these excessive force claims hinge upon the suspect trying to bring in prior acts of the officer that relate to previous use of excessive force. Regardless, as you can see with the following case, rule 404(b) is still applied to use of force determinations, so your suggestion that a use of force determination is "not the same as a normal trial" is incorrect:
https://casetext.com/case/palmer-v-nassan#.U_LCV6O_6Bc (https://casetext.com/case/palmer-v-nassan#.U_LCV6O_6Bc)
Now, one thing to point out is that these are the federal rules of evidence to which I'm referring. Although most states do follow the federal rules, there can be some variations. I'm not aware of Missouri's specific version of 404(b), but I am assuming it's similar enough that there shouldn't be any difference in how it's applied.
The graham case applies because it is the standard upon which all use of force cases are weighed. In that case they did not specifically cite prior knowledge but the court created the "totality of circumstance" doctrine which has been expanded upon nearly every way you can imagine . As you said, I don't know what MO specifically does during those trials, but SCOTUS set that standard for use of force determinations.
From your beloved fletc training
https://www.fletc.gov/training/programs/legal-division/podcasts/hot-issues-podcasts/hot-issues-transcripts/use-of-force-myths-and-realities-part-i-podcast-transcript.html (https://www.fletc.gov/training/programs/legal-division/podcasts/hot-issues-podcasts/hot-issues-transcripts/use-of-force-myths-and-realities-part-i-podcast-transcript.html)
"The court should consider the facts the officer was aware of at the time he or she applied force"
" In Graham the court specifically mentioned things such as the severity of the crime, whether the suspect posed a threat, an immediate threat to the safety of the officer or others, whether the suspect was actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. Those are all important factors to determine reasonableness of Use of Force. There are other factors too. The court will also consider whether the suspect has a known violent history, the physical size, age and condition of the suspect, the type of crime involved; things such as that"
I wasn't trying to apply any of that to this case specifically, with all the conflicting reports none of us know what that officer knew or didn't know when he pressed the trigger, I was just pointing out that in use of force cases, if an officer knows about the suspect's prior acts, it is admissible because it is contained within the "totality". Your argument that the prior acts would be objected to because they might prejudice the jury against the defendant, in this case, don't really fit because he will not be on trial at all, he is deceased.
It's certainly something to consider; I'm not arguing with that. However, if you've got a case where there is evidence that the suspect was docile and cooperated with commands, yet the officer used excessive force, you're not going to find a judge that is going to allow the suspect's prior violent acts in as evidence. The suspect's prior violent acts is something that the officer can take into account, yes, and that may affect his state of mind, yes, but it is only one of the many factors that the officer is required to take into account when deciding what amount of force to use.
Otherwise, you're effectively stating that a suspect that is lying on the ground can be shot by an officer simply because he has a violent record and the officer is aware of that record. Again, the suspect's record is only one of the many factors that have to be considered, and the officer is expected to make a use of force determination based on all of the facts and circumstances made known to him.
Regardless of who is considered the defendant or whether the defendant is alive, rule 404(b) still applies. There is still a legal determination to be made, and the admission of evidence to assist with making that legal determination has to follow the rules of evidence.
*EDIT: Just as a clarification, I think there is a misinterpretation as to what is meant by "prejudicial." It's not that rule 404(b) is meant to protect the reputation of the defendant, and thus that if a defendant is dead, then their reputation is no longer a concern. Rather, it's meant to prevent the jury from considering irrelevant information and becoming prejudiced or biased against one party based on that irrelevant information.
The presented evidence must have some sort of probative value in relation to the question at hand, and can not be submitted solely to show that one party is a "bad person" and likely to be guilty based on prior acts. If the prior acts have probative value, such as establishing the officer's state of mind when he decided to use deadly force, then it can be admissible. But the probative value still has to be weighed against the prejudicial effect pursuant to rule 403. It's not automatically admissible just because it was a fact known to the officer at the time.
The legal determination to be made is whether or not that use of force was legal. Not whether or not the deceased was guilty of a crime. The rules for determining that legal use of force are the ones listed above. SCOTUS took the time out of their busy day to tell the courts exactly how that determination is made and the modern interpretation of that ruling includes all facts known to the officer, historical data included. They are not saying, as you suggested, that all force is justified when the suspect has been previously violent, only that a reasonable officer reacts differently to someone he or she knows is violent. Surely you can see the wisdom in that.
Again, understand that I am not arguing for one side of THIS case or the other. I'm only pointing out the legal standard for ruling on use of force. I don't know who did what in reference to the shooting all I know is too much wrong has been done since.
(http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.607994973668705633&w=300&h=168&c=7&p=0&pid=1.7)
-
Heads up: TL; DR. Apparently you have to make people on this board aware of this, or otherwise they start crying about having to read. Feel free to ignore this if you don't want to read anything lengthy...I'm just partaking in a discussion that you're free to exclude yourself from at any time.
The legal determination to be made is whether or not that use of force was legal. Not whether or not the deceased was guilty of a crime. The rules for determining that legal use of force are the ones listed above. SCOTUS took the time out of their busy day to tell the courts exactly how that determination is made and the modern interpretation of that ruling includes all facts known to the officer, historical data included. They are not saying, as you suggested, that all force is justified when the suspect has been previously violent, only that a reasonable officer reacts differently to someone he or she knows is violent. Surely you can see the wisdom in that.
Yes, I do understand that. But just because a court lists out the factors that an officer can and should consider does not mean that each and every factor he considered will be admitted into evidence.
For instance, let's assume that a police officer approaches a suspect. He's aware that the suspect has a violent history. He tells the suspect to get down on the ground. The suspect does so. He tells the suspect to put his hands behind his head. The suspect does so. The officer then fires a round into the suspect's head, killing him.
The family of the deceased brings, among many other claims, a Section 1983 claim for use of excessive force under federal law. The officer's attorney wants to bring in evidence of the suspect's prior violent acts as evidence.
What is the probative value of this evidence in light of all of the other evidence? Nothing. Although criminal history is one factor that the officer can and should consider, there are other factors, and in light of all of the other factors, the criminal history should not have led the officer to decide to use deadly force. As such, allowing the criminal history as evidence would offer nothing probative, and would only serve to try to prejudice the jury against the suspect.
That is a hyperbolic example, but there would certainly be gray areas in which a judge could reasonably refuse to admit the criminal history as its prejudicial effect would outweigh the probative value in light of all of the other available evidence.
I finally found a case that directly addresses the issue of an officer's knowledge of the suspect's criminal history and how this is treated under rules 404(b) and 403:
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/13d0456p.pdf (http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/13d0456p.pdf)
Defendants respond that Diaz’s history of violence is relevant because in an excessive force case a jury must “consider the Defendants’ subjective state of mind and knowledge at the time of the incident†which includes “all the relevant facts and circumstances that [the defendants] reasonably believed to be true at the time of the encounter."
. . .
To address this motion I must assess: 1) whether Diaz’s past criminal convictions are relevant to his claims against the defendants; 2) whether evidence of Diaz’s past criminal convictions is admissible as probative of the defendants knowledge and state of mind (or for some other purpose not barred by rule 404) on May 14, 2010
. . .
As above, I find that “if the [defendants] were aware of [Diaz’s] prior criminal conduct or discipline while incarcerated . . . and this information formed a basis to evaluate the level of threat posed by [Diaz] (emphasis added by VV), knowledge of such history would be relevant to the inquiry as to whether the force used against [Diaz] was reasonable under the circumstances.†Smith v. City of Phila., 2009 WL 3353148, at *2. Thus I proceed to the next prong of my inquiry.
. . .
As above, the admissibility of a party’s crimes, wrongs or other acts is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 404. Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait. Fed. R. Evid. 404(a).
. . .
However, this evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2). For other acts evidence to be admissible under the exceptions listed in Rule 404(b), (1) the evidence must have a proper purpose; (2) it must be relevant under Rule 401 and 402; (3) its probative value must outweigh its prejudicial effect under Rule 403; and (4) the court must charge the jury to consider the evidence only for the limited purpose for which it was admitted. Ansell v. Green Acres Contracting Co., Inc., 347 F.3d 515, 520 (3d Cir. 2003).
. . .
In order to determine whether defendants had knowledge of these convictions prior to the incident and whether this knowledge informed their actions on that day (emphasis added by VV), I will again look to the deposition testimony submitted by defendants.
Several things to note about this case:
1.) The court walks through the 404(b) and 403 rules just as I've stated they should. Just because it has been stated that an officer can and should take into consideration the history of the suspect/defendant, it does not mean that this history will automatically be admitted into evidence. The rules of evidence have to be followed.
2.) The officers did not know the exact nature of the convictions for which the alleged victim was serving time, and thus the court found that those convictions could not have affected the officers' state of mind in determining the amount of force to use. I point this out because, unfortunately, this resulted in the court not advancing to the third prong of its test, which was to evaluate the probative value of the evidence in comparison to its prejudicial effect, as required by rule 403. As such, I still don't have a clear example of a court addressing this prong, but at least it is clear that this still has to be considered in use of force determinations. Again, the victim's history is not just automatically admitted simply because the officer was aware of it.
3.) As is stated by the court, the criminal history must be used as a basis to evaluate the level of threat posed by the alleged victim. Similarly, the court stated that, in order to determine the admissibility of the officer's knowledge of prior acts, it must make a determination as to whether that knowledge informed the officers' actions. As is seen with my example above, there are instances in which the criminal history of the alleged victim, although known by the officer, should not play a part in evaluating the level of threat or otherwise informing the officers' actions. In those instances, the criminal history should not be introduced as evidence, as it would be introduced solely to prejudice the jury against the alleged victim.
Again, understand that I am not arguing for one side of THIS case or the other. I'm only pointing out the legal standard for ruling on use of force. I don't know who did what in reference to the shooting all I know is too much wrong has been done since.
Same here. Not claiming to know what did or didn't occur in this instance, but instead am just trying to point out how rules 404 and 403 play into whether his criminal history is admitted. It's not as simple as stating that the officer knew of the criminal history, and thus it's admissible. You must show that the knowledge was used to evaluate the level of the threat and how to respond. If there is other evidence that shows that the criminal history is irrelevant (such as the fact that the victim cooperated and never posed a threat), then the criminal history is prejudicial, not probative, and can't be admitted.
-
Jesus in a baby carriage.
Ya'll nattering fucks make me want to riot. I'm not reading any of that ridiculous shit.
-
Jesus in a baby carriage.
Ya'll nattering fucks make me want to riot. I'm not reading any of that ridiculous shit.
While we're rioting, lets meet at Best Buy and do some looting...gonna get one of 'em Big Ass TVs.
-
Heads up: TL; DR. Apparently you have to make people on this board aware of this, or otherwise they start crying about having to read. Feel free to ignore this if you don't want to read anything lengthy...I'm just partaking in a discussion that you're free to exclude yourself from at any time.
Yes, I do understand that. But just because a court lists out the factors that an officer can and should consider does not mean that each and every factor he considered will be admitted into evidence.
For instance, let's assume that a police officer approaches a suspect. He's aware that the suspect has a violent history. He tells the suspect to get down on the ground. The suspect does so. He tells the suspect to put his hands behind his head. The suspect does so. The officer then fires a round into the suspect's head, killing him.
The family of the deceased brings, among many other claims, a Section 1983 claim for use of excessive force under federal law. The officer's attorney wants to bring in evidence of the suspect's prior violent acts as evidence.
What is the probative value of this evidence in light of all of the other evidence? Nothing. Although criminal history is one factor that the officer can and should consider, there are other factors, and in light of all of the other factors, the criminal history should not have led the officer to decide to use deadly force. As such, allowing the criminal history as evidence would offer nothing probative, and would only serve to try to prejudice the jury against the suspect.
That is a hyperbolic example, but there would certainly be gray areas in which a judge could reasonably refuse to admit the criminal history as its prejudicial effect would outweigh the probative value in light of all of the other available evidence.
I finally found a case that directly addresses the issue of an officer's knowledge of the suspect's criminal history and how this is treated under rules 404(b) and 403:
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/13d0456p.pdf (http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/13d0456p.pdf)
Several things to note about this case:
1.) The court walks through the 404(b) and 403 rules just as I've stated they should. Just because it has been stated that an officer can and should take into consideration the history of the suspect/defendant, it does not mean that this history will automatically be admitted into evidence. The rules of evidence have to be followed.
2.) The officers did not know the exact nature of the convictions for which the alleged victim was serving time, and thus the court found that those convictions could not have affected the officers' state of mind in determining the amount of force to use. I point this out because, unfortunately, this resulted in the court not advancing to the third prong of its test, which was to evaluate the probative value of the evidence in comparison to its prejudicial effect, as required by rule 403. As such, I still don't have a clear example of a court addressing this prong, but at least it is clear that this still has to be considered in use of force determinations. Again, the victim's history is not just automatically admitted simply because the officer was aware of it.
3.) As is stated by the court, the criminal history must be used as a basis to evaluate the level of threat posed by the alleged victim. Similarly, the court stated that, in order to determine the admissibility of the officer's knowledge of prior acts, it must make a determination as to whether that knowledge informed the officers' actions. As is seen with my example above, there are instances in which the criminal history of the alleged victim, although known by the officer, should not play a part in evaluating the level of threat or otherwise informing the officers' actions. In those instances, the criminal history should not be introduced as evidence, as it would be introduced solely to prejudice the jury against the alleged victim.
Same here. Not claiming to know what did or didn't occur in this instance, but instead am just trying to point out how rules 404 and 403 play into whether his criminal history is admitted. It's not as simple as stating that the officer knew of the criminal history, and thus it's admissible. You must show that the knowledge was used to evaluate the level of the threat and how to respond. If there is other evidence that shows that the criminal history is irrelevant (such as the fact that the victim cooperated and never posed a threat), then the criminal history is prejudicial, not probative, and can't be admitted.
(https://ec.yimg.com/ec?url=http%3a%2f%2fimg.photobucket.com%2falbums%2fv227%2fofpamesani%2fgifs%2fBloodsport-VanDamnBlindScream.gif&t=1408441780&sig=BMQLowl.rJOfpEQ_2f.Kdw--~B)
-
pissing contest...I sees one. :facepalm:
-
Unless I'm misunderstanding (and I might be, I cant read them words good) we don't actually disagree. You're deliberately misconstruing what I said somewhat, and your hyperbolic example is so absurd as to be offensive but the meat of it is there.
If we do disagree I would appreciate it if you notify FLETC as well as all other schools and training academies.
-
Unless I'm misunderstanding (and I might be, I cant read them words good) we don't actually disagree. You're deliberately misconstruing what I said somewhat, and your hyperbolic example is so absurd as to be offensive but the meat of it is there.
If we do disagree I would appreciate it if you notify FLETC as well as all other schools and training academies.
He's OUR VV and he's FABULOUS!
Good to see you are picking up on the format.
-
I just skimmed through most of this, but it sounds like smooth is out lawyering the lawyer...
-
I just skimmed through most of this, but it sounds like smooth is out lawyering the lawyer...
Hmmmm
I take it Smooth is involved in these situations (criminal offenses) as a LEO.
Doesnt VV do Tax Law? :poke:
-
Irrelevant:
(http://www.ru-screwd.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/my-bad.gif)
-
Irrelevant:
Yep, it is.
http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/19/mike-brown-being-misidentified-on-social-media/14273807/ (http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/19/mike-brown-being-misidentified-on-social-media/14273807/)
Mike Brown being misidentified on social media
-
Heads up: TL; DR.
That is a hyperbolic example, but there would certainly be gray areas in which a judge could reasonably refuse to admit the criminal history as its prejudicial effect would outweigh the probative value in light of all of the other available evidence.
Heads up; I would need to be in a hyperbolic chamber to read all of this horseshit. The dude got shot because he bum rushed a policeman.
-
Yep, it is.
http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/19/mike-brown-being-misidentified-on-social-media/14273807/ (http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/19/mike-brown-being-misidentified-on-social-media/14273807/)
There is a joke here, I'm certain. I just can't tell it apart from all the other jokes.
-
There is a joke here, I'm certain. I just can't tell it apart from all the other jokes.
So you're saying all jokes look the same to you?
-
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/breaking-report-po-darren-wilson-suffered-orbital-blowout-fracture-to-eye-socket-during-encounter-with-mike-brown/ (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/breaking-report-po-darren-wilson-suffered-orbital-blowout-fracture-to-eye-socket-during-encounter-with-mike-brown/)
BREAKING REPORT: Officer Darren Wilson Suffered “Orbital Blowout Fracture to Eye Socket†During Mike Brown Attack
-
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/breaking-report-po-darren-wilson-suffered-orbital-blowout-fracture-to-eye-socket-during-encounter-with-mike-brown/ (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/breaking-report-po-darren-wilson-suffered-orbital-blowout-fracture-to-eye-socket-during-encounter-with-mike-brown/)
Its actually a pretty common injury that occurs when shooting unarmed black kids in the back 100 yards away.
-
Unless I'm misunderstanding (and I might be, I cant read them words good) we don't actually disagree. You're deliberately misconstruing what I said somewhat, and your hyperbolic example is so absurd as to be offensive but the meat of it is there.
We may be misunderstanding each other. The hyperbolic example was to try to clear that up, not to state that the example was realistic (hence my use of the term hyperbolic). And the example wasn't meant to be representative of what I thought your stance to be. Rather, I was trying to show you a clear situation in which it would be more prejudicial than probative to admit into evidence the victim's history, despite the fact that it could have been considered by the officer.
As I understood you, you were claiming that the history of the victim would always be admissible in a use of force determination because it's "not a normal trial," and because the courts have previously stated that the victim's history is something that the cop is supposed to consider.
If so, that's not the case. The court still has to determine whether what the cop considered will have a prejudicial effect, and whether that effect is greater than its probative value. That determination is often made in light of all of the evidence, so the victim's history is not always going to make it into evidence.
If we do disagree I would appreciate it if you notify FLETC as well as all other schools and training academies.
FLETC and the schools and academies are irrelevant here. I'm not telling you that the cops are not supposed to consider the victim's history when approaching. In fact, I've stated multiple times that a cop can and should consider that.
However, what we've been discussing since your first post is whether all of the cop's considerations are admissible in a court of law:
The only thing I would like to interject about your informative discussion on court room procedure . . .
I was just pointing out that in use of force cases, if an officer knows about the suspect's prior acts, it is admissible because it is contained within the "totality". Your argument that the prior acts would be objected to because they might prejudice the jury against the defendant, in this case, don't really fit because he will not be on trial at all, he is deceased.
-
Its actually a pretty common injury that occurs when shooting unarmed black kids in the back 100 yards away.
100 yards? I heard it was 150 yards with a snub nosed .38.
-
100 yards? I heard it was 150 yards with a snub nosed .38.
While he was fleeing the menacing cop I'm sure. Ya know, right after leaving grandma's.
-
We may be misunderstanding each other. The hyperbolic example was to try to clear that up, not to state that the example was realistic (hence my use of the term hyperbolic).
As I understood you, you were claiming that the history of the victim would always be admissible in a use of force determination because it's "not a normal trial," and because the courts have previously stated that the victim's history is something that the cop is supposed to consider.
If so, that's not the case. The court still has to determine whether what the cop considered will have a prejudicial effect, and whether that effect is greater than its probative value. That determination is often made in light of all of the evidence, so the victim's history is not always going to make it into evidence.
FLETC and the schools and academies are irrelevant here. I'm not telling you that the cops are not supposed to consider the victim's history when approaching. In fact, I've stated multiple times that a cop can and should consider that.
However, what we've been discussing since your first post is whether all of the cop's considerations are admissible in a court of law:
uh oh.... :popcorn:
You gonna take that Smooth? This little transgenered hobbit just called you irrelevant.
:pot:
-
The more that I see this stupid shit on TV and the more that comes out re: the officer's injury, eyewitness accounts, etc. the more : 1. of a dumbass I feel like for even considering that the initial news reports focusing on the innocent and unarmed black youngster, while he begged for his life-- could be credible.
2. realize that there are more sorry ass, stupid, low life people in the U.S. that just want an opportunity to get something for nothing, by any means necessary. Even at the expense of an event that should be saddening.
3. that I realize that everything is political.
4. that I can confirm that we have the worst president and leadership in this country in my lifetime.
5. that I believe that, yes, there likely is profiling and/or police brutality in the U.S. BUT the people that want to bring attention to it have used two of the worst possible examples to rally around in Trayvon and Brown.
6. that I need to put serious consideration into having a plan b re: my chosen country in which to live.
-
Sigh. Fine.
We don't agree. Graham's "totality" standard is the standard for determining the reasonableness of a use of force. If you find a judge unwilling to consider the "totality" then you find a trial judge not following the standard set by SCOTUS. Not to say I wouldn't be surprised.
-
Sigh. Fine.
We don't agree. Graham's "totality" standard is the standard for determining the reasonableness of a use of force. If you find a judge unwilling to consider the "totality" then you find a trial judge not following the standard set by SCOTUS. Not to say I wouldn't be surprised.
You seem smart, for a copper.
-
You seem smart, for a copper.
I'm definitely not, but situations like this make me consider not being a copper as well, so it makes sense.
Perhaps I will be neither.
-
I'm definitely not, but situations like this make me consider not being a copper as well, so it makes sense.
Perhaps I will be neither.
If you want to go underground and do the vigilante thing in a black van with tinted windows, I will drive. We could call it the A team. Or, B team. Whichever you want. I just want to shoot some fuckers.
-
The more that I see this stupid shit on TV and the more that comes out re: the officer's injury, eyewitness accounts, etc. the more : 1. of a dumbass I feel like for even considering that the initial news reports focusing on the innocent and unarmed black youngster, while he begged for his life-- could be credible.
2. realize that there are more sorry ass, stupid, low life people in the U.S. that just want an opportunity to get something for nothing, by any means necessary. Even at the expense of an event that should be saddening.
3. that I realize that everything is political.
4. that I can confirm that we have the worst president and leadership in this country in my lifetime.
5. that I believe that, yes, there likely is profiling and/or police brutality in the U.S. BUT the people that want to bring attention to it have used two of the worst possible examples to rally around in Trayvon and Brown.
6. that I need to put serious consideration into having a plan b re: my chosen country in which to live.
My sister was telling me yesterday that she's looking at property in St. Croix and has interviewed for a position there and is just waiting for a call back. I wuh all like, WTH??? She said, this country has gone insane. I want out.
-
If you want to go underground and do the vigilante thing in a black van with tinted windows, I will drive. We could call it the A team. Or, B team. Whichever you want. I just want to shoot some fuckers.
You would definitely be on the B Team.
-
My sister was telling me yesterday that she's looking at property in St. Croix and has interviewed for a position there and is just waiting for a call back. I wuh all like, WTH??? She said, this country has gone insane. I want out.
If the Scots vote to tell England to fuck off once and for all in a couple of weeks, it may not be the worst option. Aside from all the rain and fog and shit.
-
My sister was telling me yesterday that she's looking at property in St. Croix and has interviewed for a position there and is just waiting for a call back. I wuh all like, WTH??? She said, this country has gone insane. I want out.
http://www.belize.com/ (http://www.belize.com/)
Rather tempting.
-
If you want to go underground and do the vigilante thing in a black van with tinted windows, I will drive. We could call it the A team. Or, B team. Whichever you want. I just want to shoot some fuckers.
(http://www.theworldsbestever.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/midget-a-team.jpg)
-
(http://www.theworldsbestever.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/midget-a-team.jpg)
That's the M-Team
-
If the Scots vote to tell England to fuck off once and for all in a couple of weeks, it may not be the worst option. Aside from all the rain and fog and shit.
Are you kidding? They will be damn near bankrupt in 10 years. Those people are a helluva lot more fun to be around, but they have never successfully governed themselves. Now is a bad time to start.
-
If the Scots vote to tell England to fuck off once and for all in a couple of weeks, it may not be the worst option. Aside from all the rain and fog and shit.
And cold. Don't forget the cold.
-
Are you kidding? They will be damn near bankrupt in 10 years. Those people are a helluva lot more fun to be around, but they have never successfully governed themselves. Now is a bad time to start.
Lot of propaganda out there about it....
Their revenues created far exceed their expenses out the door. The country they are trying to get away from however is the exact opposite. Why is it do you think England is adamantly opposed to it? They will be fine.
But yea, rain and cold. It would be an adjustment. Lots of people gonna be considering these places in general soon though.
-
Lot of propaganda out there about it....
Their revenues created far exceed their expenses out the door. The country they are trying to get away from however is the exact opposite. Why is it do you think England is adamantly opposed to it? They will be fine.
But yea, rain and cold. It would be an adjustment. Lots of people gonna be considering these places in general soon though.
Sounds like a good place to increase my drinking.
-
Smooth, I think you deserve a slap on the back.
-
I just read this entire thread. Have you gone berserk? Can't you see that man is a ni...
-
I just read this entire thread. Have you gone berserk? Can't you see that man is a ni...
He's near!
-
I just read this entire thread. Have you gone berserk? Can't you see that man is a ni...
What'd he say?
-
http://youtu.be/B092acMImJE (http://youtu.be/B092acMImJE)
-
We don't agree. Graham's "totality" standard is the standard for determining the reasonableness of a use of force. If you find a judge unwilling to consider the "totality" then you find a trial judge not following the standard set by SCOTUS. Not to say I wouldn't be surprised.
The SCOTUS opinion you cited has nothing to do with the rules of evidence, as I've already stated. It addressed whether reasonable cause existed to use excessive force. The court only addressed the fact that the victim's history could create reasonable cause, but the issue was not raised as to whether the victim's history is admissible. So Graham is, as I've already stated, not applicable to this discussion.
Furthermore, just because evidence exists doesn't mean that it's admissible. A piece of evidence can be part of the "totality" of the situation, but that doesn't mean it's automatically admissible. So while a court has agreed that a cop can and should take into account a victim's history when determining what amount of force to use, and while the victim's history may be viewed as a piece of evidence, not all evidence is admissible. That basic premise does not violate the decision in Graham, nor does it violate any SCOTUS opinion. I've already cited to case law which shows that the victim's history still has to go through the 404(b) and 403 tests, even in use of force determinations.
If what you're claiming were true, then the court would not have gone through those tests. The court would have just said, "According to Graham, the victim's history is part of the 'totality' of the facts and circumstances that the officer has to consider, and thus it's automatically admissible because we are forced to review the 'totality,' as we can not exclude any part of the 'totality.'" Yet they didn't do that, and instead proceeded to walk through the 404(b) and 403 tests...not sure what more you want in order to prove that the rules of evidence still have to be followed, and that those rules of evidence do prohibit admitting the victim's history in some circumstances.
-
(http://www.theworldsbestever.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/midget-a-team.jpg)
Wes and I don't appreciate you posting pictures of us.
-
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/ferguson-police-fail-attempt-smear-michael-brown-exposed/#mc0TW0dWEG1L7E7G.99 (http://thefreethoughtproject.com/ferguson-police-fail-attempt-smear-michael-brown-exposed/#mc0TW0dWEG1L7E7G.99)
So, the police officer wasn't responding to the dispatcher giving him the description of the robbery suspect or suspects (like was stated at some point in the police's spider web story) and the video wasn't seen until a few days later...hmmmm
-
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/ferguson-police-fail-attempt-smear-michael-brown-exposed/#mc0TW0dWEG1L7E7G.99 (http://thefreethoughtproject.com/ferguson-police-fail-attempt-smear-michael-brown-exposed/#mc0TW0dWEG1L7E7G.99)
So, the police officer wasn't responding to the dispatcher giving him the description of the robbery suspect or suspects (like was stated at some point in the police's spider web story) and the video wasn't seen until a few days later...hmmmm
Dats right...fuck da man!
-
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/ferguson-police-fail-attempt-smear-michael-brown-exposed/#mc0TW0dWEG1L7E7G.99 (http://thefreethoughtproject.com/ferguson-police-fail-attempt-smear-michael-brown-exposed/#mc0TW0dWEG1L7E7G.99)
So, the police officer wasn't responding to the dispatcher giving him the description of the robbery suspect or suspects (like was stated at some point in the police's spider web story) and the video wasn't seen until a few days later...hmmmm
The county hasn't released its autopsy report yet, but the autopsy report performed by a private party at the request of the family has been released. According to that report, no gun powder residue was found on the body, suggesting that the shots were not fired within close range. However, the report also indicates that the clothes were not tested for gun powder residue in that autopsy, probably because the county only allowed the doctor to view the body.
I still have no idea which "side" is correct in this case, but the facts that continue to come out seem to contradict both stories. It'll be interesting to see what picture the total body of evidence paints.
-
The county hasn't released its autopsy report yet, but the autopsy report performed by a private party at the request of the family has been released. According to that report, no gun powder residue was found on the body, suggesting that the shots were not fired within close range. However, the report also indicates that the clothes were not tested for gun powder residue in that autopsy, probably because the county only allowed the doctor to view the body.
I still have no idea which "side" is correct in this case, but the facts that continue to come out seem to contradict both stories. It'll be interesting to see what picture the total body of evidence paints.
"And to conclude the investigation, it turns out that Mike Brown was killed by a bow and arrow shot by a boy across the street. Darren Wilson does not exist, and Ferguson is not even a city in the United States."
-
"And to conclude the investigation, it turns out that Mike Brown was killed by a bow and arrow shot by a boy across the street. Darren Wilson does not exist, and Ferguson is not even a city in the United States."
(http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/twilight-zone.jpg)
-
And cold. Don't forget the cold.
That's why God Almighty put the best whisky there.
-
"And to conclude the investigation, it turns out that Mike Brown was killed by a bow and arrow shot by a boy across the street. Darren Wilson does not exist, and Ferguson is not even a city in the United States."
"...and Mike Brown had Marijuana in his system (regardless of the fact that it can stay in the system for up to 2 1/2 months after initial use)...which made him go crazy, see "Reefer Madness" to further understand the effects of Marjiuana."
-
"...and Mike Brown had Marijuana in his system (regardless of the fact that it can stay in the system for up to 2 1/2 months after initial use)...which made him go crazy, see "Reefer Madness" to further understand the effects of Marjiuana."
Reefer Madness will make you kill a guy with a trident.
-
Reefer Madness will make you kill a guy with a trident.
See?!?!? Just watching someone smoke Marjiuana will make you want to kill...Thank goodness it's still a Schedule 1 drug, regardless of the fact that it has many medicinal purposes to help the citizens in need and the war on drugs continues to be an extremely costly ($4.5 BILLION since 1996 in equipment alone to local & State Police) mistake that literally ruins lives and families.
-
The county hasn't released its autopsy report yet, but the autopsy report performed by a private party at the request of the family has been released. According to that report, no gun powder residue was found on the body, suggesting that the shots were not fired within close range. However, the report also indicates that the clothes were not tested for gun powder residue in that autopsy, probably because the county only allowed the doctor to view the body.
I still have no idea which "side" is correct in this case, but the facts that continue to come out seem to contradict both stories. It'll be interesting to see what picture the total body of evidence paints.
Not close...point blank. Close is relative and subjective. Just sayin.
Not "close" doesnt mean 150 yards away either.
