Re: Michael Brown

[rogue06]

That's no reason to crush his dreams...





He lives in Georgia - the only thing he's gonna take on with those things is an inebriated possum... Let him alone... He'll learn when the possum bites him...

Thirsty lives in Georgia?

[Darth Executor]

If we're unarmed then how can I shoot you?

Woosh.

[Darth Executor]

Do many of these enablers live in fear of "squealing" on the gang members for fear of being murdered (or something else)? Or do they do it to protect them?

Honest questions.

They all probably have something theoretic to fear, but there are ways to get information to the police without revealing their identities. The bigger problems are:

a) People don't raise their kids right then look the other way because their kid might be the one getting imprisoned or ventilated by the cops
b) People hate the cops for being brutal (an understandable position for a cop to have, the civil rights myth exerts no power where barbarism rules) and go with "the devil they know" because he's darker skinned.
c) People actively agitate for lesser sentences, shout discrimination, sue and complain loudly when the natural consequences of allowing the problem to fester are visited upon them.

Few will admit it but I suspect in many cases they see the gangs as a symbol of power they live vicariously through since they have so little power in the rest of their lives.

[Cow Poke]

Note that Michael Brown was not only "unarmed" when he was shot, he was ALSO "unarmed" when he robbed the store and assaulted the clerk.

Also, the crowd that killed the two white boys in the "Another racial killing" thread -- those blacks were ALSO "unarmed" -- they beat, stomped, kicked and punched the kid to death.

[Psychic Missile]

There's a big difference between "okay" and justifiable. There are times when an officer shoots an unarmed person and it is justifiable, but it's dumb to call that "okay".

Why do you think it is justifiable for a police officer to shoot an unarmed person?

You'd probably be one of those strange people on a shooting board to take 4 weeks to analyze a decision an officer had to make in less than 3 seconds. Your question is goofy. If the officer is in fear for his life, and he uses his weapon in self defense, it may or may not cause the death of the attacker. The intent of the officer is to STOP the assailant, and that, unfortunately, may often end in death. It should never be the intention of the officer to kill the suspect.

If the officer doesn't want to kill someone, why are they using a gun?

Perhaps you're unaware that people can be killed by other means than bullets?

Epo is claiming that if I am unarmed and assaulted by a formidable person, I would want to shoot that person. It would be impossible for me to shoot someone if I was unarmed.

I don't make assumptions about what a person might believe to be necessary when he is in a position of having to make that decision in a real life situation.
Nor am I in possession of enough evidence to decide whether or not he had just cause for believing that there was a real and present danger.

The answer is no. Officers have lots of options to choose from when being assaulted by an unarmed person besides die or kill.

Yes, when the guy is attacking and you need to defend yourself or others. Knives and guns are not the only way you can harm someone physically. I already mentioned how my brother was attacked by an unarmed man while trying to calm down a domestic dispute and ended up with a shattered jaw and a titanium replacement. He was in the hospital for weeks and if the guy had gotten hold of his gun, he would be dead now. This is the real world PM, not some Hollywood action flick.

If this is the real world and not some Hollywood action flick, then we shouldn't solve every problem by shooting someone. You're the one wanting the world to be more like Judge Dredd, where officers act as executioners.

Sometimes, yes.

What other options are you proposing?

The same options used in other countries where officers don't carry guns. Physical force, batons, tasers, pepper spray. Those are never an officer's only choices.

So, if you had a gun and Epo didn't, you'd shoot him, eh?

Because a 6'2", 250 guy with or without training can do you serious bodily harm, can't he?

No further questions, Your Honor...

That is a ridiculous hypothetical that doesn't represent the options available to police.

[Cow Poke]

Why do you think it is justifiable for a police officer to shoot an unarmed person?

Because it often is.

[Psychic Missile]

Because it often is.

Is that the extent of your opinion, or is there a reason for it?

[JimL]

Because it often is.

Yes, and in this case it wasn't. The officer was breaking the law by shooting at the fleeing Mr. Brown in the first place. You should know that CP, being an ex cop and all.

