The Law Ferguson

[Long Live HFC]

This is from a Guy Rundle Crikey article:
"That the grand jury would decide not to indict had been widely, quietly expected by political and legal commentators -- as grand juries rarely refuse to indict civilians (refusing only 50 of 69,500 cases referred to them) but almost always refuse to indict cops involved in lethal killings (80 in 81 times)."

jesus. thanks.

 

[Malifice]

Do you know how many guns are on American streets?

Now think of what it must be like to work as a police officer in that environment on a daily basis.

Brown may not have had a gun, but whose to say what else was out there - assume the worst, prepare for it and at the end of the night when you go home be happy you erred on the side of over caution.

Think about what its like for an unarmed black teenager in that environment on a daily basis.

Actually think about it.

 

[RisingPhoenix]

What the actual ****?

Cops should be allowed to kill someone... for threatening them?

The only time you can kill someone is when it is reasonably necessary to protect your own life or someone elses life. And even it is only done as a last resort, and when no other option reasonably presents itself.

It scares me that you once walked the streets armed.

Dont deliberately misinterpret what I said Mal.

By 'threatened' I mean behave in a threatening manner which is likely to result in an officer feeling there personal safety is in imminent danger.

I'm not talking about tough talk or body language.

If you give American cops reason to shoot you, they will.

That's the reality.

 

[Mofra]

Do you think two black rozzers who shot an unarmed white boy would have received the same treatment?

Depends on the socio-economic status of said white boy.

Clean cut college boy: outrage
Trailer park kid with tattoos: silence

 

[RisingPhoenix]

Think about what its like for an unarmed black teenager in that environment on a daily basis.

Actually think about it.

Ok...can you categorically state that Brown (who has been photographed in bloods colours, pulling gang hand signs) has never gone out in public armed?

Or his friends?

Let's get real here shall we.

 

[Gough]

He was unarmed when he was executed. Any other point you're trying to make is just noise.

 

[Mofra]

Ok...can you categorically state that Brown (who has been photographed in bloods colours, pulling gang hand signs) has never gone out in public armed?

Or his friends?

Let's get real here shall we.

Are you suggesting that the killing was justified because Brown may have, previously, gone to the streets armed?

I'm not pretending that if a 140kg monster was bashing me, and I had a gun, that I wouldn't use it - but we have had a grand jury not even put the killing of an unarmed person on trial so there is no real way of conducting a properly thorough examination of the facts in a courtroom to determine if excessive force was used, by someone who chose not to wear a Taser no less.

Does the officer deserve punishment? Personally I think that is a matter for the courts - a matter that will now never be heard.

 

[RisingPhoenix]

He was unarmed when he was executed. Any other point you're trying to make is just noise.

Big deal.

If the officer felt his life was in danger if he didn't stop Brown coming at him, and the only option he had to neutralise the threat was to shoot him, then that's what you do.

 

[Gough]

Six times? When some eyewitness' have suggest that his hands were already raised? I agree with Mofra, this should have been tested in a court of law.

 

[Malifice]

The entire indictment process goes right back to something that was established in the Zimmerman trial. As a police officer you don't have to wait until you're seriously injured before you can kill someone in self-defence. It's an absurd notion that suggests that you should wait until you are potentially unable to defend yourself before you can reasonably fear for and defend your life.

Brown wasn't shot because he punched Wilson. He was shot because he went for his gun, ran (which he could be shot for anyway under fleeing felon law) and charged him again.

Law fail.

The fleeing felon rule was limited in the US in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S.1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."

What significant threat of death does an unarmed teenager present to others?

 

[Malifice]

If the officer felt his life was in danger if he didn't stop Brown coming at him, and the only option he had to neutralise the threat was to shoot him, then that's what you do.

Thats not the legal test. But anyways.

Were you actually a cop once? How many unarmed people did you kill for threatening you, or swinging a punch?

You never served on the beat at Northbridge I take it. Or the Cross. Or schoolies. Or at a collingwood game at the MCG. Or pretty much anywhere for that matter.