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10614144_760241384043020_5748916275404128962_n.jpg?oh=fba9002b093dcfda1d1eb8ffe7b0d28d&oe=54660302&__gda__=1416536936_5a5e4b1f8b6ffac21b270c56447fcedb)
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10614144_760241384043020_5748916275404128962_n.jpg?oh=fba9002b093dcfda1d1eb8ffe7b0d28d&oe=54660302&__gda__=1416536936_5a5e4b1f8b6ffac21b270c56447fcedb)
Can Auburn win right away this year?
-
pretty sure that pic ^ was debunked, but it is indeed true that stories, facts, photographs and quotes are usually picked to generate controversy (and the corresponding views/hits/ratings/$) rather than convey the truth of a situation. I find that intensely frustrating, particularly when that practice leads to further loss.
-
pretty sure that pic ^ was debunked, but it is indeed true that stories, facts, photographs and quotes are usually picked to generate controversy (and the corresponding views/hits/ratings/$) rather than convey the truth of a situation. I find that intensely frustrating, particularly when that practice leads to further loss.
I've never read anything where I didn't understand a single syllable of what I just read.
Congratulations on letting me check another item off my bucket list.
-
I've never read anything where I didn't understand a single syllable of what I just read.
Congratulations on letting me check another item off my bucket list.
Ever read the first half of the sound and the fury?
Sorry for the confusing post. Should I go back and edit it so it is more easily understood or leave it, as a monument to confusion and chaos... Kaos?
-
I've never read anything where I didn't understand a single syllable of what I just read.
Congratulations on letting me check another item off my bucket list.
(http://www.clipartbest.com/cliparts/KTj/dXq/KTjdXqbTq.png)
Irrelevant:
Yep, it is.
http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/19/mike-brown-being-misidentified-on-social-media/14273807/ (http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/19/mike-brown-being-misidentified-on-social-media/14273807/)
Mike Brown being misidentified on social media
-
Not close...point blank. Close is relative and subjective. Just sayin.
Not "close" doesnt mean 150 yards away either.
I have no clue if the autopsy report used the term "close range;" that was my word choice. And I doubt the autopsy report would speculate as to how close the shots were fired, as that's something I assume a ballistics expert would determine. I'm just going by what an article said in relation to there being no gun powder residue on the body. Gun powder residue would be present if the weapon were fired "close" to the person. How close? I don't know, but if the officer is claiming that it was "point blank" range, then I would imagine gun powder residue should be there.
But, at this point in time, we also don't know whether there was any residue on the clothes, so that's something else to consider.
-
Ever read the first half of the sound and the fury?
Sorry for the confusing post. Should I go back and edit it so it is more easily understood or leave it, as a monument to confusion and chaos... Kaos?
Leave it. It's beautifully written, I just didn't understand a word of it, Chizad's big red arrow notwithstanding.
-
(http://www.theworldsbestever.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/midget-a-team.jpg)
That's the M-Team a-Team
fixt
-
I have no clue if the autopsy report used the term "close range;" that was my word choice. And I doubt the autopsy report would speculate as to how close the shots were fired, as that's something I assume a ballistics expert would determine. I'm just going by what an article said in relation to there being no gun powder residue on the body. Gun powder residue would be present if the weapon were fired "close" to the person. How close? I don't know, but if the officer is claiming that it was "point blank" range, then I would imagine gun powder residue should be there.
But, at this point in time, we also don't know whether there was any residue on the clothes, so that's something else to consider.
Depth perception is a bit skewed when one of your effing eyeballs is pushed back into your effing skull!
-
FYI: If I am doing my job and have not physically assaulted anyone and they break my eye socket; and I have a gun on me, I can assure you that I will shoot as many bullets as I have in the gun in the general vicinity of said person. I don't care if it's someone one here, someone who is black, white, cablanasian or Peruvian. If I am conscious, my bullets are coming your way. And they will be toward your ass, if you are running.
Carry on.
-
FYI: If I am doing my job and have not physically assaulted anyone and they break my eye socket; and I have a gun on me, I can assure you that I will shoot as many bullets as I have in the gun in the general vicinity of said person. I don't care if it's someone one here, someone who is black, white, cablanasian or Peruvian. If I am conscious, my bullets are coming your way. And they will be toward your ass, if you are running.
Carry on.
Doesn't look too beat up to me as he casually strolls around Mike Brown's dead body.
http://youtu.be/1F-ba5KwP_A (http://youtu.be/1F-ba5KwP_A)
I still maintain that this case is one cluster-fuck of bad on top of bad on top of bad. Brown himself, the officer, the police precinct as a whole, the community's response, the government. The cover-ups, the overreach, the convoluted ever-shifting alibis on both sides.
Plenty of disgust to be spread around.
-
Yeah, I saw this. When she said that it looked like the officer was trying to pull Brown into the car and that from her point of view she couldn't tell exactly what was going on , I pretty much discredited everything else she had to say.
She couldn't tell exactly what was going on but she thought that the officer was trying to pull a 300 pound man into the police car. o.k., right.
I don't disagree that most everything was handled poorly but I definitely don't see Brown for the mistreated victim that is portrayed.
All I'm saying is that if Brown truly did try to get the officer's gun and break his eye socket--then all bets are off as far as I'm concerned. I really don't care what the officer did after that, whether it's legal or not. I just hope he doesn't go to prison.
-
Doesn't look too beat up to me as he casually strolls around Mike Brown's dead body.
http://youtu.be/1F-ba5KwP_A (http://youtu.be/1F-ba5KwP_A)
I still maintain that this case is one cluster-fudge of bad on top of bad on top of bad. Brown himself, the officer, the police precinct as a whole, the community's response, the government. The cover-ups, the overreach, the convoluted ever-shifting alibis on both sides. The incredible media whoring that generates controversy for money rather than uniting the country in search of truth and understanding.
Plenty of disgust to be spread around.
FIFY
-
FIFY
Yup. Forgot that one.
-
Depth perception is a bit skewed when one of your effing eyeballs is pushed back into your effing skull!
If you're claiming to have shot the guy while he's on top of you, I don't think you need your sight to know he's on top of you.
Keep in mind that I'm not stating that Brown was in the right, or that the witnesses' stories that support Brown are correct. I'm merely pointing out that the evidence that comes out keeps contradicting both stories to some degree.
And again, there's always the chance that the clothing has gun powder residue.
I think it's still too early in the investigation to adamantly support either side.
-
Depth perception is a bit skewed when one of your effing eyeballs is pushed back into your effing skull!
From that video, the police officer didn't look to be in any sort of pain and I've yet to see a video of him being looked at by any EMTs. You'd think if someone had a fractured bone, that there would be some sort of pain or blood...something, definitely not just casually walking around.
-
If you're claiming to have shot the guy while he's on top of you, I don't think you need your sight to know he's on top of you.
Keep in mind that I'm not stating that Brown was in the right, or that the witnesses' stories that support Brown are correct. I'm merely pointing out that the evidence that comes out keeps contradicting both stories to some degree.
And again, there's always the chance that the clothing has gun powder residue.
I think it's still too early in the investigation to adamantly support either side.
If I'm right, the autopsy report stated that he was shot in the arm four times, and in the head twice. so why would there be any gun powder residue on his clothes. If there was going to be gun powder, it would be on the skin.
-
From that video, the police officer didn't look to be in any sort of pain and I've yet to see a video of him being looked at by any EMTs. You'd think if someone had a fractured bone, that there would be some sort of pain or blood...something, definitely not just casually walking around.
The pain, in theory, yes, until you factor in the physiological changes survival stress puts on you and the different effects. Multiple, multiple accounts of people not knowing they had been shot, stabbed ect...
As far as the blood probably not enough to be visible from a grainy cell camera unless it was a compound fracture.
If you'll pardon the expression I still haven't seen a smoking gun one way or another I'm just tired of it tearing the country apart. The outdoor forum I visit is horrifying. I'm depressed at how quickly people use situations such as this to descend into hatred and violence.
-
If I'm right, the autopsy report stated that he was shot in the arm four times, and in the head twice. so why would there be any gun powder residue on his clothes. If there was going to be gun powder, it would be on the skin.
Those were my thoughts as well. As close as the officer is claiming that Brown was, and the fact that he claims he shot him while in the car with him, there should be gun powder residue on the skin. Not sure why there isn't, unless the officer's story isn't completely true.
But if there does happen to be gun powder residue on the clothes, then that would corroborate the officer's story, although it would still be confusing as to how none got on the skin when the wounds were all on exposed areas and the shots were (allegedly) fired at such close range.
-
Those were my thoughts as well. As close as the officer is claiming that Brown was, and the fact that he claims he shot him while in the car with him, there should be gun powder residue on the skin. Not sure why there isn't, unless the officer's story isn't completely true.
But if there does happen to be gun powder residue on the clothes, then that would corroborate the officer's story, although it would still be confusing as to how none got on the skin when the wounds were all on exposed areas and the shots were (allegedly) fired at such close range.
Maybe they didn't see it on his skin because it was black powder?
-
Maybe they didn't see it on his skin because it was black powder?
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_agKZ9_h4HGA/TDepOwE6kOI/AAAAAAAAAUQ/NlmDAqiB6Dc/s400/2465_black_guy.jpg)
-
All I know is if the verdict is "not guilty", there's going to be a lot of violence...probably more than the initial riots.
-
All I know is if the verdict is "not guilty", there's going to be a lot of violence...probably more than the initial riots.
There won't be one hair extension store will be safe.
-
All I know is if the verdict is "not guilty", there's going to be a lot of violence...probably more than the initial riots.
Good. It will further confirm the left's constituents as idiots.
The minorities in this country have taken a step backwards since their great messiah has taken office, and few of them can see it. The party of equality continues to keep everyone in their place while making them think there is progress. I would laugh except it is dangerously sad.
-
All I know is if the verdict is "not guilty", there's going to be a lot of violence...probably more than the initial riots.
Well then obviously, they need to find him guilty...facts be damned...
-
Meanwhile a few miles away in St. Louis.
http://youtu.be/j-P54MZVxMU (http://youtu.be/j-P54MZVxMU)
-
Seems like the cops in that video followed protocol. Responded to a situation. A man brandishing a knife comes towards them. They give him multiple warnings to drop the weapon and hold his position. He gets too close and blam, blam. He's dead.
-
Seems like the cops in that video followed protocol. Responded to a situation. A man brandishing a knife comes towards them. They give him multiple warnings to drop the weapon and hold his position. He gets too close and blam, blam. He's dead.
White cop, black suspect Victim.
Racism.
-
Seems like the cops in that video followed protocol. Responded to a situation. A man brandishing a knife comes towards them. They give him multiple warnings to drop the weapon and hold his position. He gets too close and blam, blam. He's dead.
THIS ^^
Now - what if something similar happened in Ferguson? I think its very possible. No video so impossible to know for sure but just saying that COULD have happened. He also literally invited them to shoot him while being very threatening to the cops.
Notice the picture that is immediately painted by the bystander? "Man dey done shot dat dude over a honey bun and soda...that aint rite. Dey should have just let him have it."
Right...thats exactly why he got shot. He dug his own grave on this one...literally.
-
THIS ^^
Now - what if something similar happened in Ferguson? I think its very possible. No video so impossible to know for sure but just saying that COULD have happened. He also literally invited them to shoot him while being very threatening to the cops.
Notice the picture that is immediately painted by the bystander? "Man dey done shot dat dude over a honey bun and soda...that aint rite. Dey should have just let him have it."
Right...thats exactly why he got shot. He dug his own grave on this one...literally.
Not to mention criticizing the officers for cuffing him. Don't care if he's dead or appears to be dead. He gets an extra heartbeat or two and that's enough for an officer or an innocent civilian to die.
-
Meh...Not excusing the behavior of this guy at all. He was certainly asking for it.
But the officers said he had a knife in an overhand position drawn to attack. I can't see a knife at all in the video. Not saying he doesn't have one, but it wasn't drawn like they described.
Also, they said he was charging at them from 3-4 feet, which would have been legal to use lethal force at that point. He was never closer than like 10 feet from them.
So (surprise) they lied to make it look better on them.
Were they on edge because of the shit that went down in Ferguson? Probably. Was this dude clearly being confrontational and showed potential to get violent? Certainly.
Once again, I see this as a fuck up from all sides.
-
Meh...Not excusing the behavior of this guy at all. He was certainly asking for it.
But the officers said he had a knife in an overhand position drawn to attack. I can't see a knife at all in the video. Not saying he doesn't have one, but it wasn't drawn like they described.
Also, they said he was charging at them from 3-4 feet, which would have been legal to use lethal force at that point. He was never closer than like 10 feet from them.
So (surprise) they lied to make it look better on them.
Were they on edge because of the shoot that went down in Ferguson? Probably. Was this dude clearly being confrontational and showed potential to get violent? Certainly.
Once again, I see this as a fudge up from all sides.
21 feet is the recommended distance for applying lethal force against an edged weapon. He got way fudgeing closer than that. If you were half the expert you think you were you would read up about the effects of survival stress on an individual and then you would never be surprised when things are misremembered. The stress of having to kill someone to save yourself or another is so high that soldiers and cops almost never remember exactly what happened, thank God this goon recorded and released his video. Speaking of that goon he had lots of opportunity to defuse the situation. If he was my friend I would've.
If you're such a hero that you have a better answer to lethal confrontations than using the recommended tactical solutions then sign the fudge up and get to saving life, armchair quarterback
The one thing about you that amazes me is how sure you are about things you don't know shoot about.
-
Officers: "Get your hands out of your pocket!"
Dumbass: "Shoot me! Shoot me (motherfuckers?) Shoot me now!"
Gunfire: Pow! Pow! Pow! Pow! Pow! Pow!
Dumbass filming: "Oh my God....(long pause) they just kilt him."
You know, I don't mean to make light of someone dying but this was a Darwin award winning scenario. And the amazement of the people who witnessed it is even more amazing than the dumbasses actions. I wonder what they really thought would happen?
"They cudda tazed him cuz" cameraman is correct. They could've tased him. They could've also been shot or stabbed while trying to juice him up. They protected themselves in the most efficient manner. Now, they'll go through a whirlwind of stupid ass second-guessing.
-
21 feet is the recommended distance for applying lethal force against an edged weapon. He got way fudgeing closer than that. If you were half the expert you think you were you would read up about the effects of survival stress on an individual and then you would never be surprised when things are misremembered. The stress of having to kill someone to save yourself or another is so high that soldiers and cops almost never remember exactly what happened, thank God this goon recorded and released his video. Speaking of that goon he had lots of opportunity to defuse the situation. If he was my friend I would've.
If you're such a hero that you have a better answer to lethal confrontations than using the recommended tactical solutions then sign the fudge up and get to saving life, armchair quarterback
The one thing about you that amazes me is how sure you are about things you don't know shoot about.
I don't have to be a cop to read the article that accompanied the video.
Cell Phone Video Emerges That Refutes St. Louis Cops Version of Shooting
By Jay Syrmopoulos on August 20, 2014
St. Louis- On Tuesday, while tensions continued to simmer in Ferguson, just a few miles away 25-year-old Kajieme Powell was gunned down by St. Louis cops.
Officers claimed that they were in fear of their lives as Powell charged at them with a knife. They claim he had the knife in an “overhand grip†and came within three feet of the officers, at which time they opened fire, killing Powell.
The incident stemmed from a call by a Six Star Market owner after Powell allegedly stole two energy drinks, according to KSDK.
Reports from witnesses claim that Powell was acting erratically, pacing back and forth on the street and talking to himself, while carrying a knife.
St. Louis Metro Police Chief Sam Dotson responding to a question of whether the shooting was justified said his officers “have a right to go home at night†going on to say that all officers have a right to defend themselves.
He went on to defend his officers actions saying that they used deadly force due to the suspect with a knife coming within three of four feet of the officers, which would be considered within lethal range.
New cell phone video has emerged that calls into question officer’s version of events, and Dotson’s defense of his officers, leading up to the shooting.
In the video two cops arrive together, exit the vehicle, and demand Powell drop the knife. Powell begins yelling “shoot me, shoot me, shoot me now,†as walks onto a ledge then steps off as if to approach.
Powell, who had his hands at his sides, never came within more than 10-15 feet of the officers before they opened fire killing him.
As the man recording the incident stated,
“They could have tazed that man.â€
Surely the officers could have utilized non-lethal force in this situation.
It seems that these officers, and Police Chief Dotson, think they are the only ones that “have a right to go home at night.â€
The police turned a call about two stolen energy drinks into a murder, of course they will say it was justified, so they could go home at night… sadly, Kajieme Powell will never be able to go home again.
It’s this us or them mentality that has created the conditions we see in Ferguson and around the country, as the warrior cop has no sense how to diffuse a situation, but rather only how to use force and brutality on those they are sworn to protect and serve.
For the tenth time, I'm not defending the guy. He was clearly provoking the cops. He was clearly confrontational. No one really should be surprised when a guy ends up dead after bowing up for the cops daring them to shoot you.
I'm merely playing devil's advocate that there appear to be precautions that were not taken before resorting to shooting this guy nine times from 15 feet away within 15 seconds of getting out of their car.
-
21 feet is the recommended distance for applying lethal force against an edged weapon. He got way fudgeing closer than that. If you were half the expert you think you were you would read up about the effects of survival stress on an individual and then you would never be surprised when things are misremembered. The stress of having to kill someone to save yourself or another is so high that soldiers and cops almost never remember exactly what happened, thank God this goon recorded and released his video. Speaking of that goon he had lots of opportunity to defuse the situation. If he was my friend I would've.
If you're such a hero that you have a better answer to lethal confrontations than using the recommended tactical solutions then sign the fudge up and get to saving life, armchair quarterback
The one thing about you that amazes me is how sure you are about things you don't know shoot about.
Chizad. Making friends and offering sound advice since 2006.
-
How, from the angle of the camera, do you know how far the dude is from the officer?
-
How, from the angle of the camera, do you know how far the dude is from the officer?
.
Furthermore, who decided in the article that he never came closer than 10-15 feet? There is a lot of difference between 10 and 15 feet. How could you make such a statement without knowing the exact footage?
Either way, he was certainly within 21 feet. And he most certainly closed the gap between himself and the officers. While carrying a knife. While screaming "shoot me". After taking something that didn't belong to him.
-
.
Furthermore, who decided in the article that he never came closer than 10-15 feet? There is a lot of difference between 10 and 15 feet. How could you make such a statement without knowing the exact footage?
Either way, he was certainly within 21 feet. And he most certainly closed the gap between himself and the officers. While carrying a knife. While screaming "shoot me". After taking something that didn't belong to him.
Shit was suicide by cop. Fuck him.
-
.
Furthermore, who decided in the article that he never came closer than 10-15 feet? There is a lot of difference between 10 and 15 feet. How could you make such a statement without knowing the exact footage?
Either way, he was certainly within 21 feet. And he most certainly closed the gap between himself and the officers. While carrying a knife. While screaming "shoot me". After taking something that didn't belong to him.
I will ask this -
With current technology and current research funding and the vast amount of money being given to police forces to purchase military grade equipment, where are the tasers? This guy could have been subdued the second he began resisting the police. Why are we not investing in better technology for situations like this?
-
Shit was suicide by cop. Fuck him.
Hold it! Next man makes a move, the ni**er gets it!
Hold it men. He's not bluffing.
-
I will ask this -
With current technology and current research funding and the vast amount of money being given to police forces to purchase military grade equipment, where are the tasers? This guy could have been subdued the second he began resisting the police. Why are we not investing in better technology for situations like this?
All the advance technology in the world is not going to stop the more advanced dumbasses in the world.
-
I will ask this -
With current technology and current research funding and the vast amount of money being given to police forces to purchase military grade equipment, where are the tasers? This guy could have been subdued the second he began resisting the police. Why are we not investing in better technology for situations like this?
It's a very basic reason. Tasing you doesn't necessarily mean you will drop your weapon. In most instances that I've seen, being tased causes your body to lock up and causes your grip to clinch. Meaning if you are holding an object, you're going to hold it tighter. Also, the two prongs in a taser have to make direct contact with skin. Bulky and/or loose clothing will cause the prongs to not penetrate.
And the average person can close the a 20 foot distance in a matter of seconds, so if I miss with taser, I now have nano seconds to drop taser, pull service weapon and stop you from stabbing or shooting me.
If you have lethal force, I have lethal force.
-
It's a very basic reason. Tasing you doesn't necessarily mean you will drop your weapon. In most instances that I've seen, being tased causes your body to lock up and causes your grip to clinch. Meaning if you are holding an object, you're going to hold it tighter. Also, the two prongs in a taser have to make direct contact with skin. Bulky and/or loose clothing will cause the prongs to not penetrate.
And the average person can close the a 20 foot distance in a matter of seconds, so if I miss with taser, I now have nano seconds to drop taser, pull service weapon and stop you from stabbing or shooting me.
If you have lethal force, I have lethal force.
^^He normally doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about but in this instance, he's correct. The average man could be subdued quite easily with being tased. But, take me for example. The taser would do little more than piss me off further.
Granted, there are very few (if any) men of my strength and pain endurance out there but it's better for the officers to be safe than sorry.
-
I don't have to be a cop to read the article that accompanied the video.
For the tenth time, I'm not defending the guy. He was clearly provoking the cops. He was clearly confrontational. No one really should be surprised when a guy ends up dead after bowing up for the cops daring them to shoot you.
I'm merely playing devil's advocate that there appear to be precautions that were not taken before resorting to shooting this guy nine times from 15 feet away within 15 seconds of getting out of their car.
I'm glad you brought that up.
Since you love it so much it will make you happy to hear that there is scientific, empirical data relating to lost or incorrect recall of high stress situations.
And which precautions were those? Should they have fled? Left the evidently deranged armed man with unarmed civilians? Stayed in the car? Or not responded to the call at all knowing full well some genius on the internet will denigrate them from behind the safety of a keyboard for dealing with the problem.
If you're curious about the taser
A: the taser is not 100% reliable. You would not stand in front of an armed person with a taser.
B: officers are instructed to not tase people armed with edged weapons because on several occasions they did, that person then fell on their own knife. That's a lawsuit that is hard to win.
Your devils advocacy is painfully ignorant and offensive to me. Those guys did what they were supposed to, no question, and I still have to watch you suggest they're murderers. Evidently we are all constantly in danger because cops are walking the streets just waiting to kill. God knows why they haven't killed us all yet.
-
It's a very basic reason. Tasing you doesn't necessarily mean you will drop your weapon. In most instances that I've seen, being tased causes your body to lock up and causes your grip to clinch. Meaning if you are holding an object, you're going to hold it tighter. Also, the two prongs in a taser have to make direct contact with skin. Bulky and/or loose clothing will cause the prongs to not penetrate.
And the average person can close the a 20 foot distance in a matter of seconds, so if I miss with taser, I now have nano seconds to drop taser, pull service weapon and stop you from stabbing or shooting me.
If you have lethal force, I have lethal force.
He had a knife. Not a gun. What would it matter if he tensed up and gripped his knife tighter while he's laying on the ground?
-
He had a knife. Not a gun. What would it matter if he tensed up and gripped his knife tighter while he's laying on the ground?
I answered that for you
-
He had a knife. Not a gun. What would it matter if he tensed up and gripped his knife tighter while he's laying on the ground?
Well then how do you get it away from him?
-
I answered that for you
No no. We're going to slowly walk through this. I want to see the rationale behind disarming an aggressive subject armed with a knife, using the most minimum force possible.
-
I think the cops should have ran.
-
No no. We're going to slowly walk through this. I want to see the rationale behind disarming an aggressive subject armed with a knife, using the most minimum force possible.
I don't have time for that I'm looking to go shoot someone. If I haven't killed someone under a flimsy excuse by 4 I just didn't have a good day.
-
So here we are. Call about a male pacing back and forth in a parking lot with a knife. Who possibly just committed robbery. We're on scene, he walks aggressively toward us, screaming to shoot him, holding a knife. You tase him, he's on the ground, laying on his hands that you now can't see.
What now?
-
So here we are. Call about a male pacing back and forth in a parking lot with a knife. Who possibly just committed robbery. We're on scene, he walks aggressively toward us, screaming to shoot him, holding a knife. You tase him, he's on the ground, laying on his hands that you now can't see.
What now?
Now, shoot him in the back.
-
Now, shoot him in the back.
Wrong. We have to save his life and get him the obvious mental help that he needs.
-
So here we are. Call about a male pacing back and forth in a parking lot with a knife. Who possibly just committed robbery. We're on scene, he walks aggressively toward us, screaming to shoot him, holding a knife. You tase him, he's on the ground, laying on his hands that you now can't see.
What now?
Wait wait wait too fast.
You get a call, pull up on scene. You see a guy there with a knife. He starts charging you immediately, screaming. If you were going to to try taser (if you had one) you would have to effectively communicate it to your partner, holster your duty weapon, draw the taser, announce taser taser, aim, them fire. Assuming you got all that right, and quickly enough and the guy didn't fall on his own knife, then what
-
I'd like to see you mofos try to take me in.
-
So this guy was killed by global warming?
Wait, wrong thread.
-
I'd like to see you mofos try to take me in.
We don't arrest people, silly. We just kill em.
Well, sometimes plant evidence and then killing. But always killing, always lying. Using heavy handed tactics that offend people's sensibilities just so that we, selfishly, have a better chance of surviving.
-
Wait wait wait too fast.
You get a call, pull up on scene. You see a guy there with a knife. He starts charging you immediately screaming. If you were going to to try taser (if you had one) you would have to effectively communicate it to your partner, holster your duty weapon, draw the taser, announce taser taser, aim, them fire. Assuming you got all that right, and quickly enough and the guy didn't fall on his own knife, then what
Well obviously the next response is for you to stand over top of him, and hop on him, securing the hand holding the knife at the very second the tasing is over. Never mind the fact that his body will be fully operational and ready to fight at the exact same time. You just need to make real certain that you grab that arm.
But just as you hop on him, he is able to maneuver his hand holding the knife into a position to cut you, so i tase him again. Except this time, you are in a full on fight with the guy and by grabbing/laying on him, you have placed yourself in the path of electricity and you are also now being tased.
Now what? And also, you only have 5 seconds before the next round is over and crazy knife guy is ready to go again. Not to add any pressure.
-
I'd like to see you mofos try to take me in.
I'd like to see you walk toward me holding a knife while shouting for me to shoot you.
-
I'm glad you brought that up.
Since you love it so much it will make you happy to hear that there is scientific, empirical data relating to lost or incorrect recall of high stress situations.
And which precautions were those? Should they have fled? Left the evidently deranged armed man with unarmed civilians? Stayed in the car? Or not responded to the call at all knowing full well some genius on the internet will denigrate them from behind the safety of a keyboard for dealing with the problem.
If you're curious about the taser
A: the taser is not 100% reliable. You would not stand in front of an armed person with a taser.
B: officers are instructed to not tase people armed with edged weapons because on several occasions they did, that person then fell on their own knife. That's a lawsuit that is hard to win.
Your devils advocacy is painfully ignorant and offensive to me. Those guys did what they were supposed to, no question, and I still have to watch you suggest they're murderers. Evidently we are all constantly in danger because cops are walking the streets just waiting to kill. God knows why they haven't killed us all yet.
So the perpetrator potentially falling on their own knife when being subdued is dicier from a legal standpoint than shooting them nine times in the head and chest. Ok.
And my position is far closer to you on this than the vast, vast majority of media and public. At least I'm acknowledging that the guy that ended up dying was clearly provoking the officers and there is plenty of blame to go around STARTING with the guy who was killed.
I'd get your belligerence maybe if I was saying this poor innocent kid did no wrong and the mean ol cops shot him in cold blood. I'm not saying that at all, whether or not if that's what you want to hear from me.
Plenty has been written about it. I can't find one that says the police are 100% in the right and completely absolved of any blame. But keep thinking it's just the insane ramblings of this one know-nothing behind a keyboard.
From the right-wing Libertarian thinktank Reason:
http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/20/was-kajieme-powell-really-holding-high-a (http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/20/was-kajieme-powell-really-holding-high-a)
Was Kajieme Powell Really Holding High a Knife When Shot to Death by Police?
Brian Doherty|Aug. 20, 2014 8:08 pm
After St. Louis police shot to death 25-year-old Kajieme Powell yesterday (as mentioned in Elizabeth Nolan Brown's post below)—and apparently for good measure cuffed his corpse, says an eyewitness at the scene of the video below around 2:45—St. Louis Police Chief Sam Dotson told the press that he was a clear and present danger to the officers, having, as the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported, "pulled out a knife and came at the officers, gripping and holding it high, Dotson said." The Huffington Post reported Dotson as saying the knife was in an "overhand grip."
This cell phone video—alas from pretty far away—does not look to me like Powell was raising his arms. Nor does it show any obvious sign that I can see of a knife at all, but I can't be sure of that. But the position of his arms seems clear enough to me when the shots that killed him begin, around 1:35 or so of the video.
The video. Yes, it's disturbing
Plenty more has been written about it. Take your pick.
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/08/video-kajieme-powell-killing-differs-from-police-description (http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/08/video-kajieme-powell-killing-differs-from-police-description)
http://www.salon.com/2014/08/21/cell_phone_video_appears_to_contradict_officer_accounts_in_kajieme_powell_killing/ (http://www.salon.com/2014/08/21/cell_phone_video_appears_to_contradict_officer_accounts_in_kajieme_powell_killing/)
http://www.vox.com/2014/8/20/6051431/did-the-st-louis-police-have-to-shoot-kajieme-powell (http://www.vox.com/2014/8/20/6051431/did-the-st-louis-police-have-to-shoot-kajieme-powell)
This is the one that perhaps vocalizes my feelings about it better than I apparently did in this thread.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/08/the-killing-of-kajieme-powell/378899/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/08/the-killing-of-kajieme-powell/378899/)
The Killing of Kajieme Powell and How It Divides Americans
The mentally disturbed man was shot to death by St. Louis law-enforcement officers after walking toward them with a knife. Video of the incident has sparked debate about the police's reaction.
CONOR FRIEDERSDORFAUG 21 2014, 9:04 AM ET
The police officers who shot and killed Kajieme Powell, 25, in St. Louis, Missouri, on Tuesday did so while being recorded by a man with a cell phone camera. St. Louis Police Chief Sam Dotson and police union officials say the video is exculpatory and that the two officers on the scene followed proper protocol. Many who've watched the shooting grant that the police were put in a difficult, volatile, potentially deadly situation, but still feel that their actions were wrongheaded. The footage certain to be debated in coming days begins at the 1:20 mark. Be forewarned that the video shows a man being shot repeatedly and killed. Due to its disturbing nature some readers may prefer to skip watching it entirely.
What I see in this video (as well as in an even clearer version that CNN somehow obtained) is a man almost certainly suffering from mental illness who deliberately provokes these police officers, putting them in a terrible, unfair position that will probably haunt them forever—and police officers who immediately played into the orchestrated confrontation that the seemingly unstable man created. I also see an incident that contradicts what Police Chief Sam Dotson described to onlookers at the scene, as reported by the St. Louis Dispatch. The discrepancy comes after police arrive and start giving Powell orders...