[Cow Poke]

The same options used in other countries where officers don't carry guns. Physical force, batons, tasers, pepper spray. Those are never an officer's only choices.

The British police on armed routine patrol

Source: BBC News

In a little-noticed move, a small number of police officers are now routinely carrying sidearms while on patrol in parts of the mainland UK. How did this come about, and does it alter the relationship between the constabulary and the public?

© Copyright Original Source

police.jpg

Guess what those are on the hips of these Brit coppers! Times, they are a'changin'.

[Cow Poke]

Yes, and in this case it wasn't.

Unfortunately for you, Jimmy, a grand jury will decide whether to true bill or no bill this case, and IF they true bill it, it will go to trial where actual facts will be presented, and testimony will be subject to cross examination. Your opinion won't matter at all.

The officer was breaking the law by shooting at the fleeing Mr. Brown in the first place. You should know that CP, being an ex cop and all.

Hey, aren't you the same guy who said ALL THOSE PROTESTERS in the Bunde case should "be in jail right now"? Did you ever come up with an actual charge on which you would arrest them?

What I do know, Jimmy, is that even officer Wilson is innocent until proven guilty, in spite of what the JimmyL Kangaroo Court rules.

[Cow Poke]

Is that the extent of your opinion, or is there a reason for it?

Law.

[Cow Poke]

Like it or not, Here's The Law That Might Protect The Missouri Cop Who Shot An Unarmed Teen

(That's actually the name of the article to which that link will take you)

Here is a link to the actual law from Missouri's Revised Statutes, Chapter 563....

Source: Chapter 563.046

563.046. 1. A law enforcement officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to effect the arrest, or from efforts to prevent the escape from custody, of a person he reasonably believes to have committed an offense because of resistance or threatened resistance of the arrestee. In addition to the use of physical force authorized under other sections of this chapter, he is, subject to the provisions of subsections 2 and 3, justified in the use of such physical force as he reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody.

2. The use of any physical force in making an arrest is not justified under this section unless the arrest is lawful or the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the arrest is lawful.

3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only

(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or

(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested

(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or

(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or

(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.

4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

© Copyright Original Source

[JimL]

Like it or not, Here's The Law That Might Protect The Missouri Cop Who Shot An Unarmed Teen

(That's actually the name of the article to which that link will take you)

Here is a link to the actual law from Missouri's Revised Statutes, Chapter 563....

Source: Chapter 563.046

563.046. 1. A law enforcement officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to effect the arrest, or from efforts to prevent the escape from custody, of a person he reasonably believes to have committed an offense because of resistance or threatened resistance of the arrestee. In addition to the use of physical force authorized under other sections of this chapter, he is, subject to the provisions of subsections 2 and 3, justified in the use of such physical force as he reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody.

2. The use of any physical force in making an arrest is not justified under this section unless the arrest is lawful or the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the arrest is lawful.

3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only

(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or

(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested

(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or

(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or

(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.

4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

© Copyright Original Source

And the officer had no reason to suspect a felony, or that Mr. Brown had on his person a deadly weapon, or that he might endanger a life unless arrested without delay. Officer Wilson had no right to be shooting at an unarmed man in flight, period!

[robrecht]

And the officer had no reason to suspect a felony, or that Mr. Brown had on his person a deadly weapon, or that he might endanger a life unless arrested without delay. Officer Wilson had no right to be shooting at an unarmed man in flight, period!

The altercation between Michael Brown and the officer, especially if Brown went for the officer's gun, would probably be a felony, wouldn't it?

[Zymologist]

Why do you think it is justifiable for a police officer to shoot an unarmed person?

There seems to be this strange idea in this thread that, if attacked by an unarmed person*, one is morally obligated to use no weapon or means that the attacker does not himself have available. This is really, really weird.

Also, see here. I really wish people would stop parroting the whole "unarmed" bit.



*In case there is any doubt, note my use of the word if. I am not assuming that Brown attacked Wilson.

I can't resist:

The answer is no. Officers have lots of options to choose from when being assaulted by an unarmed person besides die or kill.

How do you know this?