Re: Michael Brown

[Cow Poke]

Even if the officer claims that to be the case, 2 weeks after the event mind you; Officer Wilson never filed an incident report, and such was never attested to by the police, he can not use deadly force even on a fleeing felon unless there is reason to suspect that he is an immediate threat to others including other officers. The only defense I can see for the officer is the one that the defense will most probably use, if it even goes to trial, and that is a big if, which is that Mr. Brown went racing headlong into the bullets in order to attack the officer and the officer was in fear for his life and if you can believe that, then i have a bridge to sell if you are interested. Anyway, all of the eyewitness testimony to date disputes that description of the facts.

Only in JimmyLand!

[Cow Poke]

"If it's legal, it must be moral." I see.

The case will be decided on the law, not your feelings.

[Cow Poke]

How bout we get back to the actual FACTS of the case, because those are what will be presented at trial IF the case even goes to trial. And I should have mentioned earlier, even if the grand jury no bills this case for criminal proseuction, it's still possible that a CIVIL suit could be filed.

[Juvenal]

Calm yourself, Jesse

Nah, that's just you.

-- the trial is going on THIS WEEK, and will be reported. The fact remains that it was a mob of blacks who killed this young white man.

If you mean a murder trial against a mob of black youth ethereally described in a Freepers post-mortem psychological thriller ... umm, lol! Freepers, a right-wing bulletin board, dutifully reporting some poster's channeling of the last thoughts of a dead boy.

From that same Freepers post, in the comments (though I've verified it elsewhere):

If you mean the lawsuit against McDonald's, it's all over but the appeals: $27 million to the plaintiffs, with McD being held 97 percent liable.

From your other sources:

The fact remains he was beaten up by a mob, probably composed of blacks, and found to be deceased after the other youth's girlfriend ran a redlight on the way to the hospital, definitively killing same. One source you cited said Denton died from the beating. Another said he died from the accident.

His dad's got a facebook page for the kid. It says:

The story of Denton and Bailey's death is still being investigated.

The problem with hanging out with Freepers is they never bring enough for everyone.

As ever, Jesse

[Zymologist]

That idea exists because a police officer should not have their life threatened by an unarmed person. Their training and tools should be more than adequate. There are several countries which do not arm their beat officers with firearms. I don't expect American police officers to not carry a gun. Our geographic location and our history of gun distribution makes an assailant with a firearm an ever-present reality. I do expect American police to use the same tactics used in those countries I mentioned when dealing with unarmed assailants, or indeed any unarmed person. Killing someone should be a last resort. Not a matter of course.

A little while ago people in this thread were saying things like "if a thief broke into my house, I would shoot them". I really don't understand this. Though it might be legal, it is not self defense. Unless threatening harm, implicit or implied, only one's possessions are in danger. I think this ties into the mentality of police carrying guns. The old adage "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". I hope that's the explanation. An alternative is that many people just don't value human life. If imminent harm is not one's criteria for justifiable self-defense, where does one draw the line?

How do you know it wasn't a last resort? How badly beaten should a person be* before they are allowed to consider using lethal force to defend themselves?

You guys seem intent on ignoring the fact that a person (especially a large and strong person) can kill someone while still unarmed. The bolded sentence is just incorrect.

I find your last sentence strange. You first say that the cop should absolutely not have used lethal force to defend himself, even if he was in danger of imminent harm. Then you say that imminent harm should be one's criterion for justifiable self-defense. Which is it?

*Again, if he was beaten.

[Teallaura]

The fact remains he was beaten up by a mob, probably composed of blacks, and found to be deceased after the other youth's girlfriend ran a redlight on the way to the hospital, definitively killing same. One source you cited said Denton died from the beating. Another said he died from the accident.

*emphasis mine

Was this you or the cite? I suspect you since it makes no sense in that context. So....

And the source I cited stated that the initial reports were that the boy had died in the accident HOWEVER the coroner's report showed he died of the beating.

Had he died in the accident McD's would have had a better - not great - case.

[Sparko]

\
A little while ago people in this thread were saying things like "if a thief broke into my house, I would shoot them". I really don't understand this. Though it might be legal, it is not self defense. Unless threatening harm, implicit or implied, only one's possessions are in danger. I think this ties into the mentality of police carrying guns. The old adage "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". I hope that's the explanation. An alternative is that many people just don't value human life. If imminent harm is not one's criteria for justifiable self-defense, where does one draw the line?

How do you know if someone breaking into your house is just after your possessions and will not harm you?

"Excuse me Mr. Home Invader, but would you mind telling me why you are in my house at 2 AM?"

If a criminal breaks into your home, harm is implied by the very act. They might be there to harm you, or might harm you because you interrupted them while they were stealing your possessions, to prevent you from calling the police or identifying them. They are criminals and unpredictable. Do you want to risk your life and maybe those of your family on the hope that they won't harm you or kill you all?

[CMD]

How do you know if someone breaking into your house is just after your possessions and will not harm you?

You don't know, but that's why it's important to truly ascertain what your intruder's intentions are before you consider using deadly force.

For example, if you hear your intruder heading towards your child's bedroom, consider the fact that he may not be a boy-hungry pedophile who wishes to do unspeakable things to your son, but that he may have just heard him crying and wishes only to comfort him and to apologize for scaring him, or that he may only need to use the restroom and, not knowing the layout of your home, mistakenly believes that your child's room is the bathroom. Wait for him to actually inflict physical harm upon your child, or to begin the process of abducting him before you make any rash assumptions about his intentions.

They might be there to harm you, or might harm you because you interrupted them while they were stealing your possessions, to prevent you from calling the police or identifying them.