...but he became more agitated and walked toward them, reaching for his waistband. Witnesses told police the man was yelling, “Shoot me, kill me now,†during the encounter, Dotson said. The officers drew their weapons and ordered Powell to stop. He did stop, but then pulled out a knife and came at the officers, gripping and holding it high, Dotson said. They ordered him to stop and drop the knife. When he got within 2 or 3 feet of the officers, they fired, killing Powell.
Was Powell holding a knife high as he approached the police officers? I don't see that. It looks to me as though his arms remain low at his sides, and that detail doesn't appear in the police report. The cause of this disparity isn't clear, but the position of the knife doesn't significantly change how much of a threat it posed, anyways.
When I first watched the video, I wanted the officers to back up to buy time as the man slowly approached. A police training video helped me to better understand the mindset of the officers, given the information that they've likely been given about research into the distance at which a man with a knife is dangerous.
With that in mind, it seems to me that the initial set-up chosen by the police officers was the bigger problem. The man with the knife wasn't anywhere near other onlookers and perhaps could've been calmed or incapacitated with less than lethal force had the officers given themselves more space and time. If they had it do to over, would they have parked farther away, or stood on the other side of their vehicle while engaging the man? Would they assert themselves less confrontationally? (On the other hand, would you or I do any better in their place?)
"It is easy to criticize," Ezra Klein writes. "It is easy to watch a cell phone video and think of all the ways it could have gone differently. It is easy to forget that the police saw a mentally unbalanced man with a knife advancing on them. It is easy to forget that 20 seconds only takes 20 seconds. It is easy to forget that police get scared. It is easy not to ask yourself what you might have done if you had a gun and a man came at you with a knife." All true. "But there is still something wrong with that video," he adds, doing his best to articulate specific objections that I share:
​The police arrive and instantly escalate the situation... Powell looks sick more than he looks dangerous. But the police draw their weapons as soon as they exit their car... They don't seem to know how to stop Powell, save for using deadly force. But all Powell had was a steak knife. If the police had been in their car, with the windows rolled up, he could have done little to hurt them...
...Even when he advances on police, he walks, rather than runs... He swings his arms normally, rather than entering into a fighting stance. They begin yelling at him to stop. And when they begin shooting, they shoot to kill—even continuing to shoot when Powell is motionless on the ground. There is no warning shot, even. It does not seem like it should be so easy to take a life.
That's how I felt, too.
A police officer might retort that law enforcement shouldn't be obligated to take on any extra risk to their own lives in a dangerous situation wholly and needlessly created by a person menacing them. A citizen deliberately baiting police with a deadly weapon cannot expect restraint. Even a small knife can be deadly.
In the abstract, I can't disagree with those principles—and if questionable police killings were confined to such circumstances, there'd be less cause than now to complain about overzealous law enforcement. Yet watching this video, it seems certain in hindsight that the threat could've been stopped with force short of at least nine and as many as 12 gunshots; and again, if they'd kept more initial distance between themselves and a man they knew to have a knife before they even arrived, perhaps no deadly threat would've materialized. If they'd stood well back and engaged, perhaps Powell would've kept coming with a knife until stopped.
But they didn't even attempt that strategy. (As Elizabeth Brown notes, deadly interactions with the mentally ill happen a lot, and failure to even try deescalating is often a factor.) I suspect that Klein is right when he says that in this case, despite clear video evidence of what happened, "what the police believe to be the right thing and what the people they serve believe to be the right thing may be very different."
Perhaps highlighting different reactions will at least clarify how different Americans feel about the same incident. If nothing else, a gulf in public opinion almost certainly undermines the effectiveness of police departments that depend on community support. With that in mind, here are some illuminating reactions to the killing.
@NelsonEmpowered
R.I.P Kajieme Powell, I wish he didn't go out like that, he literally sacrificed his life to expose the insensitivity of police towards us.
2:06 AM - 21 Aug 2014
A Gawker commenter identifying himself as a police officer writes:
People expect police officers to be individuals of outstanding moral fiber, with remarkable intelligence, able to know and articulate city/county ordinances, state statutes, and court decision, and also have no prejudices. The problem is that most places in America are cutting police staff, cutting wages, stopping pay raises, and attacking officers pension. The person who meets those above qualifications can most likely find a much less stressful job, with much better benefits and salary. You get what you pay for. If you want a highly professional, intelligent police force, you need to compensate as such.
I mention all of these things because in this shooting, you have officers arriving to a clearly disturbed person. This person arms themselves with a knife, and indicates that he wants to die. The problem is that logic will usually not work with someone in this state. He forces the officers hands, and unfortunately, he is killed. Instead of asking why officers had to shoot him, ask where his family/friends were? Did they recognize the signs of mental illness and ignore it? Did they attempt to get him help and the horrible mental health system we have here fail him? Officers have a duty to protect and serve, but its not the individual for whom they do this, but society.
A disturbed man with a knife poses a serious danger to all of the rest of the citizens, and the officers had to stop that threat.
Again, though, did they have to immediately put themselves in such close proximity to a man with a knife? Couldn't they have tried to talk him down if they'd shouted from a distance rather than immediately getting close with guns drawn?
Blogger Chris Connelly believes the St. Louis police could learn something from their British analogs:
I suspect the protocol in Britain would be to park at a relatively distance, order civilians to get back, call for back-up and specialist assistance, while monitoring to ensure that Mr. Powell poses no threat to himself or anybody else. What caused the situation to escalate to the point that the police felt so threatened that they needed to open fire in a mentally ill man carrying a knife at his side was the arrival of the police. There is a serious problem in how US police perceive and deal with "threats." Mentally-ill people, even ones with knives, are primarily a threat to themselves.
I know that American police face different risks than British ones, and that gun violence is higher... so let's park the gun issue and look at the threat from knives on its own. In 2013 armed police were deployed in the UK about 12,000 times. They fired 3 shots and killed nobody. I don't know how many of those incidents involved knives, but I suspect it was more than one. The St. Louis P.D. bested that in 15 seconds when they fired 9 bullets into Mr. Powell. American gun enthusiasts and police officers always say "you don't shoot to wound, you shoot to neutralize the threat." So do British police, and they successfully neutralize the threat with both fewer shots fired and fewer dead citizens. "But the British armed police are top marksmen!" is usually another reply.
Well... that's an argument for better firearms training of US officers instead of an excuse for their poor accuracy...
The most disturbing aspect of this for me is that the police fired several bullets into Kajieme Powell's body while he lay wounded on the ground, and yet they apparently wanted this video released as it was "exculpatory." There exists a very deep chasm between what the Police view as justified and what, I think, most reasonable citizens would. In a democratic country where the rule of law exists in such a difference of opinion the difference must always be settled on the side of the people, who are sovereign. In the United States it seems to be settled far too frequently, to put it at its lowest, on the side of the Police.
Said a Reddit commenter:
This is the type of thing that happens when a cop fails to act appropriately in an extremely dangerous situation. [That, too, is a disturbing video of a shootout between a police officer and a mentally ill Vietnam veteran. But there's no need to watch beyond where the shooting starts to see the commenter's point.]
A Tumblr author writes:
I’m posting this for anyone who has ever said “not all copsâ€. For anyone who doesn’t think racism, anti-blackness, or police brutality are real issues. I’m posting this for everyone who immediately says “but let’s wait for all the facts first†or “they probably deserved it†when ever they hear about innocent lives being taken at the hands of police officers. I’m posting this for anyone who thinks “it was just another dumbass kid†or “stop making such a big deal out of these things†or “omg it’s not about raceâ€. I’m posting this for anyone who spent even 1 millisecond of these past 11 days trying to justify the murder of Mike Brown. I dare you to try and justify the murder of this young man.
Rest in peace Kajieme Powell
Said another on the same platform:
The officers both exited the vehicle with pistols drawn on a shoplifting call, upon seeing a man without a drawn weapon walking around on a sidewalk. There were people watching further down the block, but nobody in immediate proximity. They were not overwhelmed; two other officers were there within 60 seconds of the shooting, and four within 90 seconds; it was a flood of police.
I’ve seen police respond to erratic-behaviour calls of people with far bigger knives than this guy had. I’ve seen police respond to shoplifting calls. I’ve seen police respond to assault calls, to knife-fight-in-progress calls, to armed-and-presumed-dangerous calls… and I have not seen a response like this. There was no attempt to talk him down; there was no attempt to do anything other than bark orders for 10 seconds or so, then unload.
To me, it looks like they went in with the assumption they’d be shooting this man down, and did so, 14 seconds after exiting their vehicle. They went in with a plan - if you can call it that - of immediate compliance, or death. And they went with death.
Here's a third Tumblr author:
...what makes it worse is he was murdered 4 miles away from where Michael Brown was murdered. it’s demoralizing to me. because I want justice, I want equality, but deep down I know that we’ll never achieve it. it’s all a system, & for the people who run the system; there’s no money in equality. there’s no power if everyone is equal. so because of my skin, I’m preordained to be a target. preordained to be subjected to hate from those with the same pigment as the folks who run the system. maybe I sound like a conspiracy theorist, but i’m just venting… go watch the video.
And a fourth:
Oh god yeah I did. That made me nearly throw up. And I made the mistake of watching the video and it was devastating. They don’t even try to treat us like people. They treat us like we’re rabid animals that need to be put down for “public safetyâ€, but some asshole with a trunk full of guns can cause all sorts of mayhem and get gently placed in the back of a squad car because he’s white. The fact that Kajieme Powell could have been a person with mental illness and they showed up with guns drawn, THEN handcuffed him after he was killed…that horrified me.
My brother is Autistic, and he has issues with personal contact and he dislikes when people speak to him in a certain octave, it really throws him off. He’s also tall. I’m scared to death that people would shoot him like that, because black people with mental illness or disabilities don’t get the support systems or the treatment that white men screaming the same things with guns in their hands get.
The fact that people handle school shooters with kid gloves because they “might†have mental illness but shoot a black person down within 30 seconds of encountering him, and people just call him a “knife wielding suspect†and didn’t harm anyone? That is disgusting.
Here's another Redditor:
They did not empty their clips. They shot 4-5 rounds in a very short period of time each. Their mags carry about 11 rounds so they actually stopped firing right when they were supposed to.
If you want to argue 9-10x is a lot then you're thinking from your perspective not theirs. In that short span of time the officers do not have time to check with one another for who fired where, what hit, and how many times they each fired. They fired until he fell.
So, why did they fire after he fell? Adrenaline. That man was prepared for them, probably working up a ton of adrenaline. Any scenario like that has adrenaline pumping on both sides. They didn't know how many bullets were fired or how many hit and where they hit. They also didn't know if he'd get up and attack them. It's a gray area but they put 2-3 rounds in him when he hit the ground because of 2 reasons....
1: They thought he was a threat who might get up.
2: It happened so fast it took their mind a second to come out of the haze and go "whoa, whoa he's down, stop".
The officers stopping when they did (when most would simply unload) shows restraint as opposed to blood lust or getting lost in the moment. You have to remember, officers are people too. They have families, homes to return to, and when they get afraid for their lives they'll act in defense of it just like anyone else would. Training in this situation helped them stop firing but in reality you cannot train yourself for the intense emotions those two officers felt when they shot that man.
And two more besides:
(http://cdn.theatlantic.com/newsroom/img/posts/2014/08/redditors/50554c330.png)
And a final Twitter reaction:
@Atencio
The Kajieme Powell murder makes me sick. I'm angry and feel like I have nowhere to direct that energy in order to foster positive change.p
That isn't the full spectrum of arguments, reactions, and emotions, but it reflects the very different ways various people of good will are responding to the same footage.
-
So the officers should have stayed in their vehicle, with the windows rolled up, where the crazy knife guy couldn't cut them?
Goddamn this nation is full of pussies who I now 100% believe have never been in a fight. Fuck this thread.
-
I'd like to see you walk toward me holding a knife while shouting for me to shoot you.
When I come after you, which is just a matter of time, you will never know what hit you.
-
When I come after you, which is just a matter of time, you will never know what hit you.
Werrd. I'ma kill a cop.
Is it true that the guy without a shirt on always gets arrested? It happens on COPS every time.
-
Werrd. I'ma kill a cop.
Is it true that the guy without a shirt on always gets arrested? It happens on COPS every time.
I don't wear shirts and the mofos ain't manned up to get me yet. And won't.
-
So the officers should have stayed in their vehicle, with the windows rolled up, where the crazy knife guy couldn't cut them?
Goddamn this nation is full of pussies who I now 100% believe have never been in a fight. Fuck this thread.
Yes they should have, then because he was fucking crazy and went bat-shit and started going after regular folks who had no defense, he could have killed 3 or 4 of them before getting shot. Cops wrong again. :facepalm: :facepalm:
And what most folks will never get. In a deadly force situation there is no such thing as aiming to wound. Your scared, you have a weapon in your hand, your confronting someone who also has a weapon. Your taught that if you have to shoot, shoot to kill.
Warning shot-Crock of shit-The pistols drawn were his warning. And that warning shot: That round has to end up somewhere. What goes up must come down. Maybe on a little girl a couple of streets over.
-
Look Chad, I've been using hyperbole, humor and satire to try to get you to look at the absurdity of what you're asking. I'll lay this out as best I can:
A lot of those comments are from intelligent, caring people. People who want the world to be a better place. I do too. I bet those cops do too. They're also viewing that video, probably over and over to get all the detail they pointed out, in the perfect 20/20 of hindsight. Those cops didn't get that. They had a split second, under extreme stress you cannot understand, to make a life or death decison. Yes, they chose their own life. You can what if a situation all day. What if they had held back? Maybe the deceased grabs a nearby gawker and takes himself a hostage? Backs that hostage into a nearby business and gets to stabbin? Then who's fault is it?
The post about what British police might and might not do does not apply. The British police were not there, thus we don't know what they would do. If anyone feel so strongly that their justice system is superior I invite them to go.
And yes. As I understand it you are extremely liable for whatever happens the moment after you taser someone. Yes, as I understand it, in the specific instance I was thinking of the cops got sued and lost. No, I don't agree but no one cares.
Yes I wish I had a phaser I could set to stun. (And yeah, I probably would abuse the shoot out of that) but a taser is not a magic gun. They're unreliable, they're flawed and they save the shoot out of lives applied correctly.
Is mental health a problem in America? Yes. The way Alabama handles it, by the way, is horrifying and causes deaths all the time. Deputies pick up the people, take them to be evaluated. After evaluation they are transported to a facility for a month while the workers there get the mentally ill person's medication adjusted. Then they release them. Then the cycle repeats a month later when they go off the meds. I wish it were better.
The problem with all these wishes and what ifs is they aren't reality. In reality nothing goes totally right the first time at full speed. shoot, watch a football game to understand that. Guys spend entire YEARS designing and practicing plays that work in SPECIFIC SITUATIONS and more often than not they don't work as designed. Your comment about 100% right was perfect because no one is 100% right in the real world. No one thinks fast enough to cover all the what ifs. The percentages go down, markedly, as stress goes up. Law is a high stakes game, and its a game that your only hope is to be good enough.Those men..those heroes, the choices they made.. It was good enough Chad. Good enough that no one but the armed maniac got hurt. Good enough that they made it home. Good enough that there's not been rioting in the streets. And on those streets there's nothing much better than good enough.
The truth is, nobody that isn't mentally ill wants to kill anyone. The truth is, to get in a situation where you are paid not much more than minimum wage to risk your life you have to run through a gamut of background checks and psychological tests designed by experts to pick out just the kind of racist, or sociopathic killers these people seem to be insisting the average cop is. The truth is being a cop is just full of hard choices. And hard choices leave ugly results.
-
I wonder who ended up getting the sodas.
-
Well obviously the next response is for you to stand over top of him, and hop on him, securing the hand holding the knife at the very second the tasing is over. Never mind the fact that his body will be fully operational and ready to fight at the exact same time. You just need to make real certain that you grab that arm.
But just as you hop on him, he is able to maneuver his hand holding the knife into a position to cut you, so i tase him again. Except this time, you are in a full on fight with the guy and by grabbing/laying on him, you have placed yourself in the path of electricity and you are also now being tased.
Now what? And also, you only have 5 seconds before the next round is over and crazy knife guy is ready to go again. Not to add any pressure.
Easy, when you go to subdue him, first put him in a choke hold...no wait, that's illegal...nevermind...Empty your clip on him, because you never know, the guy could be a Cheetah and close the 100 foot gap within a second. Yup, shoot to kill...then handcuff him, because you never know, the guy could be a Zombie or Michael Myers and spring back to life.
-
Easy, when you go to subdue him, first put him in a choke hold...no wait, that's illegal...nevermind...Empty your clip on him, because you never know, the guy could be a Cheetah and close the 100 foot gap within a second. Yup, shoot to kill...then handcuff him, because you never know, the guy could be a Zombie or Michael Myers and spring back to life.
This is true because in 28 Days the lead zombie was the spitting image of Charles Barkley who appeared to be thinking for those that followed... like a cunning flesh-eater that can run and jump and binge drink and gamble and whore hop and shit. Charles employed many deadly props throughout this flick and it was so very bad that toward the ending I was hoping to see him pick up a golf club and savagely beat Dennis Hopper to death rather than the resulting explosion.
There is no shoot to wound and the proper use of a PR-24 (see Rodney King clubbing) might have helped diffuse the situation. Some chipped bones and/or a badly bruised sternum? PROBABLY! But dead? NO.
And thanks to the debacle in L.A. that weapon was all but retired.
-
This is true because in 28 Days the lead zombie was the spitting image of Charles Barkley who appeared to be thinking for those that followed... like a cunning flesh-eater that can run and jump and binge drink and gamble and whore hop and shit. Charles employed many deadly props throughout this flick and it was so very bad that toward the ending I was hoping to see him pick up a golf club and savagely beat Dennis Hopper to death rather than the resulting explosion.
There is no shoot to wound and the proper use of a PR-24 (see Rodney King clubbing) might have helped diffuse the situation. Some chipped bones and/or a badly bruised sternum? PROBABLY! But dead? NO.
And thanks to the debacle in L.A. that weapon was all but retired.
Why not just use a 50 Cal Machine Gun...well you might have to worry about the people a mile away getting hit, ahhh, who cares...mow them down too, they all probably had a knife in their hands. Because apparently the Police Department doesn't teach hand to hand combat or how to disarm a civilian brandishing a knife.
-
Easy, when you go to subdue him, first put him in a choke hold...no wait, that's illegal...nevermind...Empty your clip on him, because you never know, the guy could be a Cheetah and close the 100 foot gap within a second. Yup, shoot to kill...then handcuff him, because you never know, the guy could be a Zombie or Michael Myers and spring back to life.
As a law enforcement officer, and as someone that trains law enforcement officers, I will answer your zombie remark. Most all law enforcement officers are NOT doctors, and because they are not, they can neither say he is officially dead or alive. Therefore you cuff him because he may in fact still be alive, and if he is, he is cuffed and no longer is a threat to you or anyone else. As having been in a life or death situation on the job, it pissed me off that some people that I worked with at the time wanted to say that they would have done this or done that. Eat a bag of smashed a**holes!! Unless you are in that situation you have no idea what you would do. All you know at the time of the incident is that what seems like an eternity of time is really a split second. All you can do is what you have been trained to do and wait until your back-up or whoever you work with can get there to help you out. I honestly hope that none of you are ever in that situation to have to make that shoot don't shoot decision. And if you are then I hope you are prepared.
-
Why not just use a 50 Cal Machine Gun...well you might have to worry about the people a mile away getting hit, ahhh, who cares...mow them down too, they all probably had a knife in their hands. Because apparently the Police Department doesn't teach hand to hand combat or how to disarm a civilian brandishing a knife.
Great idea, I was looking for a way to kill more people.
-
As a law enforcement officer, and as someone that trains law enforcement officers, I will answer your zombie remark. Most all law enforcement officers are NOT doctors, and because they are not, they can neither say he is officially dead or alive. Therefore you cuff him because he may in fact still be alive, and if he is, he is cuffed and no longer is a threat to you or anyone else. As having been in a life or death situation on the job, it pissed me off that some people that I worked with at the time wanted to say that they would have done this or done that. Eat a bag of smashed a**holes!! Unless you are in that situation you have no idea what you would do. All you know at the time of the incident is that what seems like an eternity of time is really a split second. All you can do is what you have been trained to do and wait until your back-up or whoever you work with can get there to help you out. I honestly hope that none of you are ever in that situation to have to make that shoot don't shoot decision. And if you are then I hope you are prepared.
Very true and I am certified myself although I backed off that career move in the early nineties. No person trained or not knows for sure how they will react in a pressurized situation especially at close range nor if they can pull the trigger on another human being in an instance. And in such a situation one might also fire unintentionally simply by fingering the trigger in panic, yes, even the most seasoned officer.
My statement about the PR-24 was was in hindsight where several officers could subdue a threat by surrounding the person if we imagine a similar situation where no firearms are present.
-
Why not just use a 50 Cal Machine Gun...well you might have to worry about the people a mile away getting hit, ahhh, who cares...mow them down too, they all probably had a knife in their hands. Because apparently the Police Department doesn't teach hand to hand combat or how to disarm a civilian brandishing a knife.
They do, it's called lethal force.
-
A flame thrower would deter most knife wielders. Worked in the Pacific!
But if you really want the best option, it's to simply soft bump the motherfucker (ala Tony Stewart) The bumpee has a decent chance of survival and the bumper hangs out with pay for two or three weeeks until things cool down.
-
Tell y'all what..... I will show up to the next X outing with a knife, and I'll bet any amount of money that there isnt a single motherfucker on this board who can disarm me with their bare hands.
Not one.
And to those pussies who think you can sit in your car and roll your windows up, I can get in there in stab your asses too.
Afterwards, your families can hire a tax attorney to liquidate my assets to help pay for your funerals.
-
Tell y'all what..... I will show up to the next X outing with a knife, and I'll bet any amount of money that there isnt a single motherfucker on this board who can disarm me with their bare hands.
Not one.
And to those pussies who think you sit in your car and roll your windows up, I can get in there in stab your asses too.
Afterwards, your families can hire a tax attorney to liquidate my assets to help pay for your funerals.
Somebody with a few in 'em are bound to wanna fondle you anyway.
-
Tell y'all what..... I will show up to the next X outing with a knife, and I'll bet any amount of money that there isnt a single motherfucker on this board who can disarm me with their bare hands.
Not one.
And to those pussies who think you can sit in your car and roll your windows up, I can get in there in stab your asses too.
Afterwards, your families can hire a tax attorney to liquidate my assets to help pay for your funerals.
Pfffttt
http://youtu.be/6kRWIjesSLc (http://youtu.be/6kRWIjesSLc)
-
Most all law enforcement officers are NOT doctors, and because they are not, they can neither say he is officially dead or alive. Therefore you cuff him because he may in fact still be alive, and if he is, he is cuffed and no longer is a threat to you or anyone else.
Same reasons military will put a bullet into the head of a guy you just took down. Make sure he's dead. One bullet is cheaper than a Marine/Solider/SEALs life.
-
Tell y'all what..... I will show up to the next X outing with a knife, and I'll bet any amount of money that there isnt a single motherfucker on this board who can disarm me with their bare hands.
I bet Wench could.
-
I bet Wench could.
I have a different stabbing device for that situation. But in reality, she's be the first to pull a gun out her of vehicle and smoke me once the bloodshed began.
-
I have a different stabbing device for that situation. But in reality, she's be the first to pull a gun out her of vehicle and smoke me once the bloodshed began.
Bloodshed!
Who said anything about bloodshed?
:flag:
-
This is the position of everyone when the first shot is fired (assuming there isn't some delay between audio and video on the YouTube clip):
(http://i.imgur.com/lTQypGq.png)
That may be 10 feet at the most, but I wouldn't call it 10-15 feet. Assuming the officers and the suspect are all anywhere from 5'6" to 6'0", that's probably 7-8 feet.
The suspect started walking toward them at a faster pace at this point, which is what caused the officers to fire.
I don't see his hands raised, but aside from that conflicting with the officer's report, I don't see a difference. They know he has a knife. They know he's closing the gap between them. Hands up or down, he's a threat.
The situation could have been handled differently, but I don't necessarily see anything wrong with the way it was handled. Maybe the guy wouldn't have responded aggressively if the officers hadn't immediately pointed their guns at him, but when there's a guy on the street with a knife acting suspiciously, I'd rather the officers immediately have the ability to neutralize the lethal threat, rather than start the situation unarmed and risk their own lives or the lives of bystanders.
As far as how to neutralize a guy with a knife, and whether something other than a gun is just as or more effective, I'll leave that up to those who work with those weapons and train people to respond to these situations. Personally, I don't own a taser, but even if I did, I would have no issue with shooting a guy who has a knife and is approaching me. And legally speaking, I'd be in the right to do so.
-
(https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-0/10460806_10152586570413189_6912604330496616028_n.jpg?oh=fac123f7c41d5a1c7977c32c698b4e30&oe=54761772)
-
(https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-0/10460806_10152586570413189_6912604330496616028_n.jpg?oh=fac123f7c41d5a1c7977c32c698b4e30&oe=54761772)
No, Germans are fucking retarded!
:taunt:
-
(https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-0/10460806_10152586570413189_6912604330496616028_n.jpg?oh=fac123f7c41d5a1c7977c32c698b4e30&oe=54761772)
Scenario 3:
Drunk man wielding machete and a sword, cop fires at leg, misses. Drunk man hacks cop in the neck with machete. With adrenaline pumping, drunk man turns and sprints towards an innocent bystander. Stabs her through the heart. Drunk man lives rest of his life on tax payer's dollar eating three meals a day, access to a library and air conditioning.
-
Scenario 3:
Drunk man wielding machete and a sword, cop fires at leg, misses. Drunk man hacks cop in the neck with machete. With adrenaline pumping, drunk man turns and sprints towards an innocent bystander. Stabs her through the heart. Drunk man lives rest of his life on tax payer's dollar eating three meals a day, access to a library and air conditioning.
Multiple officers can take a single threat alive in most instances whereas a lone officer is left with no choice but to put them down. No two situations alike.
-
(https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-0/10460806_10152586570413189_6912604330496616028_n.jpg?oh=fac123f7c41d5a1c7977c32c698b4e30&oe=54761772)
Aim for the leg if you wish.
Good luck...everytime.
-
Aim for the leg if you wish.
Good luck...everytime.
If that fat out of shape fuck shot that guy in the leg, it's because he is a terrible shot and got lucky the round actually hit him in the leg. The two guys in the picture above however, looked pretty squared away and handled shit the exact way it should have been handled.
-
Off topic:
The claim of a orbital bone fracture (per sources close to someone) & the xrays of a fractured orbital bone are false, per CNN.
-
Anecdotal evidence? Oh look, it exists for the other side!
Fast forward to 7:30; guy stabs multiple cops because they pussy foot around with their guns:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75RTkGbiJpk# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75RTkGbiJpk#)
Guy stabs police officer at a traffic stop. He then runs into the police vehicle. Officer tries to tase him, and the taser doesn't connect. Guy drives off with police vehicle:
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/06/10/bensalem-cop-reportedly-stabbed-police-vehicle-stolen-by-suspect/ (http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/06/10/bensalem-cop-reportedly-stabbed-police-vehicle-stolen-by-suspect/)
Three police officers show up to a call regarding a mentally disturbed man with a knife. They fire a taser at him; it fails. As a result, one officer winds up paralyzed and without an eye:
http://nypost.com/2014/04/24/thug-gets-54-years-to-life-after-brutally-stabbing-3-cops/ (http://nypost.com/2014/04/24/thug-gets-54-years-to-life-after-brutally-stabbing-3-cops/)
Kudos to the German cop and whoever else is able to non-lethally neutralize someone wielding a knife, but it's not as simple as some of you are making it out to be.
-
^ what he said. I've won shooting competitions and I wouldn't bet my life on making a shot like that under stress (hit a moving limb, in the bone but miss major arteries? Luck all day). When it's your life you play it safe. A grown man who sets out to do some violence with a weapon can do a hell of a lot of violence
Close to home example: clay county deputy gets his hand cut right the fudge off messin around with an armed suspect
http://m.wsfa.com/wsfa/pm_/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=od:QEf1c5by (http://m.wsfa.com/wsfa/pm_/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=od:QEf1c5by)
Oh also that guy's family and friends said he was nonviolent and blah blah blah. That's what everyone's friends and family says.
Or maybe the problem is you don't mind LEOs cut up a little? How cut up is okay? 5%? 30%?
-
Or maybe the problem is you don't mind LEOs cut up a little? How cut up is okay? 5%? 30%?
What percentage is this?
(http://static.fjcdn.com/comments/Whenever+I+think+of+a+nugget+I+think+of+a+_51360c20234a9f35a90a64b4a0dda3dc.jpg)
-
Well all I know is if a cop is protecting me from some fucker (which isn't likely since I will be brandishing my own weapon) he had better be aiming for center mass at a minimum and I would prefer the 2+1 method. A double tap to the chest and a failure to stop to the head!
-
Off topic:
The claim of a orbital bone fracture (per sources close to someone) & the xrays of a fractured orbital bone are false, per CNN.
Through reading the entire thread, I think you are just wanting the cop to be guilty.
-
Through reading the entire thread, I think you are just wanting the cop to be guilty.
To be fair, there are others in this thread who just want Mike Brown to be guilty.
We don't really have enough information to claim anything at this point. Probably never will.
-
To be fair, there are others in this thread who just want Mike Brown to be guilty.
We don't really have enough information to claim anything at this point. Probably never will.
I agree that some people do, however I don't recall reading any on this thread that stand out to me.
-
What percentage is this?
(http://static.fjcdn.com/comments/Whenever+I+think+of+a+nugget+I+think+of+a+_51360c20234a9f35a90a64b4a0dda3dc.jpg)
Pretty damn%
As a side note congrats on the name change..he was Matt, looks like he's changing to Bob.
-
Tell y'all what..... I will show up to the next X outing with a knife, and I'll bet any amount of money that there isnt a single motherfudgeer on this board who can disarm me with their bare hands.
Not one.
And to those pussies who think you can sit in your car and roll your windows up, I can get in there in stab your asses too.
Afterwards, your families can hire a tax attorney to liquidate my assets to help pay for your funerals.
If there is one other thing I hate worse than pigs, it's people who run their mouths on internet message boards. Big talkers.
I will take this challenge. If you go to church, take my advice and wear a tie because I will knock you and your Uncle Henry into Sunday morning. Be reading up in your law enforcement manual about the easiest way to swallow 7 or 8 teeth at one time.
I will be there about 30 minutes before kick off. It won't take long. But you should probably get there about 15 or 20 minutes early to practice falling down.
-
If there is one other thing I hate worse than pigs, it's people who run their mouths on internet message boards. Big talkers.
I will take this challenge. If you go to church, take my advice and wear a tie because I will knock you and your Uncle Henry into Sunday morning. Be reading up in your law enforcement manual about the easiest way to swallow 7 or 8 teeth at one time.
I will be there about 30 minutes before kick off. It won't take long. But you should probably get there about 15 or 20 minutes early to practice falling down.
You forgot the part about packing a sack lunch...probably full of donuts.
-
You forgot the part about packing a sack lunch...probably full of donuts.
I thought this would go without saying.
-
Are you surprised, Ben?
I want the cop to be guilty, honestly.
Think about it. If it is ruled that his use of force is legal:
Thousands of dollars in property damage will have been for nothing. Multiple injuries for nothing.
Multiple arrests, for nothing. People on what could be, generously, called both sides of the "debate" will have used nothing as an excuse to say some vile, horrible shit. Cops everywhere have learned that Eric Holder and others will automatically assume they are murderers for no legal reason.
Even if that cop's use of force is declared legal his life is ruined. He has to change his name. He has to move. He can never dare to work in law enforcement again. Multiple studies have indicated that the emotional damage from lawful killing (combat, law or self defense) is hugely intensified by the knowledge that the general public doesn't think it was right. This is why a lot of experts believe that Vietnam vets have such a high rate of PTSD. So picture it.. If this cop did the right thing he went to work that night a normal guy, got in a tight spot and reacted with the courage it took to confront a situation. He then (if he was right) was forced to kill another human. He then had to sit back and watch this whole thing develop (riots, national press, ect) and he couldn't say anything in his own defense. He has been vilified by persons in his own government, people in the streets and people on the internet. People have called him a cold blooded, racist murderer. I don't want to see that alll that happened to someone who did the right thing. I don't think I'll be able to sleep after that. I might have to change jobs and go into forestry or some shit after that.
-
I'm so sick of glorifying the criminals.
Saw them praising the rioters and unifying behind the dead menacing thief on the VMAs last night. Somebody should have shot them too.
-
I'm so sick of glorifying the criminals.
Saw them praising the rioters and unifying behind the dead menacing thief on the VMAs last night. Somebody should have shot them too.
You need sensitivity training.
-
You need sensitivity training.
With a tazer
-
Have they killed all the whiteys yet?
-
Have they killed all the whiteys yet?
No, because they are all moving away.
-
No, because they are all moving away.
Ah. Another liberal win. Just like Detroit.
-
No, because they are all moving away.
White Flight!
Its racist!!!!! How dare they.
-
A lot of back and forth and deep analysis. The concept is really much simpler than most of you are making it out to be.
If you don't want to be dead, don't walk towards a cop with a knife in your hand, pleading for him to shoot you. I fail to see how the discussion should go much further than that.
-
A lot of back and forth and deep analysis. The concept is really much simpler than most of you are making it out to be.
If you don't want to be dead, don't walk towards a cop with a knife in your hand, pleading for him to shoot you. I fail to see how the discussion should go much further than that.
Its what happens when logic goes out the window and emotion enters.
-
A lot of back and forth and deep analysis. The concept is really much simpler than most of you are making it out to be.
If you don't want to be dead, don't walk towards a cop with a knife in your hand, pleading for him to shoot you. I fail to see how the discussion should go much further than that.
It gives me a lot of confidence in our system to know that as a man of your character and principles, you would turn down the opportunity to represent in this multi-million dollar verdict.
-
It gives me a lot of confidence in our system to know that as a man of your character and principles, you would turn down the opportunity to represent in this multi-million dollar verdict.
Homey don't sue no cop. They have other cop friends with guns and various fiendish weapons, who take offense to that and just might decide that Snags needs pulling over one late evening on his way home.
-
Anecdotal evidence? Oh look, it exists for the other side!
Fast forward to 7:30; guy stabs multiple cops because they pussy foot around with their guns:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75RTkGbiJpk# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75RTkGbiJpk#)
Guy stabs police officer at a traffic stop. He then runs into the police vehicle. Officer tries to tase him, and the taser doesn't connect. Guy drives off with police vehicle:
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/06/10/bensalem-cop-reportedly-stabbed-police-vehicle-stolen-by-suspect/ (http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/06/10/bensalem-cop-reportedly-stabbed-police-vehicle-stolen-by-suspect/)
Three police officers show up to a call regarding a mentally disturbed man with a knife. They fire a taser at him; it fails. As a result, one officer winds up paralyzed and without an eye:
http://nypost.com/2014/04/24/thug-gets-54-years-to-life-after-brutally-stabbing-3-cops/ (http://nypost.com/2014/04/24/thug-gets-54-years-to-life-after-brutally-stabbing-3-cops/)
Kudos to the German cop and whoever else is able to non-lethally neutralize someone wielding a knife, but it's not as simple as some of you are making it out to be.
Hence why I said Good Luck. I'm not taking my chances pussy footing around or aiming for leg (smaller target) while a guy just feet away from me wields a knife and would love to hack me up.
BTDubs - sorry but you can't admit this anecdotal info as evidence. Per you.
-
Off topic:
The claim of a orbital bone fracture (per sources close to someone) & the xrays of a fractured orbital bone are false, per CNN.
Is this the same CNN that reported he was shot in the back 100 feet away and that Al Gore won Florida? Maybe ESPN can confirm.
-
Anecdotal evidence? Oh look, it exists for the other side!
Fast forward to 7:30; guy stabs multiple cops because they pussy foot around with their guns:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75RTkGbiJpk# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75RTkGbiJpk#)
Guy stabs police officer at a traffic stop. He then runs into the police vehicle. Officer tries to tase him, and the taser doesn't connect. Guy drives off with police vehicle:
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/06/10/bensalem-cop-reportedly-stabbed-police-vehicle-stolen-by-suspect/ (http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/06/10/bensalem-cop-reportedly-stabbed-police-vehicle-stolen-by-suspect/)
Three police officers show up to a call regarding a mentally disturbed man with a knife. They fire a taser at him; it fails. As a result, one officer winds up paralyzed and without an eye:
http://nypost.com/2014/04/24/thug-gets-54-years-to-life-after-brutally-stabbing-3-cops/ (http://nypost.com/2014/04/24/thug-gets-54-years-to-life-after-brutally-stabbing-3-cops/)
Kudos to the German cop and whoever else is able to non-lethally neutralize someone wielding a knife, but it's not as simple as some of you are making it out to be.
I just watched this video all the way until finish. What can I say? It's a slow afternoon. Anyway, there were 3 shots that rang out long after the perp was shot the first time.
Also, the cops were slow to seek medical attention for this man. One even stepped on his neck while handcuffing him.
I wonder if people rioted after this made the news.
Sad thing is, these cops were actually trying to save the man's life but were obviously too close to the knife wielding guy. Shooting him in the beginning would've been better for all concerned. If they would've shot him in the ass or leg, then if he didn't drop the knife, head shot.
-
Also, the cops were slow to seek medical attention for this man. One even stepped on his neck while handcuffing him.
They were just checking his pulse with their boot
-
Is this the same CNN that reported he was shot in the back 100 feet away and that Al Gore won Florida? Maybe ESPN can confirm.
I would take CNN's word over Fox News' any day. Fox News was one of, if not, the first to run with the "Broken Orbital Bone" excuse.
-
I would take CNN's word over Fox News' any day. Fox News was one of, if not, the first to run with the "Broken Orbital Bone" excuse.
If his bone wasn't broken, which it sounds like maybe it wasn't, then it doesn't change things a tremendous amount to me. It would've been some better for the officer if it was broken but if he still had swelling, as this CNN story suggested, it's good for him.
CNN anchor Don Lemon reported on Thursday that Wilson did go to the hospital with swelling around his face and eyes, but an X-ray came back negative for a fracture to his orbital bone.
Either one could help him prove he was attacked. As things play out, I'm thinking the number of shots is going to be a bigger deal than I originally thought. If he'd only shot the boy a time or two, I think that would be better for his PR campaign...or what little of a campaign he has in his corner. Based on the outcry, Wilson executed Brown. The decision has already been made.
-
If his bone wasn't broken, which it sounds like maybe it wasn't, then it doesn't change things a tremendous amount to me. It would've been some better for the officer if it was broken but if he still had swelling, as this CNN story suggested, it's good for him.
CNN anchor Don Lemon reported on Thursday that Wilson did go to the hospital with swelling around his face and eyes, but an X-ray came back negative for a fracture to his orbital bone.
Either one could help him prove he was attacked. As things play out, I'm thinking the number of shots is going to be a bigger deal than I originally thought. If he'd only shot the boy a time or two, I think that would be better for his PR campaign...or what little of a campaign he has in his corner. Based on the outcry, Wilson executed Brown. The decision has already been made.
I agree, the shot to the top of the head, after a number of shots to his arm and neck area, IMO means that he shot Brown when he was face down on the ground. The details that come out in court will be interesting.
-
I agree, the shot to the top of the head, after a number of shots to his arm and neck area, IMO means that he shot Brown when he was face down on the ground. The details that come out in court will be interesting.
I think the shot on the top of the head means that Brown was already dead, and was falling forward when that bullet struck.
-
I would take CNN's word over Fox News' any day. Fox News was one of, if not, the first to run with the "Broken Orbital Bone" excuse.
You are blind if you don't think CNN wrote the book on sketchy journalism to suit their narrative. Foxnews just wanted in on the game with the rest of the kids.
-
All news agencies up to and including The Daily Show and Time magazine have been pretty disappointing. Not a great deal of "Journalism". I turned it on CNN for 10 minutes and they had 5 talking heads squawking about something or another, at the end of the 10 minutes they said whatever it was they were squawking about "hadn't been confirmed". Well, if there's rioting and violence based off everything you say maybe we don't report shit that hasn't been confirmed. The Daily Show talked for 15 minutes about emotionally driven irrelevant shit and the only thing they mentioned that was remotely relevant was it is hard to be a minority because a lot of the time you're treated differently.
At the end of the day there has been no smoking gun, no reason to behave as if either party has been proven guilty. All the media is doing is contributing to further unrest and doing their best to guarantee that everyone's opinion gets more biased (and rabidly so) by the day.
-
All news agencies up to and including The Daily Show and Time magazine have been pretty disappointing. Not a great deal of "Journalism". I turned it on CNN for 10 minutes and they had 5 talking heads squawking about something or another, at the end of the 10 minutes they said whatever it was they were squawking about "hadn't been confirmed". Well, if there's rioting and violence based off everything you say maybe we don't report shit that hasn't been confirmed. The Daily Show talked for 15 minutes about emotionally driven irrelevant shit and the only thing they mentioned that was remotely relevant was it is hard to be a minority because a lot of the time you're treated differently.
At the end of the day there has been no smoking gun, no reason to behave as if either party has been proven guilty. All the media is doing is contributing to further unrest and doing their best to guarantee that everyone's opinion gets more biased (and rabidly so) by the day.
They are all bad. People just cry about one or another because its suits their own personal beliefs. Fox leans right. CNN, CBS, MSNBC leans left. Water is wet.
-
As for the media. Control the media, control the people...the more divided the people are, the easier they become to being controlled.
-
Try to justify this one.
http://youtu.be/-XFYTtgZAlE (http://youtu.be/-XFYTtgZAlE)
-
Try to justify this one.
http://youtu.be/-XFYTtgZAlE (http://youtu.be/-XFYTtgZAlE)
Holy smokes. I'm quite certain, it's a young and inexperienced cop. Who is hopefully now a young and inexperienced and unemployed cop. But, it would be very hard for me to resist the temptation of getting even with this stupid fuck. He should have been very clear, step away from the car, yadda, yadda, whatever. To ask for the man's license and then start shooting means he's a stupid ass, imo.
-
One good thing is, if he lives, he gone be rich, beyaach. But he may have a slight limp.
-
For all the "Just comply with what the police say and there won't be a problem" arguments (which typically I agree is definitely sound advice), this sort of refutes that.
Dude literally got shot for following exactly the orders this cop was barking at him.
-
For all the "Just comply with what the police say and there won't be a problem" arguments (which typically I agree is definitely sound advice), this sort of refutes that.
Dude literally got shot for following exactly the orders this cop was barking at him.
I think we should go burn a restaurant down to show our disapproval.
-
If I was that guys partner and seen that, I would have got back in my car and drove away as quick as I could.
-
If I was that guys partner and seen that, I would have got back in my car and drove away as quick as I could.
He would've likely shot you for fleeing the scene.
-
For all the "Just comply with what the police say and there won't be a problem" arguments (which typically I agree is definitely sound advice), this sort of refutes that.
Dude literally got shot for following exactly the orders this cop was barking at him.
Can't justify an obvious huge fudgeup from a guy that doesn't belong but:
Does it really refute it? Or does it just mean this one asshole wasn't good at anything including shooting?
Maybe I should post a video of a cop giving a citizen way too many verbal commands and then dying and in doing so justify all shootings of any citizen? Evidently you believe in the transitive property of LEO contacts.
Maybe you're saying all blues are the same. That's racist.
If I had any idea how to embed this I would.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6z8q4lOrDU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6z8q4lOrDU#)
Edit: You're welcome. :admin:
-
Can't justify an obvious huge fudgeup from a guy that doesn't belong but:
Does it really refute it? Or does it just mean this one asshole wasn't good at anything including shooting?
Maybe I should post a video of a cop giving a citizen way too many verbal commands and then dying and in doing so justify all shootings of any citizen? Evidently you believe in the transitive property of LEO contacts.
Maybe you're saying all blues are the same. That's racist.
If I had any idea how to embed this I would.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6z8q4lOrDU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6z8q4lOrDU)
you should really consider taking a remedial computer skills class. I hate it when people don't know how to bed in a video and stuff. It should be a minimum requirement that the x board considers implementing.
-
Over lunch, I'd read, in another article, that this officer and his partner had been involved in an episode (in 2012, if I'm not mistaken) where he'd been shot at during the stop. Not that it excuses a thing regarding this incident but it may shed some light on the cop's mental state and why he reacted the way he did as the guy reached back into his vehicle for his ID.
Maybe a little PTSD resurfacing in the moment, I don't know? If he'd been dealing with demons from fighting for his life in 2012, he should have sought help and stepped away from a position where he was uncomfortable. Either way, this dude is and should be done for. Glad his shooting was shit too.
-
Can't justify an obvious huge fudgeup from a guy that doesn't belong but:
Does it really refute it? Or does it just mean this one asshole wasn't good at anything including shooting?
Maybe I should post a video of a cop giving a citizen way too many verbal commands and then dying and in doing so justify all shootings of any citizen? Evidently you believe in the transitive property of LEO contacts.
Maybe you're saying all blues are the same. That's racist.
Cause that's what I said.
-
Ironic how if the officer that smooth_operator posted the vid about had pulled over the black dude, then the dude would've lived and had the officer that pulled over the black dude, pulled over the other crazy dude, then the officer would've lived. But, he was a bad shot, so we don't know.
Anywho, I must admit, when that old guy started jumping around and dancing, that made me giggle. I wouldn't have been giggling with those 30 oughts stinging my ass though.
-
Cause that's what I said.
I'm sorry chad, I guess I misinterpreted your implication when you posted this video to a thread about another unrelated shooting that you have already ruled unjustified.
With the caption "try to justify this".
Clearly, I jumped to the wrong conclusion. Good thing I'm not a SC state trooper I might've shot you for it.
-
I'm sorry chad, I guess I misinterpreted your implication when you posted this video to a thread about another unrelated shooting that you have already ruled unjustified.
With the caption "try to justify this".
Clearly, I jumped to the wrong conclusion. Good thing I'm not a SC state trooper I might've shot you for it.
There is no need for an apology. Chizad is an instigator. That is what he does. In reality, he would likely push the envelope so far that you may have to shoot him in a traffic stop. Especially if you are a black cop. He'd be like: "I'm within my rights!" as they wheeled him away and shit.
-
I'm sorry chad, I guess I misinterpreted your implication when you posted this video to a thread about another unrelated shooting that you have already ruled unjustified.
With the caption "try to justify this".
Clearly, I jumped to the wrong conclusion. Good thing I'm not a SC state trooper I might've shot you for it.
The point is this type of shit happens frequently. And you have demonstrated that you believe every officer is in the right in every one of these cases. I challenged you to find what this guy did wrong.
Another unrelated video that came out this week.
http://youtu.be/S9FtNOV6Qhk (http://youtu.be/S9FtNOV6Qhk)
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/09/ohio_police_won_t_be_punished_for_killing_john_crawford_police_are_virtually.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/09/ohio_police_won_t_be_punished_for_killing_john_crawford_police_are_virtually.html)
John Crawford looks to have been murdered. Even worse, the police who killed him are probably free to kill again.
By Jamelle Bouie
“It was an execution, no doubt about it,†said John Crawford II, the father of John Crawford III, a 22-year-old black man killed by Ohio police last month. “It was flat-out murder. And when you see the footage, it will illustrate that.â€
It’s hard not to agree. If you watch the Walmart surveillance footage of Crawford’s killing—released Wednesday by prosecutors in the case—you don’t see a confrontation, or anything like the scenario described by Ronald Ritchie, the witness who called 911.
In Ritchie’s account of the event, Crawford “was just waving [the gun] at children and people. … I couldn’t hear anything that he was saying. I’m thinking that he is either going to rob the place or he’s there to shoot somebody.†Moreover, said Ritchie, “He didn’t really want to be looked at, and when people did look at him, he was pointing the gun at them. He was pointing at people. Children walking by.†Indeed, on the emergency call, Ritchie said that Crawford was trying to load the gun, leading dispatchers to tell officers that “he just put some bullets inside.â€
It’s difficult to watch the video of John Crawford’s killing and conclude he wasn’t murdered.
The problem is that isn’t true. In surveillance footage, there are no people in the aisle or children walking by—Crawford is alone, on a phone. He has a gun by his side, but as we later learned, it was an unloaded air rifle. What’s more, Ohio is an open-carry state—legally, there’s no reason to approach Crawford if he isn’t using the gun to harm people. Which he wasn’t.
Police say they called out to Crawford before they shot, but the footage throws doubt on the claim. In the video, there’s no indication Crawford heard police commands before they shot him—police rush from the side and shoot, and Crawford falls to the ground. He tries to get away, but police corner and arrest him. He died later, at a nearby hospital.
To go back to Crawford’s father, it’s difficult to watch this video and conclude his son wasn’t murdered. The pace of the event—the speed with which police used lethal force—gives it the feel of a summary execution. In that, it’s similar to the killing of Kajieme Powell, who police shot moments after confronting him near a convenience store in St. Louis last month. In Powell’s case, the police officers were put on administrative leave, and the St. Louis Police Department is pursuing an investigation. In the case of Crawford, prosecutors charged the officers with murder, reckless homicide, and negligent homicide, but the grand jury declined to indict them.
Not that this was a surprise. Even in the most restrictive departments—where officers have little leeway on the use of force—police are granted wide latitude for their actions. As Dara Lind points out for Vox, the key to the legal standards for use of force “is that it doesn’t matter whether there is an actual threat when force is used. Instead, what matters is the officer’s ‘objectively reasonable’ belief that there is a threat.†Barring an extraordinary misuse of force—a cold-blooded killing, for instance—police are nearly immune to criminal prosecution (though they can be fired or face civil consequences).
That is true for federal investigations, too. “Federal prosecutors,†notes the Associated Press, “declined to charge New York police officers who killed the unarmed Sean Bell in 2006 in a 50-shot barrage following his bachelor party in Queens.†Likewise, in 1999, the New York officers who shot Amadou Diallo, an African immigrant, never faced federal charges for his killing. The Justice Department has opened an investigation into the shooting of John Crawford as well as the Ferguson, Missouri, shooting of Michael Brown, but past cases suggest both will end without charges.
In a sense, the real scandal isn’t that police killed Crawford—it’s what police can get away with in the use of lethal force. The answer, by and large, is everything. And for communities that face the brunt of official violence, it feels as if—when it comes to police—they are outside the protection of the law. During the Ferguson protests, National Review writer Charles Cooke made an important point about black American anger over police violence:
As a rule, your neighbor does not exist to protect you; he is not paid by the whole of the citizenry; he does not claim to act in your name, or to treat everybody equally. And, if he commits an illegal act, he will be charged by authorities and he will face a jury of his peers that will first pronounce upon his guilt and then decide upon his punishment. He, in other words, is subject to rules that are designed to help you if he steps out of line; the state, by contrast, has very little above it.
If that sounds unfair—if it sounds like an exaggeration—then think of Michael Brown, John Crawford, and Kajieme Powell. Each died for nothing, and at most, they’ll get the condolences of a few officials. The cops, on the other hand, will go back to work.
-
The point is this type of shoot happens frequently. And you have demonstrated that you believe every officer is in the right in every one of these cases. I challenged you to find what this guy did wrong.
Another unrelated video that came out this week.
No, I don't think all officers are always right. In fact, I said I hope the cop in Ferguson was wrong and gets convicted of it. In fact, I spoke about how we don't have enough proven information to make a determination in that case. I lamented the rumor and speculation being reported as fact.
I readily admit that cops make mistakes. I readily admit that some cops are in fact bad persons.
I dispute any unfair assertions that fail to take reality into account, or lump all law enforcement into the same category. I dispute your idea that such things happen "frequently". You may perceive it to be so, but it is not. I submit that the rights of citizens to be free from such unlawful and repugnant behavior are more protected than ever. Training has improved. Equipment has improved. Hiring processes and psychological evaluations have improved. Cops are recorded constantly which promotes integrity. You see videos of such because they are so remarkable. Tragedies such as this happening at all is too much, but your chances being brutalized or killed unlawfully by a cop are so small they make winning the lottery look likely.
Any time someone's life ends violently it is a tragedy. It becomes horrific tragedy if it ends due to a mistake. If it ends due to evil intent it becomes a tragic crime. Your default assumption seems to be evil intent, mine does not.
And of course I identify with law enforcement more than you, who would expect otherwise? Doesn't mean I excuse evil intent or even folks who don't have the temperament for the job.
-
Should it be "bad persons" or "bad people"?
English seems to have changed such that I am not sure.
-
"People" but I will leave it as a monument to bad grammar.
Here, figure out who you want to root for in this one.
http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/7600384-La-police-fatally-shoot-fellow-deputy-in-domestic-dispute/ (http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/7600384-La-police-fatally-shoot-fellow-deputy-in-domestic-dispute/)
-
Just another example of why state troopers should be exiled. I haven't seen a single reason that justifies paying their salaries.
-
"People" but I will leave it as a monument to bad grammar.
Here, figure out who you want to root for in this one.
http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/7600384-La-police-fatally-shoot-fellow-deputy-in-domestic-dispute/ (http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/7600384-La-police-fatally-shoot-fellow-deputy-in-domestic-dispute/)
I obviously root for the officers that defended themselves against a irate citizen.
See, IMO, once a Police Officer crosses the legal line he becomes a citizen and should be prosecuted as such, (read: not giving a week or two of paid vacation or being fired then picked up by another district)...and don't get me started about suing the Police Dept. or the Police Officer which is the same thing as suing the tax payers.
What the Police Officers did in that situation was by the book.
Regarding the shooting, by the Police Officers, at the Wal-Mart of a man holding a pellet gun. They should be charged with either Homicide or maybe 2nd degree murder...and the person that called 911 and lied should be held accountable too, maybe just as much as the Police Officers.
-
This is kinda what I'm talking about...flip the tables, what would happen if two citizens, that night, beat a Police Officer "to a pulp" for just standing in the way? Think they'd get their ruling overturned? LOL...no
http://youtu.be/sN05p3sogyc (http://youtu.be/sN05p3sogyc)
-
This is kinda what I'm talking about...flip the tables, what would happen if two citizens, that night, beat a Police Officer "to a pulp" for just standing in the way? Think they'd get their ruling overturned? LOL...no
http://youtu.be/sN05p3sogyc (http://youtu.be/sN05p3sogyc)
You used a bad example in that the kid that got beat up was white. It's retribution. Like reparations.
-
There is no need for an apology. Chizad is an instigator. That is what he does. In reality, he would likely push the envelope so far that you may have to shoot him in a traffic stop. Especially if you are a black cop. He'd be like: "I'm within my rights!" as they wheeled him away and shit.
I like to believe our very own Chadskins is more of a "don't tase me bro!" kind of guy.
-
This is kinda what I'm talking about...flip the tables, what would happen if two citizens, that night, beat a Police Officer "to a pulp" for just standing in the way? Think they'd get their ruling overturned? LOL...no
http://youtu.be/sN05p3sogyc (http://youtu.be/sN05p3sogyc)
What the fuck?
-
The point is this type of shoot happens frequently. And you have demonstrated that you believe every officer is in the right in every one of these cases. I challenged you to find what this guy did wrong.
Another unrelated video that came out this week.
http://youtu.be/S9FtNOV6Qhk (http://youtu.be/S9FtNOV6Qhk)
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/09/ohio_police_won_t_be_punished_for_killing_john_crawford_police_are_virtually.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/09/ohio_police_won_t_be_punished_for_killing_john_crawford_police_are_virtually.html)
If there is a grown man inside of store pointing a gun at people--including kids, he runs a very high likelihood of taking a cap in the ass. Not only from the police. At least in most places in the south.
And, I must say that even though the kid may have been mentally deranged or whatever, I don't see how the police really did anything wrong in the video posted. Esp considering they get a call re: someone pointing a gun at people. It's weird, yes. But I would've likely popped a cap in his ass too.
You shouldn't point a gun at someone unless you are willing to pop a cap.
-
If there is a grown man inside of store pointing a gun at people--including kids, he runs a very high likelihood of taking a cap in the ass. Not only from the police. At least in most places in the south.
And, I must say that even though the kid may have been mentally deranged or whatever, I don't see how the police really did anything wrong in the video posted. Esp considering they get a call re: someone pointing a gun at people. It's weird, yes. But I would've likely popped a cap in his ass too.
You shouldn't point a gun at someone unless you are willing to pop a cap.
Where is he pointing the gun at anyone? And it's an air gun he got off the shelf at that Wal-Mart.
Meanwhile none of these people got shot.
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1834680/thumbs/o-TARGET-570.jpg?6)
(http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site569/2014/0603/20140603__targetGunProtest_300.jpg)
(http://www.motherjones.com/files/target-open-carry-1-630.jpg)
(http://www.motherjones.com/files/target-open-carry-4-630.jpg)
(http://www.motherjones.com/files/target-1-630.jpg)
-
Where is he pointing the gun at anyone? And it's an air gun he got off the shelf at that Wal-Mart.
Meanwhile none of these people got shot.
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1834680/thumbs/o-TARGET-570.jpg?6)
(http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site569/2014/0603/20140603__targetGunProtest_300.jpg)
(http://www.motherjones.com/files/target-open-carry-1-630.jpg)
(http://www.motherjones.com/files/target-open-carry-4-630.jpg)
(http://www.motherjones.com/files/target-1-630.jpg)
That it was an air rifle is irrelevant. Doesn't matter if it was a stick that looks like a gun when you rob a bank.
I've never seen an air rifle at WalMart that you could just take off the shelf unless it was in a box. I wonder if he took it out of the box, which is what I suspect.
Really doesn't matter, if he was pointing it at people. I couldn't tell from the video. Maybe he didn't. If he didn't point it as described in the story, its different. I was basing my assumption on what the story said. Maybe he pointed it during the time he wasn't on camera.
Bottom line is, if he pointed it and was trying to load it as the story indicated that people reported, I can certainly understand why he was shot. And it doesn't surprise or outrage me.
-
That it was an air rifle is irrelevant. Doesn't matter if it was a stick that looks like a gun when you rob a bank.
I've never seen an air rifle at WalMart that you could just take off the shelf unless it was in a box. I wonder if he took it out of the box, which is what I suspect.
Really doesn't matter, if he was pointing it at people. I couldn't tell from the video. Maybe he didn't. If he didn't point it as described in the story, its different. I was basing my assumption on what the story said. Maybe he pointed it during the time he wasn't on camera.
Bottom line is, if he pointed it and was trying to load it as the story indicated that people reported, I can certainly understand why he was shot. And it doesn't surprise or outrage me.
I'm guessing you didn't watch the video. Also, the Police Officer said that he told him to drop the weapon, but if you watch the video you'll notice that two Officers came around the corner, saw the gun in his possession, not once did they get his attention enough to have him turn towards them, then they fired upon him.
-
I'm guessing you didn't watch the video. Also, the Police Officer said that he told him to drop the weapon, but if you watch the video you'll notice that two Officers came around the corner, saw the gun in his possession, not once did they get his attention enough to have him turn towards them, then they fired upon him.
I did watch it. As I said, I couldn't tell much from it. It appeared officers came from 2 directions. I would assume with it being in Wal Mart, there are witnesses to testify how it all went down.
My bet is he took the gun out of the box and was acting weird. Probably pointing it at folks like the article said.
-
I did watch it. As I said, I couldn't tell much from it. It appeared officers came from 2 directions. I would assume with it being in Wal Mart, there are witnesses to testify how it all went down.
My bet is he took the gun out of the box and was acting weird. Probably pointing it at folks like the article said.
The guy that called 911 has said, now, that he never saw him pointing it at anyone. Plus, the video does show that they got his attention, more like startled him, because he was just standing there, minding his own business...right before the Police Officers yelled at him, then shot him. Then the officers put him in handcuffs and took him to the hospital, where he died. Watch the video again, all of this takes place in the matter of less than 10 minutes. Plus it isn't against the law to open carry.
One more thing, another person died of cardiac arrest, while running out of the store, after the fatal shoots.
-
Where is he pointing the gun at anyone? And it's an air gun he got off the shelf at that Wal-Mart.
Meanwhile none of these people got shot.
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1834680/thumbs/o-TARGET-570.jpg?6)
(http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site569/2014/0603/20140603__targetGunProtest_300.jpg)
(http://www.motherjones.com/files/target-open-carry-1-630.jpg)
(http://www.motherjones.com/files/target-open-carry-4-630.jpg)
(http://www.motherjones.com/files/target-1-630.jpg)
I noticed all of those people carrying their assault rifles are white.
-
One good thing is, if he lives, he gone be rich, beyaach. But he may have a slight limp.
If he and his family are from the same State, he'll essentially be suing himself & his family (tax payer's money).
-
Ferguson Police Chief decided to join the protesters, after another violent protest occurred (I'm thinking he's trying to save face).
http://youtu.be/u4SePKt1qd0 (http://youtu.be/u4SePKt1qd0)
-
The guy that called 911 has said, now, that he never saw him pointing it at anyone. Plus, the video does show that they got his attention, more like startled him, because he was just standing there, minding his own business...right before the Police Officers yelled at him, then shot him. Then the officers put him in handcuffs and took him to the hospital, where he died. Watch the video again, all of this takes place in the matter of less than 10 minutes. Plus it isn't against the law to open carry.
One more thing, another person died of cardiac arrest, while running out of the store, after the fatal shoots.
It is on private property if the property owner doesn't want you to. And I have no issue with that. People don't like Panera or Chipotle? fuck em. I love guns but don't exactly want one sitting on a table next to me while I'm eating with my kids. No one is making anyone go there.
Btw open carry isn't legal in a lot of states. It is in Ga and Al. Surprisingly not in Tejas. And most northern states.
-
It is on private property if the property owner doesn't want you to. And I have no issue with that. People don't like Panera or Chipotle? fuck em. I love guns but don't exactly want one sitting on a table next to me while I'm eating with my kids. No one is making anyone go there.
Btw open carry isn't legal in a lot of states. It is in Ga and Al. Surprisingly not in Tejas. And most northern states.
It's legal in Ohio where this took place.
-
I'd like to pop a cap in the blonde Target MILF
-
It is on private property if the property owner doesn't want you to. And I have no issue with that. People don't like Panera or Chipotle? fuck em. I love guns but don't exactly want one sitting on a table next to me while I'm eating with my kids. No one is making anyone go there.