Should you interrupt your intruder and in response he begins to run towards you, consider the fact that he may just be coming to give you a great big hug and to ask you for forgiveness. Wait for his fist to connect with your person or for your world to begin to darken as he strangles the life out of you before you just assume that he intends to harm you and begin using deadly force in order to stop him.

[Sparko]

You don't know, but that's why it's important to truly ascertain what your intruder's intentions are before you consider using deadly force.

For example, if you hear your intruder heading towards your child's bedroom, consider the fact that he may not be a boy-hungry pedophile who wishes to do unspeakable things to your son, but that he may have just heard him crying and wishes only to comfort him and to apologize for scaring him, or that he may only need to use the restroom and, not knowing the layout of your home, mistakenly believes that your child's room is the bathroom. Wait for him to actually inflict physical harm upon your child, or to begin the process of abducting him before you make any rash assumptions about his intentions.



Should you interrupt your intruder and in response he begins to run towards you, consider the fact that he may just be coming to give you a great big hug and to ask you for forgiveness. Wait for his fist to connect with your person or for your world to begin to darken as he strangles the life out of you before you just assume that he intends to harm you and begin using deadly force in order to stop him.

good advice. Thank you. And who knows? It might actually be Santa Clause coming to check the layout before Christmas to save time, or the tooth fairy wanting to leave a quarter under a pillow. I better start laying out milk and cookies, just in case.

[rogue06]

You don't know, but that's why it's important to truly ascertain what your intruder's intentions are before you consider using deadly force.

For example, if you hear your intruder heading towards your child's bedroom, consider the fact that he may not be a boy-hungry pedophile who wishes to do unspeakable things to your son, but that he may have just heard him crying and wishes only to comfort him and to apologize for scaring him, or that he may only need to use the restroom and, not knowing the layout of your home, mistakenly believes that your child's room is the bathroom. Wait for him to actually inflict physical harm upon your child, or to begin the process of abducting him before you make any rash assumptions about his intentions.

Um... As to the bolded part, not just no but hell no.

[Epoetker]

FREEPERS!!!

If I mentally replace "Freepers" with the N-word and 'black' with 'white' when reading your posts, it makes them more comprehensible and more applicable to other events.

Let's use an acceptable substitution cipher with a well-known public usage to get the full effect:

JumpingDjigga.jpg
Unlike the real thing, this one actually is violently killed on a daily basis by uncaring and heavily-armed white people

"If you mean a murder trial against a mob of white youth ethereally described in a Djiggas post-mortem rap video ... umm, lol! Abagond, a left-wing disinformation blog, dutifully reporting some rapper's channeling of the last thoughts of a dead boy."

"Djiggas, CP? I mean, seriously. They make Slate and Vox look like choir boys."

"The problem with hanging out with Djiggas is they never bring enough for everyone."

Daaaaaayyyyyyum, son, dat cold.

[Cow Poke]

Nah, that's just you.



If you mean a murder trial against a mob of black youth ethereally described in a Freepers post-mortem psychological thriller ... umm, lol! Freepers, a right-wing bulletin board, dutifully reporting some poster's channeling of the last thoughts of a dead boy.

From that same Freepers post, in the comments (though I've verified it elsewhere):

If you mean the lawsuit against McDonald's, it's all over but the appeals: $27 million to the plaintiffs, with McD being held 97 percent liable.

From your other sources:

The fact remains he was beaten up by a mob, probably composed of blacks, and found to be deceased after the other youth's girlfriend ran a redlight on the way to the hospital, definitively killing same. One source you cited said Denton died from the beating. Another said he died from the accident.

His dad's got a facebook page for the kid. It says:

The story of Denton and Bailey's death is still being investigated.

The problem with hanging out with Freepers is they never bring enough for everyone.

As ever, Jesse

The point was that I had to go to extreme media to even discover from a news point of view that this was a BLACK MOB and a WHITE KID, Jesse.
The FACT is that the mob was almost ENTIRELY black, as it has been quite a few times before.
Somehow, your favorite "news" sources omitted that little fact.

[Teallaura]

Um... As to the bolded part, not just no but hell no.

He's being sarcastic...

[rogue06]

He's being sarcastic...

With JimL and PM posting here it is hard to tell. But if it truly is the case then...

[myth]

With regard to the discussion of homeowners shooting unarmed people breaking into their homes -- the simple answer is that you have the right to defend your life with deadly force, but not your property. But given the totality of the circumstances, one may be able to articulate enough facts to justify a shooting that at first appears to violate this concept. Small details matter.

As a case study, one of our local prosecutors told me about something that happened several years ago where I live. A man owned two homes, and one had recently been broken into while he was not there. The thieves has taken thousands of dollars of electronic equipment, which he had recently replaced. He drove out to the house one night to check the property. Coming up the driveway, he encountered a car. He got out of his vehicle and approached the car, noticing that it was loaded down with all the new electronics he had recently bought. So then he stepped into the woods and waited till two men came out of his house and got into the car. Then he stepped out in front of car, and shot and killed both of them. He was arrested and charged with murder (because, well, the law's pretty clear on that part).

But when it went to grand jury, they found no probable cause. The DA's Office took it back to the same grand jury, and again the grand jury found no probable cause. When a new DA was sworn in (and a new grand jury was empaneled) the new DA presented it one last time to a new grand jury, which again found no probable cause. The defendant was ultimately released, and even successfully petitioned the court to have his arrest expunged.

The law's about proportionality of force. You can't just execute someone because they're taking your property. But it's ultimately up to citizens in your community and sometimes, as we see, the citizens make their own decisions about right/wrong, irrespective of the law.