Btw open carry isn't legal in a lot of states. It is in Ga and Al. Surprisingly not in Tejas. And most northern states.
Most folks in TX don't WANT to open carry. Why advertise yourself as the first target for a bad guy looking to take out the opposition? It's much more effective when there's the element of "Spin the Wheel, Take Your Chances On Concealed Carry". It's really unnecessary. And the people doing open carry with long guns are stupid douchebags who should be shot purely on the basic principle of genetic cleansing of the mentally defective. They set the 2A cause back 50 years every time they do that shit.
-
Most folks in TX don't WANT to open carry. Why advertise yourself as the first target for a bad guy looking to take out the opposition? It's much more effective when there's the element of "Spin the Wheel, Take Your Chances On Concealed Carry". It's really unnecessary. And the people doing open carry with long guns are stupid douchebags who should be shot purely on the basic principle of genetic cleansing of the mentally defective. They set the 2A cause back 50 years every time they do that shit.
Oh come on, you can't tell me that you wouldn't want to walk around Wall Marks carrying a 50 Cal Machine Gun while shopping for stuff.
-
Oh come on, you can't tell me that you wouldn't want to walk around Wall Marks carrying a 50 Cal Machine Gun while shopping for stuff.
Dude, I doubt I could LIFT a 50cal, much less carry one around. Marines hump that shit. Not me.
-
Most folks in TX don't WANT to open carry. Why advertise yourself as the first target for a bad guy looking to take out the opposition? It's much more effective when there's the element of "Spin the Wheel, Take Your Chances On Concealed Carry". It's really unnecessary. And the people doing open carry with long guns are stupid douchebags who should be shot purely on the basic principle of genetic cleansing of the mentally defective. They set the 2A cause back 50 years every time they do that shit.
Its not the WANT part - its the CAN'T. And its surprising.
Here you can open carry or conceal. Its nice to have the option. But still, if a private property owner doesn't want it on their premises I respect that as well.
And yes, those douchebags are friggin idiots. The incident in Chipotle was done by a big of idiots trying to prove a point, NOT people merely trying to exercise 2nd Amendment rights. They were being obnoxious about it.
-
Anyone that WANTS to walk around with a shotgun or rifle strapped to their body in the general public is a fucking idiot that doesnt deserve the right to own a weapon. I hope every responsible adult walks around carrying concealed. But there is no reason to let anyone else see it. It's just stupid.
-
I hope every responsible adult walks around carrying concealed, there is no reason to let anyone else see it. It's just stupid.
I agree. That's why I never wear sleeveless shirts, tank tops or shorts...I don't like scaring people with my guns.
-
Police Officer was shot...in the arm, in Ferguson today. A MANHUNT is underway for the shooter.
They were responding to a robbery in progress, reports are that the responding officers killed a teen when they arrived, then one officer was shot in the arm, now a State Wide manhunt is underway for the shooter.
-
Its not the WANT part - its the CAN'T. And its surprising.
I get your point but mine is this: if the majority of folks in TX wanted open carry, we would have it. Gun laws don't get voted down here and politicians outside the few staggeringly pinko areas don't dare oppose them. But we don't want it. Most folks here truly get the "public carry as self defense" position, and don't see a need to go around visibly strapped. I myself would never open carry even if I could.
-
Dude, I doubt I could LIFT a 50cal, much less carry one around. Marines hump that shit. Not me.
I'm sure you've been humped by a few Marines...
-
I'm sure you've been humped by a few Marines...
Actually, not one, to my great disappointment. I will never give hoping that some day, a Marine will land on my shores.
As for you, however, kiss my ass. My mountains are worth conquering.
-
As for you, however, kiss my ass. My mountains are worth conquering.
So nothing like Recon Ridge or Mount Motherfucker.
-
So nothing like Recon Ridge or Mount Motherfucker.
Dunno about that but with me, there's always a fight to reach the summit because of the awesomeness of the reward. Men have died the little death trying to reach my peaks.
-
Actually, not one, to my great disappointment. I will never give hoping that some day, a Marine will land on my shores.
As for you, however, kiss my ass. My mountains are worth conquering.
It's time for an amphibious assault.
-
It's time for an amphibious assault.
1..2...3...4... AAAAAAAAAA-TACK!
-
Most folks in TX don't WANT to open carry. Why advertise yourself as the first target for a bad guy looking to take out the opposition? It's much more effective when there's the element of "Spin the Wheel, Take Your Chances On Concealed Carry". It's really unnecessary. And the people doing open carry with long guns are stupid douchebags who should be shot purely on the basic principle of genetic cleansing of the mentally defective. They set the 2A cause back 50 years every time they do that shit.
The other side of that argument is if a criminal walks into a place and sees 6 or 7 people packing heat, they are gonna be less likely to start any shit.
-
The other side of that argument is if a criminal walks into a place and sees 6 or 7 people packing heat, they are gonna be less likely to start any shit.
Or...they could just light a few fire crackers and toss it between the heat packing citizens, then after they've shot each other, they can proceed to rob the joint.
-
The other side of that argument is if a criminal walks into a place and sees 6 or 7 people packing heat, they are gonna be less likely to start any shit.
Which is more of a deterrent? The devil you know or the devil you don't? To me, open carry is a sign that says "Shoot me first". I'd rather let the bastard have to think thru it and weigh his odds, which, in my rural county at least, are NOT in his favor.
I have a whole trailer park of meth heads not half a mile from the entrance to our neighborhood. But we have had ZERO problems with break ins, etc. We all live on large lots with clear lines of sight, and damn near every neighbor is loaded for bear. Even the most fucked up meth head isn't desperate enough to try for one of our homes.
-
Which is more of a deterrent? The devil you know or the devil you don't? To me, open carry is a sign that says "Shoot me first". I'd rather let the bastard have to think thru it and weigh his odds, which, in my rural county at least, are NOT in his favor.
I have a whole trailer park of meth heads not half a mile from the entrance to our neighborhood. But we have had ZERO problems with break ins, etc. We all live on large lots with clear lines of sight, and damn near every neighbor is loaded for bear. Even the most fucked up meth head isn't desperate enough to try for one of our homes.
A "bad" reputation is not always a bad thing.
-
A "bad" reputation is not always a bad thing.
I have that exact line tattooed on my ass.
-
I have that exact line tattooed on my ass.
I don't remember seei........I mean, really?
-
I have that exact line tattooed on my ass.
We are going to need to see some proof.
-
We are going to need to see some proof.
I call this into action.
-
Which is more of a deterrent? The devil you know or the devil you don't? To me, open carry is a sign that says "Shoot me first". I'd rather let the bastard have to think thru it and weigh his odds, which, in my rural county at least, are NOT in his favor.
I have a whole trailer park of meth heads not half a mile from the entrance to our neighborhood. But we have had ZERO problems with break ins, etc. We all live on large lots with clear lines of sight, and damn near every neighbor is loaded for bear. Even the most fucked up meth head isn't desperate enough to try for one of our homes.
Just me personally in the criminal's shoes? Im not picking ANY fight with someone I KNOW is packing. Or even near them. I'd rather take my chances on the gun I can't see. There is a 100% chance (or 103/98 ths in Chizad common core math) someone visably with a gun, has a gun. Someone where I can't see the gun? Not as much. They may, they may not. Chances are they won't have one. But I know for certain the guy open carrying will shoot me. Im not taking that chance.
I do see your point. And I guess it can go either way. Not so much an exact science trying to get inside the head of the average perp (JR's favorite word). Some think more than others.
-
Just me personally in the criminal's shoes? Im not picking ANY fight with someone I KNOW is packing. Or even near them. I'd rather take my chances on the gun I can't see. There is a 100% chance (or 103/98 ths in Chizad common core math) someone visably with a gun, has a gun. Someone where I can't see the gun? Not as much. They may, they may not. Chances are they won't have one. But I know for certain the guy open carrying will shoot me. Im not taking that chance.
I'm of the opposite opinion. If I have a weapon and am the person who intends to use it first for something illegal, then I have an advantage. Any other person who is carrying is (presumably) doing so for defensive purposes, meaning they're going to react to a situation. If I can see who is carrying, then I know who to take out with my first shots so as to prevent their reaction.
Unless you try to snipe his ass from across the store with a pistol, I'm relatively certain you could fire first and kill him before he could pull and fire his gun, especially if it's a rifle or shotgun draped across his back.
But if you have no idea who is carrying, choosing your target becomes more of a gamble, and you may very well shoot a person who doesn't have a gun first. That gives the gun carrying person more time to react and drop yo ass.
Of course, all of this assumes that at least one person in the room has a gun. In that instance, going after the open carry first makes sense to me. And in a place like Texas, you have to assume that at least someone in the room has a gun.
-
Most people who open carry are idiots who don't have the proper training on how to keep an asshole from taking their pistol. That's my problem with open carry. You being a fucking moron and displaying your firearm for all to see have possibly given a lunatic who doesn't have a gun the opportunity to take yours and kill a bunch of people.
No reason for open carry, at all. Conceal that shit. Should the need arise, skin that smoke wagon and do work. Until then, nobody needs to see it.
-
I don't remember seei........I mean, really?
You were focused on the prize, baby.
-
Most people who open carry are idiots who don't have the proper training on how to keep an asshole from taking their pistol. That's my problem with open carry. You being a fucking moron and displaying your firearm for all to see have possibly given a lunatic who doesn't have a gun the opportunity to take yours and kill a bunch of people.
No reason for open carry, at all. Conceal that shit. Should the need arise, skin that smoke wagon and do work. Until then, nobody needs to see it.
This man knows. The training that comes with a CHL does not generally cover "what to do if some mofo takes your own gun away". Bubba Redneck with his Glawk on his hip has probably never even contemplated how he would react if he found himself in a struggle over his own gun.
-
This man knows. The training that comes with a CHL does not generally cover "what to do if some mofo takes your own gun away". Bubba Redneck with his Glawk on his hip has probably never even contemplated how he would react if he wound himself in a struggle over his own gun.
I personally prefer conceal to open. Just saying I think both should be legal.
-
I personally prefer conceal to open. Just saying I think both should be legal.
Not disagreeing. But I'd never carry open even if I could.
-
JMO: The Yats that are running around here in Dallas with their weapons slung across their backs are folks who just want attention and get on TV. You don't see any real gun owners doing that. Having a CHL means we respect the weapon, are aware of its capabilities, and have a belief that what I have is worth standing up for. Its up to you if you think its worth being shot for.
-
This man knows. The training that comes with a CHL does not generally cover "what to do if some mofo takes your own gun away". Bubba Redneck with his Glawk Highpoint on his hip has probably never even contemplated how he would react if he found himself in a struggle over his own gun.
fixt
-
JMO: The Yats that are running around here in Dallas with their weapons slung across their backs are folks who just want attention and get on TV. You don't see any real gun owners doing that. Having a CHL means we respect the weapon, are aware of its capabilities, and have a belief that what I have is worth standing up for. Its up to you if you think its worth being shot for.
The rhetoric is nice but the reasons you guys have listed is NOT the reason your state doesn't have OC.
If you are not going to have OC, those would be good reasons TW listed. But they are not why you don't have it...
Try going back to the 1870's and reconstruction. Once OC is taken away its hard to get it back and that was a critical mistake Tx made way "back then". Had more to do racial issues and lack of trust (whites fearing the blacks would want revenge).
I agree those people are idiots. And I also believe any business has a right to not want that in their place of business.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/us/ferguson-case-officer-is-said-to-cite-struggle.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/us/ferguson-case-officer-is-said-to-cite-struggle.html?_r=0)
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/10/ny-times-michael-brown-beat-officer-darren-wilson-before-his-death-blood-found-on-wilsons-gun/ (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/10/ny-times-michael-brown-beat-officer-darren-wilson-before-his-death-blood-found-on-wilsons-gun/)
Gateway Pundit quotes from original NYT article, but they won't let me copy from their URL.
The New York Times reported on Friday that Michael Brown’s blood was on police officer Darren Wilson’s gun. According to the Times Brown reached inside the police car and attacked Darren Wilson.
The police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., two months ago has told investigators that he was pinned in his vehicle and in fear for his life as he struggled over his gun with Mr. Brown, according to government officials briefed on the federal civil rights investigation into the matter.
The officer, Darren Wilson, has told the authorities that during the scuffle, Mr. Brown reached for the gun. It was fired twice in the car, according to forensics tests performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The first bullet struck Mr. Brown in the arm; the second bullet missed.
The forensics tests showed Mr. Brown’s blood on the gun, as well as on the interior door panel and on Officer Wilson’s uniform. Officer Wilson told the authorities that Mr. Brown had punched and scratched him repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck.
This is the first public account of Officer Wilson’s testimony to investigators, but it does not explain why, after he emerged from his vehicle, he fired at Mr. Brown multiple times. It contradicts some witness accounts, and it will not calm those who have been demanding to know why an unarmed man was shot a total of six times. Mr. Brown’s death continues to fuel anger and sometimes-violent protests.
-
from teh foxynews. I am a gay twerker that has no balls!!!! I also have no idea how to use the quote function to post stories, so I annoy the piss out of others. I like male genatalia in and around my mouth.
Michael Brown, the 18-year-old black man whose fatal shooting by a white police officer in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson in August touched off weeks of racially-charged rioting, had marijuana in his system, was initially shot at close range and does not appear to have been killed while running away, according to experts who reviewed the official autopsy and toxicology report.
The documents, obtained by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and analyzed by two experts not directly involved in the case, appears to contradict witness accounts that claimed Brown was running away from Police Officer Darren Wilson when he was killed on Aug. 9. The new information comes on the heels of reports that Wilson told authorities Brown had reached inside Wilson’s police SUV and struggled for his gun, resulting in Wilson firing twice, hitting Brown once in the hand. Moments later and outside of the vehicle, Wilson fired the fatal bullets that sparked a national controversy.
The newspaper had St. Louis medical examiner Dr. Michael Graham, who is not part of the official investigation, review the autopsy report, and he determined that it “does support that there was a significant altercation at the car†including a shot that hit Brown’s right hand. Dr. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist in San Francisco who also reviewed the documents, concurred that the autopsy “supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun" and that it did not support claims Brown was shot while running away from Wilson, or with his hands up.
The toxicology test. also obtained by the newspaper and performed by a St. Louis University laboratory, revealed marijuana in Brown’s blood and urine. Alfred Staubus, a consultant in forensic toxicology at The Ohio State University College of Pharmacy, told the newspaper THC could impair judgment or slow reaction times but that there was no reliable measurement to make those conclusions.
“The detection of THC in the postmortem blood of Michael Brown really indicates his recent use of marijuana (within a few hours) and that he may or may not have been impaired at the time of his death,†Staubus said.
The shots fired outside of the vehicle hit Brown in the forehead, upper right arm and twice in the chest, Melinek said. The fatal shot to the top of Brown’s head indicates he was falling forward or in a lunging position toward the shooter, she said. The fact that a sixth shot hit his forearm and traveled from the back of the arm to the inner arm shows Brown’s palms could not have been facing Wilson, as some witnesses have said, Melinek said.
The findings could be at odds with those of a private autopsy arranged by Brown’s family, conducted by former New York City Chief Medical Examiner Michael Baden and made public Aug. 18. Baden said none of Brown’s wounds appeared to have been from shots fired at close range, noting a lack of stippling, or pattern of tiny blood spatters. However, Graham told the Post-Dispatch, "Sometimes when it’s really close, such as within an inch or so, there is no stipple, just smoke."
A third autopsy has been ordered by federal officials as part of their investigation into whether Brown's civil rights were violated. Results of that one have not been revealed.
A grand jury has been hearing testimony in the case since Aug. 20, but has not yet returned an indictment or a no-bill against Wilson. If the police officer is not indicted, supporters of Brown have vowed to resume demonstrations that began immediately after the shooting and became violent, with looting, arrests and the imposition of a curfew. President Obama consoled Brown's family in the immediate aftermath, and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder went to Ferguson and announced a separate federal investigation.
-
NYT - such a conservative right leaning hack publication. They are messing up the narrative!!!! They won't have anything to complain about now. Awww shucks. Wait, yes they will. :facepalm:
-
from teh foxynews. I am a gay twerker that has no balls!!!! I also have no idea how to use the quote function to post stories, so I annoy the piss out of others. I like male genatalia in and around my mouth.
Michael Brown, the 18-year-old black man whose fatal shooting by a white police officer in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson in August touched off weeks of racially-charged rioting, had marijuana in his system, was initially shot at close range and does not appear to have been killed while running away, according to experts who reviewed the official autopsy and toxicology report.
The documents, obtained by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and analyzed by two experts not directly involved in the case, appears to contradict witness accounts that claimed Brown was running away from Police Officer Darren Wilson when he was killed on Aug. 9. The new information comes on the heels of reports that Wilson told authorities Brown had reached inside Wilson’s police SUV and struggled for his gun, resulting in Wilson firing twice, hitting Brown once in the hand. Moments later and outside of the vehicle, Wilson fired the fatal bullets that sparked a national controversy.
The newspaper had St. Louis medical examiner Dr. Michael Graham, who is not part of the official investigation, review the autopsy report, and he determined that it “does support that there was a significant altercation at the car†including a shot that hit Brown’s right hand. Dr. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist in San Francisco who also reviewed the documents, concurred that the autopsy “supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun" and that it did not support claims Brown was shot while running away from Wilson, or with his hands up.
The toxicology test. also obtained by the newspaper and performed by a St. Louis University laboratory, revealed marijuana in Brown’s blood and urine. Alfred Staubus, a consultant in forensic toxicology at The Ohio State University College of Pharmacy, told the newspaper THC could impair judgment or slow reaction times but that there was no reliable measurement to make those conclusions.
“The detection of THC in the postmortem blood of Michael Brown really indicates his recent use of marijuana (within a few hours) and that he may or may not have been impaired at the time of his death,†Staubus said.
The shots fired outside of the vehicle hit Brown in the forehead, upper right arm and twice in the chest, Melinek said. The fatal shot to the top of Brown’s head indicates he was falling forward or in a lunging position toward the shooter, she said. The fact that a sixth shot hit his forearm and traveled from the back of the arm to the inner arm shows Brown’s palms could not have been facing Wilson, as some witnesses have said, Melinek said.
The findings could be at odds with those of a private autopsy arranged by Brown’s family, conducted by former New York City Chief Medical Examiner Michael Baden and made public Aug. 18. Baden said none of Brown’s wounds appeared to have been from shots fired at close range, noting a lack of stippling, or pattern of tiny blood spatters. However, Graham told the Post-Dispatch, "Sometimes when it’s really close, such as within an inch or so, there is no stipple, just smoke."
A third autopsy has been ordered by federal officials as part of their investigation into whether Brown's civil rights were violated. Results of that one have not been revealed.
A grand jury has been hearing testimony in the case since Aug. 20, but has not yet returned an indictment or a no-bill against Wilson. If the police officer is not indicted, supporters of Brown have vowed to resume demonstrations that began immediately after the shooting and became violent, with looting, arrests and the imposition of a curfew. President Obama consoled Brown's family in the immediate aftermath, and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder went to Ferguson and announced a separate federal investigation.
None of this matters. White cop-Black kid. :facepalm:
-
Body cameras should be as mandatory as bullet proof vests. Then this shit doesn't happen. The incidents happen, but Live and in Color will prove right and wrong.
-
Body cameras should be as mandatory as bullet proof vests. Then this shit doesn't happen. The incidents happen, but Live and in Color will prove right and wrong.
Always about race with you , isn't it?
-
Always about race with you , isn't it?
The facts in these types of cases aren't always black and white... oh, wait...
-
from teh foxynews.I am a gay twerker that has no balls!!!!
Michael Brown, the 18-year-old black man whose fatal shooting by a white police officer in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson in August touched off weeks of racially-charged rioting, had marijuana in his system, was initially shot at close range and does not appear to have been killed while running away, according to experts who reviewed the official autopsy and toxicology report.
The documents, obtained by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and analyzed by two experts not directly involved in the case, appears to contradict witness accounts that claimed Brown was running away from Police Officer Darren Wilson when he was killed on Aug. 9. The new information comes on the heels of reports that Wilson told authorities Brown had reached inside Wilson’s police SUV and struggled for his gun, resulting in Wilson firing twice, hitting Brown once in the hand. Moments later and outside of the vehicle, Wilson fired the fatal bullets that sparked a national controversy.
The newspaper had St. Louis medical examiner Dr. Michael Graham, who is not part of the official investigation, review the autopsy report, and he determined that it “does support that there was a significant altercation at the car†including a shot that hit Brown’s right hand. Dr. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist in San Francisco who also reviewed the documents, concurred that the autopsy “supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun" and that it did not support claims Brown was shot while running away from Wilson, or with his hands up.
The toxicology test. also obtained by the newspaper and performed by a St. Louis University laboratory, revealed marijuana in Brown’s blood and urine. Alfred Staubus, a consultant in forensic toxicology at The Ohio State University College of Pharmacy, told the newspaper THC could impair judgment or slow reaction times but that there was no reliable measurement to make those conclusions.
“The detection of THC in the postmortem blood of Michael Brown really indicates his recent use of marijuana (within a few hours) and that he may or may not have been impaired at the time of his death,†Staubus said.
The shots fired outside of the vehicle hit Brown in the forehead, upper right arm and twice in the chest, Melinek said. The fatal shot to the top of Brown’s head indicates he was falling forward or in a lunging position toward the shooter, she said. The fact that a sixth shot hit his forearm and traveled from the back of the arm to the inner arm shows Brown’s palms could not have been facing Wilson, as some witnesses have said, Melinek said.
The findings could be at odds with those of a private autopsy arranged by Brown’s family, conducted by former New York City Chief Medical Examiner Michael Baden and made public Aug. 18. Baden said none of Brown’s wounds appeared to have been from shots fired at close range, noting a lack of stippling, or pattern of tiny blood spatters. However, Graham told the Post-Dispatch, "Sometimes when it’s really close, such as within an inch or so, there is no stipple, just smoke."
A third autopsy has been ordered by federal officials as part of their investigation into whether Brown's civil rights were violated. Results of that one have not been revealed.
A grand jury has been hearing testimony in the case since Aug. 20, but has not yet returned an indictment or a no-bill against Wilson. If the police officer is not indicted, supporters of Brown have vowed to resume demonstrations that began immediately after the shooting and became violent, with looting, arrests and the imposition of a curfew. President Obama consoled Brown's family in the immediate aftermath, and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder went to Ferguson and announced a separate federal investigation.
anyone wanna bet that the federal ordered autopsy proves that Brown's rights were violated?
-
anyone wanna bet that the federal ordered autopsy proves that Brown's rights were violated?
I guarantee you I can't twerk.
-
anyone wanna bet that the federal ordered autopsy proves that Brown's rights were violated?
Absolutely. If they don't find the cop guilty then the riots will start again.
-
I guarantee you I can't twerk.
Nor do we want you to try.
-
The facts in these types of cases aren't always black and white... oh, wait...
Yes hell they are...
Oh, I see what our did there.
-
Nor do we want you to try.
You're lucky. As hot as my ass already is, a twerking would send most men over the edge.
-
You're lucky. As hot as my ass already is, a twerking would send most men over the edge.
That's called having your fudge packed. :haha:
-
Breaking news for Texas
Just a day after becoming the governor elect for one of the country’s most powerful states, Greg Abbott has announced that he will sign an open carry bill if it reaches his desk
Highlighted part is the important part. Even with the (R) firmly in control in TX, I still say that the vast majority of folks here really don't want open carry. I don't think I would support it.
-
Breaking news for Texas
Highlighted part is the important part. Even with the (R) firmly in control in TX, I still say that the vast majority of folks here really don't want open carry. I don't think I would support it.
I see no problem walking around with a cold beer? :bar: :bar: :bar:
-
This blows me away...
Michael Brown's father is urging Ferguson protestors to remain peaceful ahead of the grand jury's announcement. He spoke from Geneva, where he and Brown's mother are testifying before the United Nations Committee Against Torture.
HOW IN THE HELL is he now an expert on torture? How was his son tortured in any way, shape, form or fashion? And with all the physical evidence that's now coming out showing that Brown was approaching the cop, did not have his hands up, and was in fact close enough to the cop to have GSR on his clothes (meaning he was reaching for the gun, not trying to lay down with his hands over his head), when are these people going to accept the facts?
And the UN? Bitch, please.
-
This blows me away...
And the UN? Bitch, please.
Blue helmets make identification easier at longer distances.
-
Missouri governor declares state of emergency:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/11/17/missouri-gov-jay-nixon-declares-state-of-emergency-ahead-of-ferguson-announcements/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/11/17/missouri-gov-jay-nixon-declares-state-of-emergency-ahead-of-ferguson-announcements/)
Ruling could be released tonight. Looks like they will not indict the police officer in the shooting of Mike Brown.
-
Why we send in the Guard, I don't understand. It's 25 degrees and 20MPH wind. Fuck, send in the fire departments and hose 'em down. You can be cold, you can be wet, but when you put the two together, ain't nobody gonna be in the mood to riot.
-
Ruling could be released tonight. Looks like they will not indict the police officer in the shooting of Mike Brown.
Because between the actual evidence, the autopsy report, and eyewitnesses of color who gave grand jury testimony that supported the officer's story but did so in anonymity because they are scared of their own neighbors, there were no grounds for an indictment.
But since when has a pre-organized mob bent on free tvs and burning shit ever given a flip about the actual facts and evidence? That might preclude them from getting the free stuff from Wal Mart that they are owed by the government.
I hope every business owner in that area stakes out his or her business with loaded weapons and dares someone to touch it. The mob has already given notice that they will burn the place down. That is a declaration of war, and being prepared to deal with what comes should not be a crime. No sense letting yourself be a victim.
-
Why we send in the Guard, I don't understand. It's 25 degrees and 20MPH wind. Fuck, send in the fire departments and hose 'em down. You can be cold, you can be wet, but when you put the two together, ain't nobody gonna be in the mood to riot.
They at least wouldnt stick around very long.
-
They at least wouldnt stick around very long.
Unless they put their tongue on a flag pole...
-
Ruling could be released tonight. Looks like they will not indict the police officer in the shooting of Mike Brown.
I would keep an eye on the news Sunday. Skreets and whatnot.
-
I would keep an eye on the news Sunday. Skreets and whatnot.
Wait....did you mean next Sunday?
-
Wait....did you mean next Sunday?
I hope you're wearing a helmet today. Duck and roll. People are going to stand up for their rights today. Get used to it. We are not going to take it anymore.
"Stop resisting!!!!", my ass.
-
I hope you're wearing a helmet today. Duck and roll. People are going to stand up for their rights today. Get used to it. We are not going to take it anymore.
"Stop resisting!!!!", my ass.
I've got my eye on that 55" Samsung at the Best Buys.
-
So we will have the decision of the grand jury this evening.
Why the hell would you announce this thing at 8:00pm? If this is a no indictment finding, it is already dark and prime rioting time
I would think an announcement at 8:00am would be much more beneficial to riot control.
This tells me they have decided to indict
-
So we will have the decision of the grand jury this evening.
Why the hell would you announce this thing at 8:00pm? If this is a no indictment finding, it is already dark and prime rioting time
I would think an announcement at 8:00am would be much more beneficial to riot control.
This tells me they have decided to indict
Sounds like it. How crazy would it be to announce no indictment at that hour?
-
This tells me they have decided to indict
Then I may riot.
Maybe it's gonna be really cold tonight and they are getting the fire hoses ready. Don't have to hit anybody with the water - just aim over their heads. Make it rain...
-
Then I may riot.
Maybe it's gonna be really cold tonight and they are getting the fire hoses ready. Don't have to hit anybody with the water - just aim over their heads. Make it rain...
^^Racist comment in that it evokes memories of Birmingham and Bull Durham. Insensitive.
-
If they indict, does that mean I don't get my Samsung?
-
Why would they announce at 8pm? Has to be an indictment? (Which, for those protestors out there, that doesn't mean he's guilty.)
But reading about how much the city is doing to prepare for the news tells me he's not being indicted.
-
Why would they announce at 8pm? Has to be an indictment? (Which, for those protestors out there, that doesn't mean he's guilty.)
But reading about how much the city is doing to prepare for the news tells me he's not being indicted.
To indict or not to indict. That is the question.
-
To indict or not to indict. That is the question.
To indict-Celebrate and burn shit.
Not to Indict-Pissed off and burn shit.
-
^^Racist comment in that it evokes memories of Birmingham and Bull Durham. Insensitive.
DNGAF. It is cold. Water is wet. Wet water freezes. I can't imagine being too motivated to riot if you are a human popsicle.
Aim over their heads. Let it rain, let it rain... let the love rain down on them...
If I was racist, I would have said Fudgsicles.
-
Presser is scheduled for 5:30pm. Not 8:00.
No indictment.
-
From WaPo:
Although a parallel federal civil rights investigation of the shooting is continuing, federal investigators have all but concluded that they do not have a case against Wilson, law enforcement officials have said. Federal investigators are also conducting a broader probe of the Ferguson Police Department.
If Wilson is not charged, government officials are bracing for protests in the St. Louis area and nationwide. They have discussed emergency plans in the event of a violent reaction, while protest and community leaders have mapped out their response in hopes of avoiding the unrest that exploded after Brown was killed. :bs:
-
From Gateway Pundit, so please take with a grain of salt:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/11/leaked-prosecutors-office-no-indictment-in-mikebrown-case/ (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/11/leaked-prosecutors-office-no-indictment-in-mikebrown-case/)
LEAKED>>> Prosecutor’s Office: NO INDICTMENT in #MikeBrown Case
Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, November 24, 2014, 3:15 PM
From a source close to the case—
NO INDICTMENT IN MIKE BROWN CASE—
-
Maybe they are announcing so late in order for the protesters to not be able to protest so late, since they have to be at work so early in the a.m., I'm sure.
-
Maybe they are announcing so late in order for the protesters to not be able to protest so late, since they have to be at work so early in the a.m., I'm sure.
Yeah the local Hardees' drive-thru is gonna be running slow tomorrow I bet.
-
Get ready to do yo lootin'. DVD player, surround system and a bucket of KFC on my list.
-
Get ready to do yo lootin'. DVD player, surround system and a bucket of KFC on my list.
Black Friday a little early this year?
-
They scheduled this announcement because it won't be over until morning.
-
If interested. Live feeds. http://www.argusnewsnow.com/page/livestreams-from-ferguson/115.html (http://www.argusnewsnow.com/page/livestreams-from-ferguson/115.html)
-
Looting a likker store because Mike Brown would've wanted it that way.
Burning a police car.
Shots fired
So much for "peaceful protest". And Obama did NOTHING constructive with his stupid speech.
-
Looting the liquor store was a bad idea. They're all going to have hangovers at work tomorrow.
-
I'm not going to be able to make it there this year. Do they have online looting? I'd like to throw a virtual concrete block through the window of a store there and just have them ship me a few things I'd likely tote out.
-
Looting the liquor store was a bad idea. They're all going to have hangovers at work tomorrow.
Mail doesn't run until after lunch.
-
It makes me really sad that all this is happening in my country. The scenes being shown on television shouldn't be happening here. Egypt? Sure. Iraq? I don't care. The United States? No way. On a lighter note it is funny watching the reporters struggle with tear gas. No one taught them how to use those gas masks I guess.
-
Protesting in multiple cities...........
-
Well, at least there's a clear winner.
The Media, profiting from the chaos they've sown and are continuing to create.
-
Well, at least there's a clear winner.
The Media, profiting from the chaos they've sown and are continuing to create.
It was kind of hilarious, hearing the disappointment in their voices when nothing happened immediately after the announcement. It was like they were desperately trying to wish for something. Well, a few of them got more than they bargained on. The CNN chick got likker bottles and full beer cans thrown at her.
-
I wasn't able to do as well as I had hoped last night. But I did get some weave extensions for my lady friend and a case of Colt 45. Justice for Mike.
-
Well, at least there's a clear winner.
The Media, profiting from the chaos they've sown and are continuing to create.
Where have you been? You can't just come around here whenever you want and then stay gone for months at a time. You've got another thing coming Mr Man. There are rules.
You were in line for most likable law enforcer on the x but you blew it by going undercover for so long.
-
Looting the liquor store was a bad idea. They're all going to have hangovers at work tomorrow.
This guy ^^^ has developed an awesome sense of humor. Seriously THS, kudos on that one.
-
It was kind of hilarious, hearing the disappointment in their voices when nothing happened immediately after the announcement. It was like they were desperately trying to wish for something. Well, a few of them got more than they bargained on. The CNN chick got likker bottles and full beer cans thrown at her.
Someone had to explain to the "protesters" what the prosecutor actually meant...
-
Where have you been? You can't just come around here whenever you want and then stay gone for months at a time. You've got another thing coming Mr Man. There are rules.
You were in line for most likable law enforcer on the x but you blew it by going undercover for so long.
He has blue legs now. He's too good for us common folk.
-
I have to say I watched all of it in disgust last night. Disgusted at every aspect of this circus. My rant:
This was one of the most overblown, overhyped events of our time. Regardless of what actually happened in the death of this guy, the media latched on to this like they seem to do with some random happening every year. Some young woman we don't know, is accused of killing her daughter in a place we never heard of. Something very similar to what I read about almost daily in my little neck of the woods..and the national media turns it into must see TV. And we must see....just like I must saw last night.
This is not a hot topic, national issue as the media wants us to believe. There were a few hundred people in Ferguson, most of which dispersed not long after the decision because it was cold and deep down, they were tired of it and really didn't give a shit anymore. Those that remained were there only to loot and act like the thug, punk ass bitches they truly are. As one reporter put it as several rioters danced by him laughing with stolen liquor bottles, "This is a carnival atmosphere." National issue? There were 50 people in Times Square with signs and I saw one shot of Los Angeles where 12 people were walking down the middle of the street with their hands up in "protest". If there were other events around the country, it was just more pockets of thug, punk ass bitches using this as an excuse to act like punk ass bitches on a Monday night.
Never heard of the Prosecutor before he stepped out to make the announcement last night. Didn't give a rat's ass what the outcome was other than hoping there was enough evidence for the Grand Jury to make an informed decision either way. I listened to his detailed account of how they arrived at their decision and the mountain of evidence they considered and length of time they deliberated. All of it is being released to the public by the way, so total transparency. But the reaction by all the players in this game is what made me face palm and lose respect for so many.
First, you have all the counsel for the Brown family calling this a travesty and proclaiming there is no justice. But you heard what all the Grand Jury considered. He wasn't shot in the back. He wasn't running away. He did attack the officer.
This is a travesty and there is no justice for the black man.
City Council Woman: This is a joke. You call this justice?
But you heard all the evidence. He wasn't shot in the back. He wasn't running away. He did attack the officer.
This a joke. There is no justice for the black man.
And on and on and on and on...
Then...then, there's our beloved media. On the Snags cable, FOX and MSNBC are side by side channels. I constantly flipped back and forth. You would have thought one was reporting on a Super Bowl win while the other, a Super Bowl loss after a horrible call by the refs with 5 seconds to go. Sean Hannity thought the Prosecutor did a masterful job and supports the decision 100%. He delighted in bringing on air, the attorneys and government officials from Ferguson just long enough to tell them:
You called everyone involved in this thing racists right after it happened and you in fact, incited people to protest and riot. What do you have to say now?
Look, this is not...
We have to go to break. Saw him do that 3 times.
Then, there's MSNBC. The Prosecutor is a joke. This was a predetermined outcome from the start. There is no justice for the black man.
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
I'm done with these circuses.
-
Agreed. The problem though is that the narrative doesn't go away just because we are tired of it. Its being repeated on tv, online, twitter, etc. and there are a LOT of sheep willing to believe it because it supports their preconceived opinion.
I'm not normally a twitterer...er but last night was an exception. I don't know how many times I saw this picture used to perpetuate the "brutal police militarization imposing their will through violent force on the innocent protesters of Ferguson" narrative.
(http://www.bradblog.com/images/SeasonsGreetings_FergusonMO_GrandJuryAnnouncement_Cops_112414.jpg)
But the image fails to show what the officers were facing from their perspective, what they were defending in that moment, nor the incredible amount of restraint they were practicing in the face of antagonizing and violent protesters literally shouting in their face, throwing objects at them, shooting at them, and burning their own city to the ground.
Watching it all live, I felt awful for those men and women out their doing their job to protect a community. They were damned if they did, damned if they didn't.
Police militarization in this country is a problem. But last night was not an example of that.
-
Police militarization in this country is a problem. But last night was not an example of that.
True statement. All of it.
-
The problem is this is not a huge national issue in my view. What I saw were a few politicians and attorneys using this as a forum to get their 10 minutes of fame, no matter how luda-Chris, uninformed and preposterous their arguments sounded. What I saw were a few hundred people acting like punk ass bitches, using this as an opportunity to justify breaking into someone's business, do untold amounts of damage and steal them blind. What I saw were news agencies using this an another opportunity to sensationalize a blip on the screen for their own self-serving agendas. The Prosecutor made that clear in his remarks.
In our paper this morning, there are stories on a baby with head injuries on life support and a man being held for child abuse. There's a black woman charged with assault for hitting a white officer twice in the face. One man is being held for terrorist threats against a police chief. It's a typical, slow news day in the Wiregrass. But no MSNBC or FOX Newz on the scene.
As for the police, I say again for the 100th time. If a policeman stops you, tells you to step to the curb...whatever...the answers are yes sir and no sir (Or mam) They have tazers, big flashlights, guns and dozens of others just like them one call away. You give them shit, there will be trouble...for you. You cooperate fully, you will NOT get shot, tazed bro or otherwise have the hell beaten out of you. There are asshole cops, asshole attorneys, asshole ditch diggers, asshole pro athletes...assholes in every walk of life. If a cop acts like an asshole, take it up with his supervisor or in court. Try to be bad ass and you lose.
-
It seems to me that the bigger problem for most black America is the inability to separate real racial issues and problems from crimes and tragedies. Even for most of the educated.
Black leaders, news anchors, politicians, clergy, that I have heard are on the same page. Ferguson is a travesty to them. All because: 1. the prosecutor is white. And: 2. The policeman is white.
It's idiotic. And if you think that, you are a moron.
Their decision was made well before any of the grand jury testimony was made available. How? That's racist to me. That's as flagrantly racist as one can be. It's basing the decision of a man's life totally on his race. He's white, therefore, he's guilty. Now, let's go bash in the window at the liquor store.
You can't condemn the man on those two facts. And the prosecutor brought it all in front of the grand jury, probably more because of the racial nature. I'm questioning whether he should have even presented it, based on the feeling I get from the testimony that I've read.
We have to live together. Crying racism ONLY because a white cop shoots an unarmed black man only cheapens the word. There was more to the story than that.
-
As for the police, I say again for the 100th time. If a policeman stops you, tells you to step to the curb...whatever...the answers are yes sir and no sir (Or mam) They have tazers, big flashlights, guns and dozens of others just like them one call away. You give them shoot, there will be trouble...for you. You cooperate fully, you will NOT get shot, tazed bro or otherwise have the hell beaten out of you. There are asshole cops, asshole attorneys, asshole ditch diggers, asshole pro athletes...assholes in every walk of life. If a cop acts like an asshole, take it up with his supervisor or in court. Try to be bad ass and you lose.
I agree this is a good strategy for you. In your situation, I would act like a bitch too. Personally, I've bitch slapped a lot of cops that got out of line with me. But you shouldn't try that.
-
Those that remained were there only to loot and act like the thug, punk ass bitches they truly are.
Now, now, our fine Pres says these folks were only mis-behaving.
-
As for the police, I say again for the 100th time. If a policeman stops you, tells you to step to the curb...whatever...the answers are yes sir and no sir (Or mam) They have tazers, big flashlights, guns and dozens of others just like them one call away. You give them shit, there will be trouble...for you. You cooperate fully, you will NOT get shot, tazed bro or otherwise have the hell beaten out of you. There are asshole cops, asshole attorneys, asshole ditch diggers, asshole pro athletes...assholes in every walk of life. If a cop acts like an asshole, take it up with his supervisor or in court. Try to be bad ass and you lose.
Like how the kid from Prattville did in Phenix City at the playoff game last weekend? He did everything right, was respectful - yessir and no sir, didn't committ a crime and somehow got drug out of the stadium and pepper sprayed. And was never charged with ANYTHING or accused of doing anything that warranted that action. Now his parents are suing the shit out of the PC PD. This is a middle class kid from a good family in Prattville - this wasn't racial. This is bad no matter what races are involved.
There are bad cops who have issues. Ive had my encounters with them as well. There is no crime in expressing your opinion or view of a situation to a cop as long as you aren't threatening anyone. But some of them seem to think it is. BUT...that is also why I think this stuff in Ferguson is non sense and Cops overstepping bounds from time to time isn't usually racial. Thats an overzealous cop problem, not a racial problem. Im white. The couple of cops ive dealt with negatively have been white. There was no race in play there - just asshole cops who knew they were in the wrong.
These people in Ferguson are morons for their behavoir. Many are just using it as an excuse to practice anarchy without consequence. If the cop were black and the kid were white, I would feel no different. In fact, in a couple of local stories where it was flip flopped (black cop taking down some drug head white trash), Ive said just as much.
-
Like how the kid from Prattville did in Phenix City at the playoff game last weekend? He did everything right, was respectful - yessir and no sir, didn't committ a crime and somehow got drug out of the stadium and pepper sprayed. And was never charged with ANYTHING or accused of doing anything that warranted that action. Now his parents are suing the shit out of the PC PD. This is a middle class kid from a good family in Prattville - this wasn't racial. This is bad no matter what races are involved.
There are bad cops who have issues. Ive had my encounters with them as well. There is no crime in expressing your opinion or view of a situation to a cop as long as you aren't threatening anyone. But some of them seem to think it is. BUT...that is also why I think this stuff in Ferguson is non sense and Cops overstepping bounds from time to time isn't usually racial. Thats an overzealous cop problem, not a racial problem. Im white. The couple of cops ive dealt with negatively have been white. There was no race in play there - just asshole cops who knew they were in the wrong.
I have a strong feeling there may be a bit more to it than cops just arbitrarily deciding to drag a kid out and pepper spray. But, I agree my statement sounded like I was saying unnecessary shit never happens when you fully cooperate. Obviously, that's painting with too broad a brush on my part. In the kid's situation, the parents should sue and I hope they're successful if the cops were just being assholes for the sake of assholishness.
-
Here's the Obama speech transcript:
THE PRESIDENT: As you know, a few moments ago, the grand jury deliberating the death of Michael Brown issued its decision. It’s an outcome that, either way, was going to be subject of intense disagreement not only in Ferguson, but across America. So I want to just say a few words suggesting how we might move forward.
First and foremost, we are a nation built on the rule of law. And so we need to accept that this decision was the grand jury’s to make. There are Americans who agree with it, and there are Americans who are deeply disappointed, even angry. It’s an understandable reaction. But I join Michael’s parents in asking anyone who protests this decision to do so peacefully. Let me repeat Michael’s father’s words: “Hurting others or destroying property is not the answer. No matter what the grand jury decides, I do not want my son’s death to be in vain. I want it to lead to incredible change, positive change, change that makes the St. Louis region better for everyone.†Michael Brown’s parents have lost more than anyone. We should be honoring their wishes.
I also appeal to the law enforcement officials in Ferguson and the region to show care and restraint in managing peaceful protests that may occur. Understand, our police officers put their lives on the line for us every single day. They’ve got a tough job to do to maintain public safety and hold accountable those who break the law. As they do their jobs in the coming days, they need to work with the community, not against the community, to distinguish the handful of people who may use the grand jury’s decision as an excuse for violence -- distinguish them from the vast majority who just want their voices heard around legitimate issues in terms of how communities and law enforcement interact.
Finally, we need to recognize that the situation in Ferguson speaks to broader challenges that we still face as a nation. The fact is, in too many parts of this country, a deep distrust exists between law enforcement and communities of color. Some of this is the result of the legacy of racial discrimination in this country. And this is tragic, because nobody needs good policing more than poor communities with higher crime rates. The good news is we know there are things we can do to help. And I’ve instructed Attorney General Holder to work with cities across the country to help build better relations between communities and law enforcement.
That means working with law enforcement officials to make sure their ranks are representative of the communities they serve. We know that makes a difference. It means working to train officials so that law enforcement conducts itself in a way that is fair to everybody. It means enlisting the community actively on what should be everybody’s goal, and that is to prevent crime.
And there are good people on all sides of this debate, as well as in both Republican and Democratic parties, that are interested not only in lifting up best practices -- because we know that there are communities who have been able to deal with this in an effective way -- but also who are interested in working with this administration and local and state officials to start tackling much-needed criminal justice reform.
So those should be the lessons that we draw from these tragic events. We need to recognize that this is not just an issue for Ferguson, this is an issue for America. We have made enormous progress in race relations over the course of the past several decades. I've witnessed that in my own life. And to deny that progress I think is to deny America’s capacity for change.
But what is also true is that there are still problems and communities of color aren't just making these problems up. Separating that from this particular decision, there are issues in which the law too often feels as if it is being applied in discriminatory fashion. I don't think that's the norm. I don't think that's true for the majority of communities or the vast majority of law enforcement officials. But these are real issues. And we have to lift them up and not deny them or try to tamp them down. What we need to do is to understand them and figure out how do we make more progress. And that can be done.
That won't be done by throwing bottles. That won't be done by smashing car windows. That won't be done by using this as an excuse to vandalize property. And it certainly won't be done by hurting anybody. So, to those in Ferguson, there are ways of channeling your concerns constructively and there are ways of channeling your concerns destructively. Michael Brown’s parents understand what it means to be constructive. The vast majority of peaceful protesters, they understand it as well.
Those of you who are watching tonight understand that there’s never an excuse for violence, particularly when there are a lot of people in goodwill out there who are willing to work on these issues.
On the other hand, those who are only interested in focusing on the violence and just want the problem to go away need to recognize that we do have work to do here, and we shouldn’t try to paper it over. Whenever we do that, the anger may momentarily subside, but over time, it builds up and America isn't everything that it could be.
And I am confident that if we focus our attention on the problem and we look at what has happened in communities around the country effectively, then we can make progress not just in Ferguson, but in a lot of other cities and communities around the country.
Okay?
Q Mr. President, will you go to Ferguson when things settle down there?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let’s take a look and see how things are going. Eric Holder has been there. We've had a whole team from the Justice Department there, and I think that they have done some very good work. As I said, the vast majority of the community has been working very hard to try to make sure that this becomes an opportunity for us to seize the moment and turn this into a positive situation.
But I think that we have to make sure that we focus at least as much attention on all those positive activities that are taking place as we do on a handful of folks who end up using this as an excuse to misbehave or to break the law or to engage in violence. I think that it's going to be very important -- and I think the media is going to have a responsibility as well -- to make sure that we focus on Michael Brown’s parents, and the clergy, and the community leaders, and the civil rights leaders, and the activists, and law enforcement officials who have been working very hard to try to find better solutions -- long-term solutions, to this issue.
There is inevitably going to be some negative reaction, and it will make for good TV. But what we want to do is to make sure that we're also focusing on those who can offer the kind of real progress that we know is possible, that the vast majority of people in Ferguson, the St. Louis region, in Missouri, and around the country are looking for. And I want to be partners with those folks. And we need to lift up that kind of constructive dialogue that's taking place.
All right.
END 10:18 P.M. EST
I thought his speech was great except for the bolded part. In the context of this particular story, the race problem was made up. In fact, the prosecution and grand jury found that the majority of the "eye witness" testimony was just that - made up. It was made up by black people of the Ferguson community to incite rage and violence towards a police officer who was doing his job.
I understand that there's distrust between some black communities and law enforcement and yes, shady shit goes down from the law enforcement end as well. But when you have a white police officer following protocol, it's not applicable to bring up race relations. Obama should have mentioned the FACT that Michael Brown put himself in danger of being killed by committing two crimes - one earlier in the day and the second reaching for a police officer's weapon and then charging that police officer immediately after.
-
Obama should have mentioned the FACT that Michael Brown put himself in danger of being killed by committing two crimes - one earlier in the day and the second reaching for a police officer's weapon and then charging that police officer immediately after.
But that won't get the Democrats any votes.
-
This isn't the country I was raised to believe it was as a child. This is now a country where a large segment of the population seems to want an "american idol" style vote-for-decision popularity contest rather than rule of law backed by science.
I watched CNN last night. The whole time. I just wanted to see if I could be enlightened. Unfortunately I saw the opposite. I saw a "panel of experts" going over the released grand jury evidence. That panel initially stuck with the scientifically proven to be false eyewitness accounts, but at one point they swapped to another expert who said something like: "Anderson, it looks like Wilson's account was backed up fully by the forensic analysis of the scene and Mike Brown's autopsy, which may be why the grand jury reached the decision they did". Guess what? No more panel of experts. Didn't see 'em again. One lady said something that didn't fit their narrative so they stopped showing them.
The reporters on the scene were even more confused. They spoke of police creating more problems with their response to the rioting and looting, but whenever a reporter got in front of the lines they would immediately advise him or her to move back to the safety of police presence. When scenes of burning or looting were shown they would wonder aloud "why are there no police?"
My biggest problem with the whole thing is of all powerful people shown including the president, news anchors, legal experts, the prosecutor over the case, civil rights leaders, the Brown family attorney, none of them mentioned that the best way to not get killed by police is not cause them a reasonable fear for their own, or someone else's life. Everyone acted like it was a failure of police tactics or the legal system that deadly force was used after a gun grab was attempted and a possibly incapacitating assault was initiated. The contact by the police officer, by the way, was not random response to race but firmly in the line of duty. The news ticker at CNN continued to say "black teen" and "white cop" as if those were relevant facts rather than "questions about police tactics" or "deadly force application questioned". That, my friends, is not the country I was told about when I was a child.
Several pseudo-celebrities have come out with statements expressing "disappointment" about the outcome of the trial. Disappointed about what? Science? legal processes? Legal self defense? Disappointed that this case isn't what you were told it was? Disappointed that a community in the United States was ravaged by lawless rioting? Disappointed that that same rioting was referred to as "understandable anger" by a news outlet?
I agree that there is a huge problem in the inner cities of this country. But that problem, by and large, ain't the police. Its crime. Pervasive criminality. In fact, enlightened, educated, "community style" policing would no doubt help the problem but guess what? Because of reactions like this against someone attempting to legally enforce the law myself and other educated, enlightened police professionals flee to the whitest, richest suburbs we can find. I would rather die a thousand deaths than live through, and put my family through, what officer Wilson has been through.
-
^^^WTF do you know? You're a smokey. You don't have to fight gangs and storm Crack and meth houses like Token.
You write little old ladies speeding tickets. I've heard.
I thought you had to be black to be a trooper in Alabama.
-
I think what scares me the most about all of this, is that I believe our federal government is going to neuter our police departments the same way that they've neutered our military. Make it so that you can't fire unless you are fired upon first.
-
I think what scares me the most about all of this, is that I believe our federal government is going to neuter our police departments the same way that they've neutered our military. Make it so that you can't fire unless you are fired upon first.
Well, it does start with an n but I don't think neutering it up is what Obama has planned.
-
Several pseudo-celebrities have come out with statements expressing "disappointment" about the outcome of the trial. Disappointed about what? Science? legal processes? Legal self defense? Disappointed that this case isn't what you were told it was? Disappointed that a community in the United States was ravaged by lawless rioting? Disappointed that that same rioting was referred to as "understandable anger" by a news outlet?
Bassem Masri - a pseudo-celebrity journalist - was on the scene. He was one of the live feeds offering his pseudo-intellectual commentary on everything, trying to portray how there were peaceful protests with a few knuckleheads.
Then this happened:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWkTAqmJUwc# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWkTAqmJUwc#)
The action starts at about 2:30. But it's annoying to get through, so here's the tl;dw: Masri has his phone stolen by a knucklehead. Knucklehead runs off with the phone. Someone along the way asks him what he has. He responds with, "iPhone 6 off some nigga."
Masri later claims the thief was an undercover police "agitator" hired by law enforcement to incite more violent protests and rioting. :facepalm:
That's the type of celebrity that has a voice now. You should have seen Twitter last night. Couldn't believe it. One guy on my feed - and confirmed by how many times he's posted since last night - said he stayed up all night and he's still going off on the fact that Wilson described Brown as a demon and the incredible hulk, which is racist somehow. I guess black = green?
-
One of the most outrageous comments, made numerous times by several "experts", was how they thought surely Wilson would be charged with something to appease the protesters and in response to government pressure.
Not because he was guilty of anything or did anything wrong. We just need to charge him with something.
-
One of the most outrageous comments, made numerous times by several "experts", was how they thought surely Wilson would be charged with something to appease the protesters and in response to government pressure.
Not because he was guilty of anything or did anything wrong. We just need to charge him with something.
A scapegoat must be made if one cannot be found.
-
^^^WTF do you know? You're a smokey. You don't have to fight gangs and storm Crack and meth houses like Token.
You write little old ladies speeding tickets. I've heard.
I thought you had to be black to be a trooper in Alabama.
Not a trooper.
-
That's the type of celebrity that has a voice now. You should have seen Twitter last night. Couldn't believe it. One guy on my feed - and confirmed by how many times he's posted since last night - said he stayed up all night and he's still going off on the fact that Wilson described Brown as a demon and the incredible hulk, which is racist somehow. I guess black = green?
This is what I was alluding to in my earlier post as well. Folks like us, sensible folks with the capacity to absorb facts, can easily choose to turn this propaganda off and go about our lives making sound decisions.
But over the decade, social media has allowed an ever growing number of individuals abilities to proliferate their skewed and dangerous agendas, while granting millions of willfully dumb sponges the medium by which to absorb their narratives. This is a new and dangerous trend.
Messages like Masri's skewing what was an obvious crime into an infiltration by a "police agitator" is just one example of a narrative that becomes true to these people the more they post, tweet, and retweet it. Enough people want to believe it, so its true. So while you and I scoff at idiots on a livestream, a virtual lynch mob becomes a physical one in the bat of an eye. Then it torches the Mcdonald's and demands vengeance upon the innocent justice for a corrupt system.
-
This is what I was alluding to in my earlier post as well. Folks like us, sensible folks with the capacity to absorb facts, can easily choose to turn this propaganda off and go about our lives making sound decisions.
But over the decade, social media has allowed an ever growing number of individuals abilities to proliferate their skewed and dangerous agendas, while granting millions of willfully dumb sponges the medium by which to absorb their narratives. This is a new and dangerous trend.
Messages like Masri's skewing what was an obvious crime into an infiltration by a "police agitator" is just one example of a narrative that becomes true to these people the more they post, tweet, and retweet it. Enough people want to believe it, so its true. So while you and I scoff at idiots on a livestream, a virtual lynch mob becomes a physical one in the bat of an eye. Then it torches the Mcdonald's and demands vengeance upon the innocent justice for a corrupt system.
http://youtu.be/Wvan5cHhPq4 (http://youtu.be/Wvan5cHhPq4)
-
Every chance he has to be a President who is happens to be black, he once again is just a black president.
-
Ben Shapiro NAILS IT.
On Monday night, the grand jury in Ferguson, Missouri freed Officer Darren Wilson from the possibility of indictment over his shooting of 18-year-old black man Michael Brown. The prosecutor before the grand jury, Robert McCulloch, explained why the indictment had been rejected: the evidence, both physical and eyewitness, supported Wilson’s case that he had acted in self-defense.
McCulloch added pointed criticism of the media that drove the case in the first place, ripping the “insatiable appetite†of social media and “non-stop rumors†driven by it. The initial accounts pushed by social media, McCulloch said, were “filled with speculation and little, if any, solid or accurate evidence.†But he saved his harshest criticism for the media machine itself: “The most significant challenge encountered in this investigation has been the 24-hour news cycle and its insatiable appetite for something, for anything, to talk about, followed closely behind with the non-stop rumors on social media.†McCulloch finished by stating that evidence mattered, and that no one’s life should be decided based on “public outcry or for political expediency.â€
The lecture was well-deserved.
Just as the media did during the George Zimmerman trial and in the aftermath of Zimmerman’s shooting of Trayvon Martin, the media attempted to cram the square peg of the Wilson-Brown shooting into the round hole of white police racism. That meant portraying Brown as the latest sainted racial victim; this time, rather than the Trayvon Martin narrative of hoodies, Skittles, and iced tea, the media hit upon the notion that Brown was a “gentle giant.†The Brown family, Al Sharpton, MSNBC, CNN, The Washington Post, and other major media outlets ran with the story that Brown was a “gentle giant†who wouldn’t hurt a fly.
Then, it turned out that Brown had robbed a convenience store minutes before his altercation with Wilson.
Similarly, the media trotted out the story of Dorian Johnson, Brown’s friend, who said that Brown held his hands up in surrender after being shot in the back, and that Wilson executed Brown. The entire media ran with that one originally; the lie spawned an entire “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot†movement. Of course, it later turned out that Johnson had helped Brown rob the store, and that all available autopsy evidence contradicted Johnson’s story.
But never mind: the media had somehow turned the true story of Michael Brown – the story of a 6’5â€, 289-lb. 18-year-old strong-arm-robbing a convenience store, confronting a police officer and attempting to take his gun, running away, turning back to charge that officer, and being shot multiple times – into the story of Emmett Till. Never mind that there was not a single shred of evidence suggesting that Wilson targeted Brown based on race; never mind that Brown matched the description of the robbery suspect because he was the robbery suspect; never mind that Brown attacked an officer twice. No, this was a pre-ordained narrative for the media: white racist police officer strikes down young black unarmed man. The result of that overwrought and outright false media-generated controversy: extended riots in Ferguson.
The story beat the facts. So the media ran with the story.
So did President Obama. In 2013, Obama told America that Trayvon Martin could have been his son; in this case, Obama told the United Nations that riots in Ferguson represented America’s nasty racial legacy.
As the grand jury verdict neared release, the media built up the story. We were warned of riots if Wilson escaped indictment; Erin Burnett of CNN said that such a verdict would be the “nuclear option.†Nancy Grace of Court TV helpfully added that Michael Brown’s height did not “mean he was a violent teen.†And the Brown family attorney, Benjamin Crump, openly stated that the grand jury was corrupt, long before the verdict.
Predictably enough, the Michael Brown case fell apart the moment it hit the legal system. It turns out, as Robert McCulloch said, that evidence still trumps media hype in the legal system – at least sometimes.
Now the media, humiliated yet again, riot. Ezra Klein of Vox.com asked, with the legal insight of a mentally malfunctioning goldfish, whether Michael Brown had an advocate in the grand jury hearing (the answer: that’s not how grand juries work). Fellow non-lawyer Chris Hayes of MSNBC lamented that the grand jury procedure was “so far removed from normal criminal procedure it’s unrecognizable.†The New York Daily News considered this obscene first mock-up headline: “Killer Cop Goes Free.â€
With the media breathlessly covering the riots they helped to stoke in Ferguson, rioters set the city aflame. Shots were fired; protesters threw batteries, rocks and bottles; stores were looted. The media feigned head-shaking rue. Meanwhile, President Obama explained that Americans who ignored all the evidence to convict Wilson were reacting in “understandable†fashion – because, as always, evidence means nothing the left when in conflict with feelings and perception of victimhood.
Truthfully, the angry and sullen reactions of those who wanted Wilson tried are understandable. They’re understandable because most Americans live in the evidence-free narrative created by malicious media liars, and the politicians they enable. They live in the evidence-free world of the political left, which maintains that America remains deeply racist, that every white cop is Bull Connor, and that every black man shot by police is a Selma marcher. So long as they live in that world, racial reconciliation will remain a dream, and racial polarization will remain a tool of the political and media elite to sell papers, raise cash, and drive votes.
-
http://youtu.be/Wvan5cHhPq4 (http://youtu.be/Wvan5cHhPq4)
Necessity is the mother of invention.
(http://www.ruewildlifephotos.com/gallery/STOCKIMAGELIBRARY/INSECTS/Lepi_Butterfly_Moth/Caterpillar,%20Inchworm,%20Bruce%20spanworm,%20Operopthtera%20bruceata,%20Geometridae_RWP-3D3-3442.jpg)
-
Not a trooper.
Is he black?
-
Is he black?
No. But if he WAS a trooper...
-
Not a trooper.
Can't we get away from labels though? We're all just people.
-
Can't we get away from labels though? We're all just people.
Yeah, but some of them are black.
-
Yeah, but some of them are black.
In the inner city, we just call them victims.
-
Bassem Masri - a pseudo-celebrity journalist - was on the scene. He was one of the live feeds offering his pseudo-intellectual commentary on everything, trying to portray how there were peaceful protests with a few knuckleheads.
Then this happened:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWkTAqmJUwc# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWkTAqmJUwc#)
The action starts at about 2:30. But it's annoying to get through, so here's the tl;dw: Masri has his phone stolen by a knucklehead. Knucklehead runs off with the phone. Someone along the way asks him what he has. He responds with, "iPhone 6 off some nigga."
Masri later claims the thief was an undercover police "agitator" hired by law enforcement to incite more violent protests and rioting. :facepalm:
That's the type of celebrity that has a voice now. You should have seen Twitter last night. Couldn't believe it. One guy on my feed - and confirmed by how many times he's posted since last night - said he stayed up all night and he's still going off on the fact that Wilson described Brown as a demon and the incredible hulk, which is racist somehow. I guess black = green?
All I saw & heard in that video was the Police asking politely to please clear the streets, some woman screamed FUCK YOU (probably a bammer and probably shooting double birdies at the officers), then apparently a random Tornado dropped down on top of the new age "journalist" and started flinging him around.
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/legal-scholars-praise-ferguson-grand-jury-fairness/?page=all#pagebreak (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/legal-scholars-praise-ferguson-grand-jury-fairness/?page=all#pagebreak)
Click the link. Lawyers on both sides of the bar say the grand jury process was beyond fair and completely transparent, moreso than usual.
This quote pissed me off to the extreme.
The Brown family and their supporters argue that if the prosecutor had championed harder for an indictment, a full trial could have led to a conviction. But lawyers say in this case, a strong push to indict Officer Wilson merely based on the easier legal standard of “probable cause†would have merely set up a trial where the prosecution likely would have failed to get a guilty verdict based on the much stiffer “beyond a reasonable doubt†standard.
Forget that the officer has constitutional rights too. They wanted and expected the prosecutor to push the grand jury to gin up an indictment. Never mind that a full jury wouldn't have been able to find him guilty based on the same evidence, but tens of thousands of dollars would have spent and the amount of stress on Wilson would have been tremendous. And with the same verdict, the riots would have still happened.
Such bullshit.
-
I have watched exactly 0% of any coverage of this "event", and will continue to do so.
-
I have watched exactly 0% of any coverage of this "event", and will continue to do so.
I usually don't watch things like this, and I'm sure that the masses not watching is the best way to curb the media's "create and cover a disaster" strategy but it was hard to look away.
-
I usually don't watch things like this, and I'm sure that the masses not watching is the best way to curb the media's "create and cover a disaster" strategy but it was hard to look away.
The mayor of Anniston was an extreme asshole today. Thought you should know that.
-
The city of Anniston hasn't done anything in my lifetime that wasn't a complete disaster, so... Go figure. That's why I ain't there.
-
Another isolated incident...this time in Denver, CO.
http://youtu.be/GncaM_lt3-E (http://youtu.be/GncaM_lt3-E)
-
Hose the protesters down with bullets and that shit will stop in a hurry.
-
Hose the protesters down with bullets and that shit will stop in a hurry.
Oh yea....I'm sure all the civil rights agitators and liberal media would let that fly no questions asked. I liked Jarhead's idea of using fine quality H20.
-
Oh yea....I'm sure all the civil rights agitators and liberal media would let that fly no questions asked. I liked Jarhead's idea of using fine quality H20.
Supposed to be snowing tonight. And 28 degrees. Hose 'em down.
-
Supposed to be snowing tonight. And 28 degrees. Hose 'em down.
I say just issue a statement that as long as riots are ongoing, in fear for the lives of the postal workers, no mail will be delivered. Promise that shit would stop today.
-
Oh yea....I'm sure all the civil rights agitators and liberal media would let that fly no questions asked. I liked Jarhead's idea of using fine quality H20.
Hose them with bullets too. I'd pay to see 100 people dressed in Reagan masks walk onto an msnbc set and leave no one standing.
-
Another isolated incident...this time in Denver, CO.
http://youtu.be/GncaM_lt3-E (http://youtu.be/GncaM_lt3-E)
^^Prime example of why you shouldn't do drugs. At first it's all fun and games.
"Dude, where's my car?", and everyone laughs at the funny stoner.
Then, the next thing you know, one loses ambition, becomes an atheist, maybe even a nihilist at times. Many long term users begin to exhibit delusions of grandeur. Ex: Believing that you are actually an insider re: AU football and know more about AU football and/or AU athletics than the next guy with a Rivals account.
Next, one resorts to joining cop watch and posting videos of drug dealers getting the shit kicked out of them and encouraging others to care.
It's a terrible decline, I tell you.
-
Supposed to be snowing tonight. And 28 degrees. Hose 'em down.
Just call it "annual fire hydrant testing" and tell them theyve been warned ahead of time. Probably wouldn't take MSNBC 5 mins to start comparing it to Birmingham and Montgomery from the 60s. They might even CGI a few German Shepherds into the footage too.
-
Minus kids, elderly and the truly mental cases that don't know any better, I hope any mofo (black, white, green, Hispanic, Egyptian, Alien, etc.) that purposely tries to impede the flow of traffic in order to "protest" any mofo'n thing under the sun--get's run over with skid marks left on their face and left beside the road like an armadillo.
I'm sorry. This isn't very Christian of me. But I do feel this way.
-
Minus kids, elderly and the truly mental cases that don't know any better, I hope any mofo (black, white, green, Hispanic, Egyptian, Alien, etc.) that purposely tries to impede the flow of traffic in order to "protest" any mofo'n thing under the sun--get's run over with skid marks left on their face and left beside the road like an armadillo.
I'm sorry. This isn't very Christian of me. But I do feel this way.
Yep.
Idiots.
(http://d236bkdxj385sg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/driver-runs-over-protesters-.jpg)
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/25/Caught-on-Tape-Car-Runs-over-Ferguson-Protesters-in-Minneapolis (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/25/Caught-on-Tape-Car-Runs-over-Ferguson-Protesters-in-Minneapolis)
-
Yep.
Idiots.
(http://d236bkdxj385sg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/driver-runs-over-protesters-.jpg)
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/25/Caught-on-Tape-Car-Runs-over-Ferguson-Protesters-in-Minneapolis (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/25/Caught-on-Tape-Car-Runs-over-Ferguson-Protesters-in-Minneapolis)
The sad part is, much of these people and the ones out shouting "hell no we won't go" are dumbass naive white folk.
-
The sad part is, much of these people and the ones out shouting "hell no we won't go" are dumbass naive white folk.
White guilt is a helluva drug.
-
I'm gonna get me a shotgun and kill all the whities I see,
I'm gonna get me a shotgun and kill all the whities I see.
When I kill all the whities I see, then whitey he won't bother me,
I'm gonna get me a shotgun and kill all the whities I see.
-
I'm gonna get me a shotgun and kill all the whities I see,
I'm gonna get me a shotgun and kill all the whities I see.
When I kill all the whities I see, then whitey he won't bother me,
I'm gonna get me a shotgun and kill all the whities I see.
(http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u1/miked0003/dscf00211_zps35187b21.jpg) (http://s164.photobucket.com/user/miked0003/media/dscf00211_zps35187b21.jpg.html)
-
I'm gonna get me a shotgun and kill all the whities I see,
I'm gonna get me a shotgun and kill all the whities I see.
When I kill all the whities I see, then whitey he won't bother me,
I'm gonna get me a shotgun and kill all the whities I see.
Then I'm gonna get a white woman wearin' a navy blue sweater
-
I say just issue a statement that as long as riots are ongoing, in fear for the lives of the postal workers, no mail will be delivered. Promise that shit would stop today.
http://youtu.be/KcB--ymW5mM (http://youtu.be/KcB--ymW5mM)
-
So, today at lunch, I asked my three year nephew what would happen if he punched a cop. He replied that you would go to jail, get shot, or go to time out. He's three. Please explain to me why Michael Brown didn't understand this.
-
So, today at lunch, I asked my three year nephew what would happen if he punched a cop. He replied that you would go to jail, get shot, or go to time out. He's three. Please explain to me why Michael Brown didn't understand this.
Because he was less than three.....mentally.
-
Because he was less than three.....mentally.
Wrong...
The correct answer is:
Since he was a baby he has been taught that he is entitled to anything that he wants and that there will be no consequences for whatever he wants to do.
-
If I didn't know any better, I'd say ole Louis is telling black folks to get them a shotgun and kill every whitey they see. Whatchu' thank Paawwwl?
After it was revealed that Darren Wilson wouldn’t be indicted for the murder of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, a domino effect occurred splitting the nation primarily over the topic of race. The Inquisitr kept updating with the most recent news pertaining to Ferguson and how the aftermath has caused more chaos than resolution. As of late, famous people, brands, franchises, and organizations are voicing where they stand on the situation. The St. Louis Rams expressed support through a “hands up, don’t shoot†gesture on field while Sarah Palin utilized a meme made by Conservative news site, Mad World News, to express her view.
Now there is a video showing what Louis Farrakhan has to say about the Ferguson situation. Apparently, if the demands of the protesters are not met, Farrakhan calls for violence! As a matter of fact, the full statement Farrakhan gave is as follows.
“As long as they [white people] kill us [black people] and go to Wendy’s and have a burger and go to sleep, they’ll keep killing us. But when we die and they die, then soon we’re going to sit at a table and talk about it! We’re tired! We want some of this earth or we’ll tear this godd**n country up!â€
According to the Daily Caller, Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam, went on a fiery tirade about Ferguson on Saturday. The speech was given at Morgan State University, which is known to be a black college located in Baltimore, Maryland. In it, Farrakhan made the justification that not indicting Darren Wilson and peaceful protests are only in the interests of “white folk.â€
Also in his speech, Louis Farrakhan even suggested that parents should teach their children how to throw Molotov cocktails. Farrakhan claimed that both the Bible and Koran justifies such actions as justifiable because of the “Law of Retaliation.â€
In another article by Examiner, Louis Farrakhan not just calls for violence, but he berates President Barack Obama, the Obama administration, and black religious leaders for engaging in what Farrakhan calls “compromise.â€
“Tonight in Ferguson everybody is on edge. White folks have never been on edge after they killed a black man. Tonight they’re on edge; so on edge that our president has come out from behind the curtain to ask young Black people: ‘Cool it. That’s not our way.’ I heard you, Mr. President; and I asked myself a question: What brings you out of the shadows?â€
“And you preachers. Your day of being the pacifier for the white man’s tyranny upon black people, you got to know they’re not going to hear you anymore.â€
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1653324/louis-farrakhan-ferguson-protesters-tear-this-goddamn-country-up/#CoxUdER0M79FA0vX.99 (http://www.inquisitr.com/1653324/louis-farrakhan-ferguson-protesters-tear-this-goddamn-country-up/#CoxUdER0M79FA0vX.99)
-
If I didn't know any better, I'd say ole Louis is telling black folks to get them a shotgun and kill every whitey they see. Whatchu' thank Paawwwl?
After it was revealed that Darren Wilson wouldn’t be indicted for the murder of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, a domino effect occurred splitting the nation primarily over the topic of race. The Inquisitr kept updating with the most recent news pertaining to Ferguson and how the aftermath has caused more chaos than resolution. As of late, famous people, brands, franchises, and organizations are voicing where they stand on the situation. The St. Louis Rams expressed support through a “hands up, don’t shoot†gesture on field while Sarah Palin utilized a meme made by Conservative news site, Mad World News, to express her view.
Now there is a video showing what Louis Farrakhan has to say about the Ferguson situation. Apparently, if the demands of the protesters are not met, Farrakhan calls for violence! As a matter of fact, the full statement Farrakhan gave is as follows.
“As long as they [white people] kill us [black people] and go to Wendy’s and have a burger and go to sleep, they’ll keep killing us. But when we die and they die, then soon we’re going to sit at a table and talk about it! We’re tired! We want some of this earth or we’ll tear this godd**n country up!â€
According to the Daily Caller, Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam, went on a fiery tirade about Ferguson on Saturday. The speech was given at Morgan State University, which is known to be a black college located in Baltimore, Maryland. In it, Farrakhan made the justification that not indicting Darren Wilson and peaceful protests are only in the interests of “white folk.â€
Also in his speech, Louis Farrakhan even suggested that parents should teach their children how to throw Molotov cocktails. Farrakhan claimed that both the Bible and Koran justifies such actions as justifiable because of the “Law of Retaliation.â€
In another article by Examiner, Louis Farrakhan not just calls for violence, but he berates President Barack Obama, the Obama administration, and black religious leaders for engaging in what Farrakhan calls “compromise.â€
“Tonight in Ferguson everybody is on edge. White folks have never been on edge after they killed a black man. Tonight they’re on edge; so on edge that our president has come out from behind the curtain to ask young Black people: ‘Cool it. That’s not our way.’ I heard you, Mr. President; and I asked myself a question: What brings you out of the shadows?â€
“And you preachers. Your day of being the pacifier for the white man’s tyranny upon black people, you got to know they’re not going to hear you anymore.â€
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1653324/louis-farrakhan-ferguson-protesters-tear-this-goddamn-country-up/#CoxUdER0M79FA0vX.99 (http://www.inquisitr.com/1653324/louis-farrakhan-ferguson-protesters-tear-this-goddamn-country-up/#CoxUdER0M79FA0vX.99)
Its funny how only the losing end of the fight gets to use the "Law of Retaliation". Seems to me thats the Law that Officer Wilson was using. But hey, whatever suits their narrative.
-
If I didn't know any better, I'd say ole Louis is telling black folks to get them a shotgun and kill every whitey they see. Whatchu' thank Paawwwl?
After it was revealed that Darren Wilson wouldn’t be indicted for the murder of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, a domino effect occurred splitting the nation primarily over the topic of race. The Inquisitr kept updating with the most recent news pertaining to Ferguson and how the aftermath has caused more chaos than resolution. As of late, famous people, brands, franchises, and organizations are voicing where they stand on the situation. The St. Louis Rams expressed support through a “hands up, don’t shoot†gesture on field while Sarah Palin utilized a meme made by Conservative news site, Mad World News, to express her view.
Now there is a video showing what Louis Farrakhan has to say about the Ferguson situation. Apparently, if the demands of the protesters are not met, Farrakhan calls for violence! As a matter of fact, the full statement Farrakhan gave is as follows.
“As long as they [white people] kill us [black people] and go to Wendy’s and have a burger and go to sleep, they’ll keep killing us. But when we die and they die, then soon we’re going to sit at a table and talk about it! We’re tired! We want some of this earth or we’ll tear this godd**n country up!â€
According to the Daily Caller, Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam, went on a fiery tirade about Ferguson on Saturday. The speech was given at Morgan State University, which is known to be a black college located in Baltimore, Maryland. In it, Farrakhan made the justification that not indicting Darren Wilson and peaceful protests are only in the interests of “white folk.â€
Also in his speech, Louis Farrakhan even suggested that parents should teach their children how to throw Molotov cocktails. Farrakhan claimed that both the Bible and Koran justifies such actions as justifiable because of the “Law of Retaliation.â€
In another article by Examiner, Louis Farrakhan not just calls for violence, but he berates President Barack Obama, the Obama administration, and black religious leaders for engaging in what Farrakhan calls “compromise.â€
“Tonight in Ferguson everybody is on edge. White folks have never been on edge after they killed a black man. Tonight they’re on edge; so on edge that our president has come out from behind the curtain to ask young Black people: ‘Cool it. That’s not our way.’ I heard you, Mr. President; and I asked myself a question: What brings you out of the shadows?â€
“And you preachers. Your day of being the pacifier for the white man’s tyranny upon black people, you got to know they’re not going to hear you anymore.â€
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1653324/louis-farrakhan-ferguson-protesters-tear-this-goddamn-country-up/#CoxUdER0M79FA0vX.99 (http://www.inquisitr.com/1653324/louis-farrakhan-ferguson-protesters-tear-this-goddamn-country-up/#CoxUdER0M79FA0vX.99)
Honestly? Bring that shit on. Let's get it over with so we can get past it. The war wouldn't last long. And this constant BS would be done once and for all.
-
Honestly? Bring that shit on. Let's get it over with so we can get past it. The war wouldn't last long. And this constant BS would be done once and for all.
3-0?
http://news.yahoo.com/phoenix-police-officer-shoots-dead-unarmed-black-man-200230314.html (http://news.yahoo.com/phoenix-police-officer-shoots-dead-unarmed-black-man-200230314.html)
A Phoenix police officer shot to death an unarmed black man during a struggle and authorities said the officer believed the individual had a gun, in the latest fatal incident amid national turmoil over the policing of black communities.
The Phoenix Police Department said Rumain Brisbon, 34, was sitting in a black Cadillac SUV outside a convenience store on Tuesday evening, and that two witnesses told the officer the occupants of the vehicle were selling drugs.
With police forces across the country under increased scrutiny over killings of unarmed black men, Phoenix police said in a statement that its officer called for backup, and then saw Brisbon appear to remove something from the car's back seat.
It said the officer, a seven-year veteran of the department, gave him several commands to show his hands, before Brisbon "placed one or both hands in his waistband area" and then fled.
The officer chased and caught up with him, it said, and during a struggle the policeman believed he felt the handle of a gun while holding the individual's hand in his pocket.
"The officer gave the suspect several commands to get on the ground but he refused to comply, yelling profanities at the officer," said the police statement issued on Wednesday.
At that point a resident opened an apartment door and both men stumbled into her home, it said, adding that the officer was unable to keep a grip on the suspect's hand.
"Fearing Brisbon had a gun in his pocket the officer fired two rounds striking Brisbon in the torso," it said.
The police department said the back-up officers arrived after the shooting, and while they and members of the fire department treated Brisbon, he was pronounced dead at the scene.
Police said Brisbon was carrying a vial of oxycodone pills, and that a semi-automatic handgun and a jar of what is believed to be marijuana were found in the SUV. The 30-year-old officer was not injured during the incident, the statement added.
The shooting in Phoenix comes at a tense time between U.S. law enforcement and the communities in which they operate. Two grand jury decisions not to indict officers who killed unarmed black men in Ferguson, Missouri, and in New York City have triggered racially charged protests throughout the United States.
-
I have been searching high and low for stats on black officers killing unarmed black suspects. Nothing, nada and zilch. Every search only gave me white officer stats. Must have never happened. It's a miracle I tell ya.
-
All you dirty coppers better start using your tazers. I think its still OK to taze a black criminal, right?
And if you see a black person committing a crime, don't say nothing. You are just a bully trying to crush his rights.
-
All you dirty coppers better start using your tazers. I think its still OK to taze a black criminal, right?
And if you see a black person committing a crime, don't say nothing. You are just a bully trying to crush his rights.
True: those guys in ferguson were just getting their shopping gift getting done early.
-
FBI has an interesting take on this topic.
-
FBI has an interesting take on this topic.
Thanks. I'll definitely click on that link.
-
Thanks. I'll definitely click on that link.
Bill Clarks article is better.
-
Thanks. I'll definitely click on that link.
It would go directly against this board's racism policy for me to post the link. But they basically suggest that a large % of young black males are in fact, naggers.
-
It would go directly against this board's racism policy for me to post the link. But they basically suggest that a large % of young black males are in fact, naggers.
(http://southparkstudios-intl.mtvnimages.com/shared/sps/media/images/1101/1101_camera_man.jpg)
-
FBI has an interesting take on this topic.
Whoah Whoah whoah. Flag on the play sir. You know that you've sworn off statistics entirely, especially those gathered and dessiminated by the FBI. Is this a relapse?
-
Whoah Whoah whoah. Flag on the play sir. You know that you've sworn off statistics entirely, especially those gathered and dessiminated by the FBI. Is this a relapse?
Didn't say I believed it, just mentioning how racist the FBI statistician is.
-
Didn't say I believed it, just mentioning how racist the FBI statistician is.
I mean...you can make stats say anything you want to really...
-
I mean...you can make stats say anything you want to really...
I wish I could make them say AU should be in the playoffs!
-
I mean...you can make stats say anything you want to really...
You can make statistics fool foolish people, but statistics are what they are. If they're accurate.
-
You can make statistics fool foolish people, but statistics are what they are. If they're accurate.
You ever put pepper spray on your burrito? I like it spicy but not like Uggggh spicy.
-
I mean...you can make stats say anything you want to really...
I wouldnt agree with that. Facts are facts. How they are presented and context is another story. And thats where the problem usually lies.
-
I wouldnt agree with that. Facts are facts. How they are presented and context is another story. And thats where the problem usually lies.
You are white. You can't understand....
-
You are white. You can't understand....
1+1 = 2 is finite no matter who you are. No understanding needed.
But yeah, I follow your point. Its the typical response by any race baiter being interviewed. I saw Megyn Kelly interviewing the former mayor of New Orleans (Morial) last week and she was giving him some facts and figures about murders and race and such. His only response was to acuse her of changing the narrative and spewing out right wing talking points to deflect from people's genuine emotional outrage and angst.
Yes...yes, thats exactly what she was doing in way...so what? My burn is that they think that is the approrpriate route to take - Emotion > Facts. We are fucked as a country if this is the way of thinking we are heading to - officially.
-
I mean...you can make stats say anything you want to really...
I guess I should have clarified?
-
I guess I should have clarified?
I like the one about how Obama has lowered the deficit the last 3 years.
-
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11292-012-9163-y (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11292-012-9163-y)
Speaking of confusing statistics, this study measured reaction time and decision making for civilians, police and military personnel. The surprising results? Everyone took longer to decide to shoot black people. Whitey got shot more quickly and with more error.
-
from teh foxnews. I am a gay twerker that has no balls!!!! I also have no idea how to use the quote function to post stories, so I annoy the piss out of others. I like male genatalia in and around my mouth. :facepalm:
A protest against police-involved killings spun out of control for the second straight night in Berkeley, Calif., Sunday, as demonstrators threw rocks and explosives at officers, turned on each other, and shut down a highway.
Sunday's protest began peacefully on the University of California, Berkeley campus. But as protesters marched through downtown Berkeley toward the neighboring city of Oakland, someone smashed the window of a Radio Shack. When a protester tried to stop the vandalism, he was hit with a hammer, Berkeley Police Officer Jennifer Coats said. Coats told KTVU that the man was taken to a hospital with non-life-threatening injuries.
Sunday's demonstrations began with approximately 50 protesters, but soon swelled to at least 500 people, according to estimates by police and protesters alike. Demonstrator Alessandro Tiberio told KTVU that the crowd had "very positive energy" when the march started.
"I'm an ally," Tiberio said. "It's important to stay focused on the fact that black lives matter. It's not that all lives don't matter but I'm here to support especially the black people who are most often the ones victimized by the police."
The demonstrations were the latest of several in the Bay Area — including in Oakland where activism is strong — to protest recent grand jury decisions in Missouri and New York not to indict while police officers in the deaths of two black men.
Police said groups of protesters late Sunday began roaming through the downtown area, throwing trash cans into streets and lighting garbage on fire, smashing windows on buildings, and damaging and looting businesses. There also were reports of vandalism at City Hall.
Some of the protesters made their way to State Highway 24 in Oakland and blocked traffic. The California Highway Patrol said some tried to light a patrol vehicle on fire and threw rocks, bottles and an explosive at officers. There was no immediate word of how potent the explosives were. Highway patrol officers responded with tear gas and chased protesters off the roadway. KTVU cited additional reports of CHP and police patrol cars being vandalized with windows smashed.
Coats said police made five arrests in connection with the demonstrations. She said two officers sustained minor injuries Sunday night.
Coats said in a statement that there was "significant damage" to several Berkeley businesses and that many had windows smashed and several stores were looted.
The San Francisco Chronicle said that at about midnight, there were still a few hundred people on the streets. At one point, the Radio Shack on Shattuck at Dwight Way was ransacked. Later, a Whole Foods store on Telegraph was looted, with people taking and passing around bottles of champagne.
The demonstrations had concluded by about 3:30 a.m., according to Coats.
On Saturday night in Berkeley, three officers and a technician were hurt and six people were arrested when a similar protest turned unruly. The most serious injury was a dislocated shoulder, Berkeley police said. Coats said no police officers were hurt Sunday evening.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
-
"I'm an ally," Tiberio said. "It's important to stay focused on the fact that black lives matter. It's not that all lives don't matter but I'm here to support especially the black people who are most often the ones victimized by the police."
3-4 times as many whites were killed by cops last year. But hey facts and all.
So in retaliation, doing all of this below to innocent people makes perfect sense. Lets protest what we think is the bad treatment of some innocent people by doing some more bad shit to other innocent people. Got it...
throwing trash cans into streets and lighting garbage on fire, smashing windows on buildings, and damaging and looting businesses.
There also were reports of vandalism at City Hall.
Some of the protesters made their way to State Highway 24 in Oakland and blocked traffic. The California Highway Patrol said some tried to light a patrol vehicle on fire and threw rocks, bottles and an explosive at officers.
KTVU cited additional reports of CHP and police patrol cars being vandalized with windows smashed.
-
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11292-012-9163-y (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11292-012-9163-y)
Speaking of confusing statistics, this study measured reaction time and decision making for civilians, police and military personnel. The surprising results? Everyone took longer to decide to shoot black people. Whitey got shot more quickly and with more error.
Like I've said numerous, numerous times. I'll stick to policing whitey.
-
It's important to stay focused on the fact that black lives matter.
Then kindly tell them to stop killing each other.
-
Aren't all black males dead yet?
At the rate the media wants you to believe, cops should be starting on Mexicans any day now!
-
I just give up. Have we really gotten to this point? Those of you that talked about leaving and taking up residence on a tropical island or some other country....if you need help with rent....just sayin'. foxynewz
This won't prepare them for tough judges, unscrupulous clients or merciless partners at the law firms they hope to work for.
Columbia Law School has agreed to delay final exams for students who face "trauma" and disillusionment following two recent, racially-charged cases in which grand juries declined to indict white police officers in the deaths of unarmed black men. And now, students at Harvard and Georgetown want the same dispensation, also saying they just can't face their tests in the wake of the grand jury decisions in Missouri and New York.
"For some law students, particularly, though not only, students of color, this chain of events is all the more profound as it threatens to undermine a sense that the law is a fundamental pillar of society to protect fairness, due process and equality," Robert E. Scott, Columbia's interim dean, told the school in an email Saturday.
The cases involved Michael Brown, an 18-year-old shot by a Ferguson, Mo., police officer in August after, according to witnesses, Brown fought for the officer's gun and then charged at him; and Eric Garner, a Staten Island, N.Y., man who died after an NYPD officer applied what appeared to be a chokehold while trying to subdue him last summer.
The Ivy League law school's email came after a group of minority students called for the exams to be put on hold due to trauma in applying on exams the same legal principles that are used to "deny justice to so many black and brown bodies."
"We have struggled to compartmentalize our trauma as we sit and make fruitless attempts to focus on exam preparations," the group, which calls itself the Columbia Law School Coalition of Concerned Students of Color, wrote to administrators. "In being asked to prepare for and take our exams in this moment, we are being asked to perform incredible acts of disassociation that have led us to question our place in this school community and the legal community at large."
The group posted the letter online.
"We sit to study with the knowledge that our brothers and sisters are regularly killed with impunity on borders and streets; we sit to study with the understanding that our brothers and sisters are marching to have our humanity recognized and valued by a system that has continually failed us," the letter read.
The group called the grand jury decisions "legal violence" that implicates us all. The group says its members cannot sleep at night and the trauma "will be present on exam day."
Faculty members at the school could not recall the last time an exam extension was allowed after a public event, The Wall Street Journal reported. Students who want the postponement must petition the dean and will be considered according to their particular situation. The Journal reported that each request, so far, has been granted.
A "trauma specialist" will also meet with students at the campus this week. The University of California-Irvine offered students a similar counseling last week to help with "healing, grieving and support."
In addition to Columbia, law school students at Harvard and Georgetown are apparently equally dismayed by the non-indictments and are reportedly asking for similar accommodations.
Though few question the sincerity of these students' feelings, there are critics that say a law school is doing its students a disservice by granting such a request.
Eugene Volokh, who teaches free speech law at UCLA School of Law, wrote in The Washington Post that such a request seems to promote "expectations and attitudes" that will not serve the students later in their legal lives.
He asked, "Where would the civil rights movement have been if civil rights lawyers were so traumatized by injustice that they couldn't function effectively without deadline extensions?"
A Columbia law spokeswoman told The New York Post that the school's exam policy allows students to postpone tests over "extenuating conditions, including illness, religious observance, bereavement and other exceptional and documented circumstances."
Elie Mystal wrote in Above The Law Redline that although he sympathizes with the group, requesting the extension sends the wrong message.
"Every black person has been told the line 'you have to be twice as good' as the white man to get the same thing," he wrote. "This is what that looks like. Nobody said it was going to be easy or even fair, but showing up to take your test in the face of this adversity happens to be what is required."
-
Since I am what I perceive to be the only black voice on this board, I petition that all x participants send me $200 each, to help us put the tragic deaths of Michael Brown and that brother in NY selling cigarettes behind us. I am having trouble sleeping.
We all deserve a Merry Christmas and Happy Kwanzaa.
If you can't send $200, anything will help us cross this chasm of misunderstanding and move toward a peaceful solution. If not, I will riot. And somebody may get they ass whipped.
Shalom, WT
-
WT bout ta burn this bitch down.
-
Since I am what I perceive to be the only black voice on this board, I petition that all x participants send me $200 each, to help us put the tragic deaths of Michael Brown and that brother in NY selling cigarettes behind us. I am having trouble sleeping.
We all deserve a Merry Christmas and Happy Kwanzaa.
If you can't send $200, anything will help us cross this chasm of misunderstanding and move toward a peaceful solution. If not, I will riot. And somebody may get they ass whipped.
Shalom, WT
Please send me your bank account #, and routing # and I will wire it to you asap. Just pleeeease don't start whipping asses.
-
A couple of observations. On Friday, there was a piece in our local paper about another march/protest being organized in D.C. I believe. The very next article directly below that was about how two officers were shot in a hostage standoff. The irony of it all is pretty amazing. I guess these officers had to take time out of their busy quest to systematically exterminate unarmed black men so they could protect and serve the public.
Oh, and from what I understand, there was another unarmed black man shot and killed in Auburn this weekend. Where's the outrage? Where are the marchers, protesters and looters?
-
A couple of observations. On Friday, there was a piece in our local paper about another march/protest being organized in D.C. I believe. The very next article directly below that was about how two officers were shot in a hostage standoff. The irony of it all is pretty amazing. I guess these officers had to take time out of their busy quest to systematically exterminate unarmed black men so they could protect and serve the public.
Oh, and from what I understand, there was another unarmed black man shot and killed in Auburn this weekend. Where's the outrage? Where are the marchers, protesters and looters?
These people also have a lot more free time on their hands than me.
-
These people also have a lot more free time on their hands than me US.
ftfy
-
A couple of observations. On Friday, there was a piece in our local paper about another march/protest being organized in D.C. I believe. The very next article directly below that was about how two officers were shot in a hostage standoff. The irony of it all is pretty amazing. I guess these officers had to take time out of their busy quest to systematically exterminate unarmed black men so they could protect and serve the public.
Oh, and from what I understand, there was another unarmed black man shot and killed in Auburn this weekend. Where's the outrage? Where are the marchers, protesters and looters?
Only when whitey shoots black.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/03/04/us/doj-report-on-shooting-of-michael-brown.html?_r=0
Color me shocked. Stunned, even.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/03/04/us/doj-report-on-shooting-of-michael-brown.html?_r=0
Color me shocked. Stunned, even.
DNGAF
-
DNGAF
I did not get a frito either and I must say that I'm highly agitated about it.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/03/04/us/doj-report-on-shooting-of-michael-brown.html?_r=0
Color me shocked. Stunned, even.
It's sad to me that they needed 85 3/4 pages to say the last sentence.
-
It's sad to me that they needed 85 3/4 pages to say the last sentence.
I can't believe that was the last sentence. Eric Holder must be pissed. The interesting part to me was how many convicted felons witnesses the incident.
-
I can't believe that was the last sentence. Eric Holder must be pissed. The interesting part to me was how many convicted felons witnesses the incident.
Must have been having a party.
-
Must have been having a party.
(http://i.qkme.me/3of837.jpg)
-
In case you haven't been keeping up lately: Not only are the evil white police responsible for this mass atrocity but they are also shooting one another as part of a larger conspiracy with the KKK to further thier agenda of oppression.
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/03/12/city-manager-ferguson-cop-shootings-complete-setup-by-cops/ (http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/03/12/city-manager-ferguson-cop-shootings-complete-setup-by-cops/)
City Manager: Ferguson Cop Shootings ‘Complete Setup’ by Cops
A man identifying himself as John C. Muhammad, the City Manager of Uplands Park, MO, said that the shooting of two police officers in Ferguson was “a complete setup†carried out by the police on Thursday’s “Hannity†on the Fox News Channel.
“I think it was a complete setup. I think it was a setup between members of the police fraternities, what I like to call it. I think they operate just like the KKK. I think they did it to make themselves think they’re the victim, when honestly the victim are black people. I think it’s just a publicity stunt. No more than that†he stated. Although, he later clarified that this was solely his position, and not necessarily that of his constituents.
The man was identified on the air as “John Muhammad…a City Manager in a nearby town.†A LinkedIn page and what appears to be the city’s website identify John C. Muhammad as City Manager of Uplands Park, MO, and a Twitter page with the same name has a tweet saying he is planning to go to Ferguson to protest
Headed to the #Fergsuon Police Station to do what I do best. AGITATE! #ProfessionalAgitator #HandsUpDontShoot #NoJusticeNoPeace
— JOHN C. MUHAMMAD (@JOHNCMUHAMMAD) March 13, 2015
He added, “we have to keep pushing this issue forward, because this is a major problem that black men, black women are being shot down and killed by white police officers, sometimes blackm because the problem is not always these white people. Well, it is, but it’s not.†He further stated the police “don’t serve and protect me†and said that cops only protect white people.
I followed the embedded link to the guy's LinkedIn profile and was not shocked. Kid's transitioned between 15 different social work and/or brainwashing local government positions within just the last 4 years. Now I don't know what exactly a City Administrator's job entitles. But I know that this sob has no business administrating more than a Macy's shoe department.
But again, I guess if the #ProfessionalAgitator can rid this nation of its sinister police and their murderous plotting ways, then praise allah for him.
-
In case you haven't been keeping up lately: Not only are the evil white police responsible for this mass atrocity but they are also shooting one another as part of a larger conspiracy with the KKK to further thier agenda of oppression.
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/03/12/city-manager-ferguson-cop-shootings-complete-setup-by-cops/ (http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/03/12/city-manager-ferguson-cop-shootings-complete-setup-by-cops/)
I followed the embedded link to the guy's LinkedIn profile and was not shocked. Kid's transitioned between 15 different social work and/or brainwashing local government positions within just the last 4 years. Now I don't know what exactly a City Administrator's job entitles. But I know that this sob has no business administrating more than a Macy's shoe department.
But again, I guess if the #ProfessionalAgitator can rid this nation of its sinister police and their murderous plotting ways, then praise allah for him.
As soon as us working folk don't have anything better to do we should all get together and protest something. Would have to be on a sunday for me.
-
Yes, to make the black people of Ferguson look like thugs, I'm going to allow you to shoot me in the face.
-
Yes, to make the black people of Ferguson look like thugs, I'm going to allow you to shoot me in the face.
And you would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for those meddling black kids.
-
And you would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for those meddling black kids.
I thought it was African American?
-
Yes, to make the black people of Ferguson look like thugs, I'm going to allow you to shoot me in the face.
Easy there. You pigs being in cahoots with the KKK like you are, you're going to need someone like CCTAU. Not me.
-
Easy there. You pigs being in cahoots with the KKK like you are, you're going to need someone like CCTAU. Not me.
Hey now.
I only trust those cops in my chapter.
-
I'll just leave this here.
http://conservativetribune.com/mike-browns-mom-tweet/ (http://conservativetribune.com/mike-browns-mom-tweet/)
-
I'll just leave this here.
http://conservativetribune.com/mike-browns-mom-tweet/ (http://conservativetribune.com/mike-browns-mom-tweet/)
She's just as responsible for what happened as Mike Brown himself.
-
I'll just leave this here.
http://conservativetribune.com/mike-browns-mom-tweet/ (http://conservativetribune.com/mike-browns-mom-tweet/)
Confirms everything about the same behavior he displayed that got him killed. No respect for anyone or any authority. And way too much time on his hands to show it. Pretty obvious he picked up his views and behavior from home.
-
Amazing, absolutely courageous article by a WaPo writer who admits he was wrong.
I think the DOJ report is spot on. It sounds like there is a lot of institutionalized racism in the Ferguson PD. Maybe this was the straw that broke the camel's back. I can understand the black community saying ENOUGH.
But Brown deserved what he got. The most racially sensitive DOJ in American history supports that version of events. Officer Wilson was absolutely justified in shooting Michael Brown.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/03/16/lesson-learned-from-the-shooting-of-michael-brown/?postshare=8521426533755306 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/03/16/lesson-learned-from-the-shooting-of-michael-brown/?postshare=8521426533755306)
The late evening of Aug. 9, 2014, I couldn’t sleep. I was due to substitute-anchor MSNBC’s “UP with Steve Kornacki†and should have been asleep. But after looking at my Twitter feed and reading the rage under #Ferguson, I felt compelled to type a reaction to the killing of Michael Brown by police officer Darren Wilson. Tying the shooting to the inane whine of certain politicians about a “war on whites,†I decried the next morning the death of yet another unarmed black man at the hands of a white police officer.
In those early hours and early days, there was more unknown than known. But this month, the Justice Department released two must-read investigations connected to the killing of Brown that filled in blanks, corrected the record and brought sunlight to dark places by revealing ugly practices that institutionalized racism and hardship. They have also forced me to deal with two uncomfortable truths: Brown never surrendered with his hands up, and Wilson was justified in shooting Brown.
The report on the Ferguson police department detailed abuse and blatant trampling of the constitutional rights of people, mostly African Americans, in Ferguson. Years of mistreatment by the police, the courts and the municipal government, including evidence that all three balanced their books on the backs of the people of Ferguson, were laid bare in 102 damning pages. The overwhelming data from DOJ provided background and much-needed context for why a small St. Louis suburb most had never heard of exploded the moment Brown was killed. His death gave voice to many who suffered in silence
The unarmed 18-year-old also became a potent symbol of the lack of trust between African Americans and law enforcement. Not just in Ferguson, but in the rest of the country. Lord knows there have been plenty of recent examples. And the militarized response to protesters by local police put an exclamation point on demonstrators’ concerns. But the other DOJ report, the one on the actual shooting of Michael Brown, shows him to be an inappropriate symbol.
Through exhaustive interviews with witnesses, cross-checking their statements with previous statements to authorities and the media, ballistics, DNA evidence and results from three autopsies, the Justice Department was able to present a credible and troubling picture of what happened on Canfield Drive. More credible than the grand jury decision to not indict Wilson. The transcript of his grand jury testimony read like so much hand-holding by the prosecution.
What DOJ found made me ill. Wilson knew about the theft of the cigarillos from the convenience store and had a description of the suspects. Brown fought with the officer and tried to take his gun. And the popular hands-up storyline, which isn’t corroborated by ballistic and DNA evidence and multiple witness statements, was perpetuated by Witness 101. In fact, just about everything said to the media by Witness 101, whom we all know as Dorian Johnson, the friend with Brown that day, was not supported by the evidence and other witness statements.
Fight in the SUV
Page 6: Wilson and other witnesses stated that Brown then reached into the SUV through the open driver’s window and punched and grabbed Wilson. This is corroborated by bruising on Wilson’s jaw and scratches on his neck, the presence of Brown’s DNA on Wilson’s collar, shirt, and pants, and Wilson’s DNA on Brown’s palm. While there are other individuals who stated that Wilson reached out of the SUV and grabbed Brown by the neck, prosecutors could not credit their accounts because they were inconsistent with physical and forensic evidence, as detailed throughout this report.
Struggle over the gun
Page 6: Brown then grabbed the weapon and struggled with Wilson to gain control of it. Wilson fired, striking Brown in the hand. Autopsy results and bullet trajectory, skin from Brown’s palm on the outside of the SUV door as well as Brown’s DNA on the inside of the driver’s door corroborate Wilson’s account that during the struggle, Brown used his right hand to grab and attempt to control Wilson’s gun. According to three autopsies, Brown sustained a close range gunshot wound to the fleshy portion of his right hand at the base of his right thumb. Soot from the muzzle of the gun found embedded in the tissue of this wound coupled with indicia of thermal change from the heat of the muzzle indicate that Brown’s hand was within inches of the muzzle of Wilson’s gun when it was fired. The location of the recovered bullet in the side panel of the driver’s door, just above Wilson’s lap, also corroborates Wilson’s account of the struggle over the gun and when the gun was fired, as do witness accounts that Wilson fired at least one shot from inside the SUV.
Hands up
Page 8: Although there are several individuals who have stated that Brown held his hands up in an unambiguous sign of surrender prior to Wilson shooting him dead, their accounts do not support a prosecution of Wilson. As detailed throughout this report, some of those accounts are inaccurate because they are inconsistent with the physical and forensic evidence; some of those accounts are materially inconsistent with that witness’s own prior statements with no explanation, credible [or] otherwise, as to why those accounts changed over time. Certain other witnesses who originally stated Brown had his hands up in surrender recanted their original accounts, admitting that they did not witness the shooting or parts of it, despite what they initially reported either to federal or local law enforcement or to the media. Prosecutors did not rely on those accounts when making a prosecutive decision.
While credible witnesses gave varying accounts of exactly what Brown was doing with his hands as he moved toward Wilson – i.e., balling them, holding them out, or pulling up his pants up – and varying accounts of how he was moving – i.e., “charging,†moving in “slow motion,†or “running†– they all establish that Brown was moving toward Wilson when Wilson shot him. Although some witnesses state that Brown held his hands up at shoulder level with his palms facing outward for a brief moment, these same witnesses describe Brown then dropping his hands and “charging†at Wilson.
The DOJ report notes on page 44 that Johnson “made multiple statements to the media immediately following the incident that spawned the popular narrative that Wilson shot Brown execution-style as he held up his hands in surrender.†In one of those interviews, Johnson told MSNBC that Brown was shot in the back by Wilson. It was then that Johnson said Brown stopped, turned around with his hands up and said, “I don’t have a gun, stop shooting!†And, like that, “hands up, don’t shoot†became the mantra of a movement. But it was wrong, built on a lie.
Yet this does not diminish the importance of the real issues unearthed in Ferguson by Brown’s death. Nor does it discredit what has become the larger “Black Lives Matter.†In fact, the false Ferguson narrative stuck because of concern over a distressing pattern of other police killings of unarmed African American men and boys around the time of Brown’s death. Eric Garner was killed on a Staten Island street on July 17. John Crawford III was killed in a Wal-Mart in Beavercreek, Ohio, on Aug. 5, four days before Brown. Levar Jones survived being shot by a South Carolina state trooper on Sept. 4. Tamir Rice, 12 years old, was killed in a Cleveland park on Nov. 23, the day before the Ferguson grand jury opted not to indict Wilson. Sadly, the list has grown longer.
Now that black lives matter to everyone, it is imperative that we continue marching for and giving voice to those killed in racially charged incidents at the hands of police and others. But we must never allow ourselves to march under the banner of a false narrative on behalf of someone who would otherwise offend our sense of right and wrong. And when we discover that we have, we must acknowledge it, admit our error and keep on marching. That’s what I’ve done here.
-
Amazing, absolutely courageous article by a WaPo writer who admits he was wrong.
I think the DOJ report is spot on. It sounds like there is a lot of institutionalized racism in the Ferguson PD. Maybe this was the straw that broke the camel's back. I can understand the black community saying ENOUGH.
But Brown deserved what he got. The most racially sensitive DOJ in American history supports that version of events. Officer Wilson was absolutely justified in shooting Michael Brown.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/03/16/lesson-learned-from-the-shooting-of-michael-brown/?postshare=8521426533755306 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/03/16/lesson-learned-from-the-shooting-of-michael-brown/?postshare=8521426533755306)
Doesn't matter, black suspect, white cop. Al and Jesse can not let the race card fade away, cause then they do too. And the real bad part of this is that people like Al and Jesse are doing more harm to race relations then helping but most of the black community just follow and believe every word.
-
Now that black lives matter to everyone, it is imperative that we continue marching for and giving voice to those killed in racially charged incidents at the hands of police and others. But we must never allow ourselves to march under the banner of a false narrative on behalf of someone who would otherwise offend our sense of right and wrong. And when we discover that we have, we must acknowledge it, admit our error and keep on marching. That’s what I’ve done here.
Thafuq?
Even though we are wrong, we will continue to march. Mmmmmmkay.
-
Thafuq?
Even though we are wrong, we will continue to march. Mmmmmmkay.
So, you're saying that black lives don't matter, huh? I hope Al Sharpton punches you right in the face. Live on MSNBC. On the Rachel Madow show. I'd take her to pound town, btw.
-
Thafuq?
Even though we are wrong, we will continue to march. Mmmmmmkay.
Agree. I read it and thought the article was ok. Definitely not courageous. He still listed numerous counts that "justified" the marching and overall ignorance. And I use the term "ignorance" because he doesn't know what happened in the other cases like he didn't know what happened in the Brown case.
I am all for busting corrupt officers and government systems, but to lay blame on whitey keeping the black man down here is "ignorant".
-
Agree. I read it and thought the article was ok. Definitely not courageous. He still listed numerous counts that "justified" the marching and overall ignorance. And I use the term "ignorance" because he doesn't know what happened in the other cases like he didn't know what happened in the Brown case.
I am all for busting corrupt officers and government systems, but to lay blame on whitey keeping the black man down here is "ignorant".
If you tell the lie enough it becomes the truth.
-
After watching the video, I'm pretty sure that Jonathan would suck one till the swelling goes down. Not that there is anything wrong with that. For you guys, I mean. I'm not saying I would...Nevermind.
-
Thafuq?
Even though we are wrong, we will continue to march. Mmmmmmkay.
You cannot deny that there are definitely racial issues that come in to play in some of these situations. The DOJ report was SCATHING in its indictment of the Ferguson PD for blatant racial bias in how they policed their town. Many conservatives and non-activist types agreed once they read the DOJ report. It does read like a how to book for pushing racial bias in law enforcement. The locals had just had enough - and from reading that report, it sounds to me like it had just reached the boiling point. It wasn't 'just" the shooting. The shooting was just the straw that broke the camel's back.
Unfortunately for the folks in Ferguson, their chosen poster boy turned out to be a shithead who got what he deserved, instead of the choir boy getting picked on by Da Man. Plus all the witnesses lying about it in order to make a case against the cop didn't help things at all once the forensics came into play and proved they lied big time.
His point, in my take on it, is that is important to consider that there may be a racial aspect to a crime, and each incident should be examined for potential racial motive, but he is also saying he has learned that jumping to an automatic "RACIST!!" reaction before all the facts are known is equally bad. If nothing else, showing support for someone who, as it later turned out, was a total asshole and deserved to get shot, does not exactly help your cause. Not that Jesse or Al or Holder are going to admit they were wrong. But this guy did, and I am sure he caught a ration of shit for it from Da Community.
At least now that mofo's family is not going to be able to sue Officer Wilson in a civil case.
-
Where was Al and Jessie back in the day when Folmar's boys were knocking heads in Montgomery?
Call it racist. Call it what you want, but at some point in time, you have to stop the crime and lunacy.
Any police department that has high crime in minority neighborhoods can be cited for multiple "racial" violations.
There also has to be community involvement to keep neighborhoods safe. When that fails, they look to the police...until the police actually start doing something. Then it is racist.
I'm not saying the report is wrong. I am saying that the department did not wake up one morning and decide to be this way.
-
Where was Al and Jessie back in the day when Folmar's boys were knocking heads in Montgomery?
They knew better than to show up less they get their head knocked.
-
They knew better than to show up less they get their head knocked.
True dat, Emory's boys DID NOT PLAY.
Now Montgomery is SHITE!
Sometime you gotta stereotype and maybe even work under what some would call racist guidelines to stay ahead of the game.
-
Please name me 1 majority black community in this country that is thriving.
-
Please name me 1 majority black community in this country that is thriving.
Montgomery?
-
Montgomery?
Yep. And Prichard and Selma would round out my top 3 in Alabama. These 3 cities can hold their own per capita against any place in the country with a thriving drug and prostitution trade. Apparently he isn't familiar with these communities.
-
Please name me 1 majority black community in this country that is thriving.
Prichard.
Tuscsloosa.
-
I think the statistics are incredibly misleading for the general public. Traffic stops, citations and arrests aren't supposed to be a random population sample. You must have a traffic violation or probable cause to pull someone over. You must have a warrant or probable cause to make an arrest. An officer on patrol isn't consulting his race tally sheet "need to find a whitey to break even". He or she should be simply acting on the violations he or she sees. Surprise surprise certain areas yield a great deal of traffic violations and arrests. Some areas do not.
Furthermore high crime areas should and do recieve extra attention, using traffic violations to make contact with potentially more serious offenses. I guess I don't have to point out that high crime areas tend to be minority communities. Police departments are (rightfully) heavily criticized for ignoring those areas.
I'm not saying they weren't doing wrong. It certainly sounds like, after reading the report, they have some absolute idiots working there. I am saying that using traffic stop statistics could make any department that is doing the right thing look bad and any department using a chicken shit ignore crime in high crime areas policy look competent.
-
I think the statistics are incredibly misleading for the general public. Traffic stops, citations and arrests aren't supposed to be a random population sample. You must have a traffic violation or probable cause to pull someone over. You must have a warrant or probable cause to make an arrest. An officer on patrol isn't consulting his race tally sheet "need to find a whitey to break even". He or she should be simply acting on the violations he or shesees. Surprise surprise certain areas yield a great deal of traffic violations and arrests. Some areas do not.
Furthermore high crime areas should and do recieve extra attention, using traffic violations to make contact with potentially more serious offenses. I guess I don't have to point out that high crime areas tend to be minority communities. Police departments are (rightfully) heavily criticized for ignoring those areas.
I'm not saying they weren't doing wrong. It certainly sounds like, after reading the report, they have some absolute idiots working there. I am saying that using traffic stop statistics could make any department that is doing the right thing look bad and any department using a chicken shit ignore crime in high crime areas policy look competent.
"she" Ha Ha! Like there will ever be a woman cop.
-
Remember that piece I posted about the guy who admitted he was wrong? Well, the inevitable happened...
Where’s the mainstream media now? Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart, who filled in for Hardball’s Chris Matthews Thursday night, said he’s been called a “house negro†for speaking out against the “hands up don’t shoot†lie.
“After my piece, ‘Hands up don’t shoot was built on a lie,’ folks used Twitter and Facebook to dismember my personhood,†he continued. “Fellow African-Americans called me a ‘sellout’ or a ‘house negro.’ Others said I did it because I wanted ‘white peopleto like me’ or that I ‘did it for the money.’ No, I didn’t. I did it because it was the right thing to do.â€
-
Please name me 1 majority black community in this country that is thriving.
The NBA.
-
LOOK. These two guys are dead due to their stupidity.
Can we please start a new thread about PoPo whitey killing other stupid people. These have had their 15 minutes.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-charged-with-murder/
Now this motherfucker, he in trouble.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-charged-with-murder/
Now this motherfudgeer, he in trouble.
Yep, he done.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-charged-with-murder/
Now this motherfucker, he in trouble.
We need some black cops to be killing some white trash. Take the heat off.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-charged-with-murder/
Now this motherfucker, he in trouble.
You should be out solving a case
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-charged-with-murder/
Now this motherfucker, he in trouble.
Am I the only one that thinks that looks extremely odd? From the tape, to the guy running off, to the cop completely ignoring at all times a dude standing there taping? If he is pulled over for a traffic stop, where is the car?
I am not saying it is fake, but something looks really weird about that whole video tape...
-
I just bought a big bag of Skittles, a Pepsi cola and I'm thinking about visiting the South Carolina. Wish me luck.
-
Am I the only one that thinks that looks extremely odd? From the tape, to the guy running off, to the cop completely ignoring at all times a dude standing there taping? If he is pulled over for a traffic stop, where is the car?
I am not saying it is fake, but something looks really weird about that whole video tape...
I'm sure it's not the entire tape. I think the guy tried to run, and it appeared as though there was a struggle over the officer's taser. But still, that guy was 30 feet away and he is still shooting. Chase him and put some mitts on him? Maybe. Shoot him in the back multiple times as he's running away? Fuck no.
-
You should be out solving a case
Shit solved. Marshall County owes me 2 cleared homicides.
-
Shit solved. Marshall County owes me 2 cleared homicides.
Columbo everyone...
-
Columbo everyone...
I don't ever really ask questions. I slander, assassinate characters, throw around a lot of accusatory comments and black out once or twice from blind rage. That generally gets the job done.
Either way, somebody owes me some cleared cases.
-
I don't ever really ask questions. I slander, assassinate characters, throw around a lot of accusatory comments and black out once or twice from blind rage. That generally gets the job done.
Either way, somebody owes me some cleared cases.
Hold your breath, the cowardly lion will clear up three this week alone.
-
I'm sure it's not the entire tape. I think the guy tried to run, and it appeared as though there was a struggle over the officer's taser. But still, that guy was 30 feet away and he is still shooting. Chase him and put some mitts on him? Maybe. Shoot him in the back multiple times as he's running away? Fuck no.
Look at the way the guy is running. He is prancing away. It looks weird when he is shot too. And where are the automobiles? They aren't even on a street. The nearest street looks to be 100 yards away. How does the guy get what seems like 15 feet away from the dead dude, and everyone ignores him? It just looks odd to me.
-
Shit solved. Marshall County owes me 2 cleared homicides.
So you were in on those?
-
Yes this is terrible. Yes, officer should be charged, go to jail, etc. But one thing is fosho. If this happened more often, there'd be a lot less mofo's running from the police.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-charged-with-murder/
Now this motherfudgeer, he in trouble.
DAMN! That appears to be some cold blooded shit.
I take it back guys, cops do just straight murder people.
-
Now they're becoming so comfortable beating people that they're started laying beatdowns on white people.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-bernardino-deputies-kick-man-pursuit-20150409-story.html
11 cops putting a whipping on a white honkey, but not 1 lick for the brown horse. It's racism!
-
Now they're becoming so comfortable beating people that they're started laying beatdowns on white people.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-bernardino-deputies-kick-man-pursuit-20150409-story.html
11 cops putting a whipping on a white honkey, but not 1 lick for the brown horse. It's racism!
Pffffft...this was just a beating. They'd have shot the black dude.
-
Now they're becoming so comfortable beating people that they're started laying beatdowns on white people.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-bernardino-deputies-kick-man-pursuit-20150409-story.html
11 cops putting a whipping on a white honkey, but not 1 lick for the brown horse. It's racism!
If a white man gets his ass beat by a pile of cops, you best believe he earned it.
-
Can't we all just get along? Please?
-
Can't we all just get along? Please?
Oh shut up.
-
Can't we all just get along? Please?
As an admirer of the way you and AUChizad(!) have buried the hatchet, I applaud your effort to steer us all toward a harmonious coexistence.
-
As an admirer of the way you and AUChizad(!) have buried the hatchet, I applaud your effort to steer us all toward a harmonious coexistence.
Thank you. Many years ago, I simply came to the realization that tolerance, diversity and inclusiveness are what is needed for the blacks, whites and gays.
If not, the wet backs are going to take this mofo over.
-
If not, the wet backs are going to take this mofo over.
That's cool, I like tacos and tan skinned women. This diversity thing is a cinch.
-
That's cool, I like tacos and tan skinned women. This diversity thing is a cinch.
Si
-
That's cool, I like tacos and tan skinned women. This diversity thing is a cinch.
I would be cool with an influx of Cuban women.
-
I would be cool with an influx of Cuban women.
THIS! Especially if they're holding some good hand rolled cigars. There's something very erotic about a woman that has a disposition as spicy as her food, just as long as she resists the urge to whip out a kitchen knife on me.
-
THIS! Especially if they're holding some good hand rolled cigars. There's something very erotic about a woman that has a disposition as spicy as her food, just as long as she resists the urge to whip out a kitchen knife on me.
Wasn't sure where you were going with the whipping out part but that ended better than I imagined.
This is the reason you should never attempt to Salsa dance with a Puerto Rican woman. Step on her feet one too many times and get the switch blade.
-
THIS! Especially if they're holding some good hand rolled cigars. There's something very erotic about a woman that has a disposition as spicy as her food, just as long as she resists the urge to whip out a kitchen knife on me.
That's why I married a cajun...
-
https://youtu.be/pBIKBIOtEjA
Police released video Friday that appears to show a chaotic brawl in an Arizona Walmart parking lot that left one suspect dead and two others shot, including an officer.
The shooting occurred during a fight between up to eight members of the Gaver family and at least four police officers. The video was captured by a dashboard camera and indicated the fight lasted for about seven minutes.
The fight happened after police were called to the Cottonwood, Ariz., Walmart on March 21 after a call reported that multiple suspects assaulted a female employee in the store. When officers arrived, the suspects were in the parking lot and attacked them, according to the Arizona Department of Public Safety.
Cottonwood Police Chief Jody Fanning said that during the brawl, Enoch Gaver, 21, disarmed Sgt. Jeremy Daniels and shot him in the leg. He said Gaver was still armed with Daniels' gun when officer Rick Hicks started hitting him with a baton.
After Hicks determined the baton had no effect, he resorted to shooting Gaver to death, Fanning said. Hicks also shot and wounded David Gaver, who had been on top of Daniels and had charged toward Hicks, Fanning said.
Hicks initially was placed on leave after the March 21 shooting, but he went back on patrol Friday night.
"The preliminary investigation has given me enough evidence to place him back on duty,'' Fanning said, adding that he believes Hicks' actions were justified.
"The officers did a very good job of restraining themselves,'' Fanning said. He said they resorted to deadly force only when the Gavers left them no other choice.
USA TODAY
Walmart brawl leaves 1 dead, officer shot
The Gaver family is well-known in Boise, where at least three members played in a Christian band called Matthew 24 Now outside an Albertsons supermarket and posted signs with a biblical verse.
The incident began when a female Walmart employee tried to use a women's restroom and was prevented from doing so, getting pushed out of the way. Nathan Gaver told police that his mother, Ruth, was using the restroom, and that he and his brother Jeremiah were guarding it.
In another video clip, police arrive at the scene, where a large group of people are standing near a Chevrolet Suburban. The brawl ensues almost immediately after the third and fourth officers arrive.
Fanning said he still does not understand why the Gavers chose to fight his officers, rather than simply speaking to them. He said the likely outcome of the call would have been a misdemeanor citation with no one going to jail if the Gavers had not escalated the incident.
"I have no reason why they decided to fight us,'' Fanning said.
The officers and the Gavers are seen punching each other on the video. At some point, an officer attempts to use a stun gun to bring the Gavers under control, but that appears to have little effect.
After Daniels is seen on the ground, struggling with one of the Gavers, Hicks is seen using the baton to strike the man. Later, Hicks pulls out his gun. The video captures the flash from the gun's muzzle.
But even the fatal shooting doesn't end the brawl. Additional officers arrive on the scene and fight with other members of the Gaver family to bring them under control.
Five Gavers were arrested by police and booked into the Yavapai County Jail on a variety of charges, including aggravated assault on a police officer, hindering prosecution and resisting arrest.
-
haha that video is fuckin' nuts
-
haha that video is fuckin' nuts
That is the understatement of the year
-
Damn, that was intense!
-
If a member of the lower end of the gene pool grabs a brother's service weapon, then that bad seed should be shot. If they shoot a brother, then they should be removed from existence. Let that be a lesson to all of the bammers out there.
My second cousin was Officer David Beck.
http://law.justia.com/cases/alabama/court-of-appeals-criminal/1976/348-so-2d-828-0.html
-
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/video-shows-tulsa-man-shot-deputy-meant-stun-article-1.2181787
-
Those cops in Arizona showed more restraint than I would have had. I guess they weren't sure who to shoot, there were so many. That Asp baton can do some serious damage - when that shot sounded, it would have been on like Donkey Kong. Laid some fuckers out. And still the cops are screaming for people to get down, get down! Holy shit - shoot them in the leg or something. That would put them down.
I feel bad for the cops. That looked like Saturday night in a Turdscaloser trailer park.
-
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/video-shows-tulsa-man-shot-deputy-meant-stun-article-1.2181787
The cop that grabbed his gun instead of his taser was 73. I wonder if age had anything to do with it? I also wonder if maybe he was a reserve officer?
Edit: yep. The guy is a reserve officer, and the campaign chairman and single largest donor to the sheriff's election campaign. He was a cop once before - 50 years ago, for 12 months. He is a retired insurance agent. He apparently paid personally for a bunch of gear and equipment for the undercover unit. He was a "pay to play" cop.
And now he is being charged with second degree manslaughter.
-
The cop that grabbed his gun instead of his taser was 73. I wonder if age had anything to do with it? I also wonder if maybe he was a reserve officer?
And now he is being charged with second degree manslaughter.
I don't see what the big deal is. He told him he was sorry.
-
https://youtu.be/IOp2jjXT9Aw
I know it's CNN but DAMN!! That looked painful.
-
https://youtu.be/IOp2jjXT9Aw
I know it's CNN but DAMN!! That looked painful.
String of crime including a home invasion by this guy. My guess is that the officer wasn't trying to save the perps life.
Now, dude will just call a lawyer and win a prize though.
-
String of crime including a home invasion by this guy. My guess is that the officer wasn't trying to save the perps life.
Now, dude will just call a lawyer and win a prize though.
That's called the wheels of justice, baby. Cha-Ching!!!!
-
That's called the wheels of justice, baby. Cha-Ching!!!!
If this had happened in Dothan, mofo's would be diving out of the way after the cop car collided with the suspect, knowing that the Care mobile would be skidding in right behind the scene of the accident and spreading Care cards and neck braces.
-
If this had happened in Dothan, mofo's would be diving out of the way after the cop car collided with the suspect, knowing that the Care mobile would be skidding in right behind the scene of the accident and spreading Care cards and neck braces.
Mike Brady pulled his punk card last time that happened.
https://youtu.be/m_PgNQY-SGk
-
Pfffft...I school all my clients before trial on the BBD. Brady Briefcase Drop.
-
Am I the only that notices (cop right or wrong) all the people getting shot/run over are always running away from a cop.
Just maybe a thought, DON'T RUN FROM THE FUCKING COPS AND YOU WON'T GET SHOT.
-
Am I the only that notices (cop right or wrong) all the people getting shot/run over are always running away from a cop.
Just maybe a thought, DON'T RUN FROM THE FUCKING COPS AND YOU WON'T GET SHOT.
^^^Typical racist response.^^^
-
Interesting stat:
(http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u1/miked0003/11058794_10153199579050132_7069497235648539763_n1_zps70wkfqau.jpg) (http://s164.photobucket.com/user/miked0003/media/11058794_10153199579050132_7069497235648539763_n1_zps70wkfqau.jpg.html)
-
Am I the only that notices (cop right or wrong) all the people getting shot/run over are always running away from a cop.
Just maybe a thought, DON'T RUN FROM THE FUCKING COPS AND YOU WON'T GET SHOT.
And running from a cop demands an automatic death sentence?
-
And running from a cop demands an automatic death sentence?
Not automatic. Depends on the marksmanship of the officer involved.
-
And running from a cop demands an automatic death sentence?
No, but the one dude that got out of the car and ran, had he not run do you think the cop would have shot him?