People would be getting gunned down by the dozens.

 

[kfc1]

This is from a Guy Rundle Crikey article:
"That the grand jury would decide not to indict had been widely, quietly expected by political and legal commentators -- as grand juries rarely refuse to indict civilians (refusing only 50 of 69,500 cases referred to them) but almost always refuse to indict cops involved in lethal killings (80 in 81 times)."

but racism

 

[fleabitten]

Ok...can you categorically state that Brown (who has been photographed in bloods colours, pulling gang hand signs) has never gone out in public armed?

Lots of kids make gang signs and flip the bird at cameras. Wearing bloods colours just means that he's been photographed wearing red. He had no known criminal history. If he'd done anything as a juvenile, it was nothing serious as those records could have been made public (and surely would have). The Ferguson police and conservative media have been trying to smear Brown since day one.

 

[fleabitten]

but racism

Most of those 81 would be white cops killing black men.

 

[SpuriousPea]

Well that only shows that a distant relative who didn't appear to be close to Brown was trying to profit from the situation and that the people closer to him shut them down.

Meanwhile, Wilson has been reportedly paid $500k for an interview with ABC and has also had almost another half a million raised for him by sympathisers. He killed someone and got 4 months of paid leave and a million dollars.

I posted in reply to "there's no proof that happened".

I'm pretty sure there was no blood in the vehicle.

There was according to the crime lab reports.

The other testimony relating to him grabbing the gun isn't backed by forensic evidence.

You don't get gunpowder residue on your hands if you're getting shot at from a distance.

Law fail.

The fleeing felon rule was limited in the US in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S.1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."

What significant threat of death does an unarmed teenager present to others?

He had already attempted to arm himself once.

 

[fleabitten]

I posted in reply to "there's no proof that happened".

But it was still an obvious attempt to smear the family. The people selling stuff were not even really related. It was his father's mother-in-law. Not his mother's mother. So in other words, his father had a 2nd wife and it was that wife's mother trying to profit from the situation. Those trying to make us lose any sympathy for Brown and his family are twisting it to make them all look like trash.

 

[Malifice]

He had already attempted to arm himself once.

Was he attempting to arm himself or trying to stop the officer from drawing his gun and shooting him?

And 'previously attempting to arm himself' does not = probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."

What threat is he posing running away unarmed?

If he had an AR-15 in hand and had previously used it, we could talk.

 

[Todman]

Six times? When some eyewitness' have suggest that his hands were already raised? I agree with Mofra, this should have been tested in a court of law.

The first four times were in the arm. Cops are trained to shot until they drop.

 

[Malifice]

Ok...can you categorically state that Brown (who has been photographed in bloods colours, pulling gang hand signs) has never gone out in public armed?

Mate, if we start shooting kids because they previously dressed in gang colors and/or pulled hand signs, we're in some serious s**t.

Someone shoot these blokes:

And strawman. This cop had no idea about how this kid used to dress when he choose to shoot the bloke.

Are you seriously saying that you have no problem with a cop killing an unarmed teenager for throwing a punch?

Jesus. Dont ever work in Northbridge. Ever.

 

[kfc1]

What threat is he posing running away unarmed?

Running at the cop is not the same as running away

 

[Santana]

A police officer is attacked in his car. The attacker may have gone for the cops gun during this struggle as well. Then after that the attacker doesn't surrender and instead starts heading towards the cop.

What is the cop meant to do in this situation exactly? Let Brown run into him and hope for the best?

 

[Malifice]

Running at the cop is not the same as running away

We were discussing the 'fleeing felon' rule in the USA. This allows a cop to shoot someone who is running away in certain circumstances.

 

[kfc1]

We were discussing the 'fleeing felon' rule in the USA. This allows a cop to shoot someone who is running away in certain circumstances.

Sorry i didnt realise you were talking about an irrelevant hypothetical in a post reslonding to Spurious Pea's comment about this exact case

 

[Malifice]

Sorry i didnt realise you were talking about an irrelevant hypothetical in a post reslonding to Spurious Pea's comment about this exact case

It wasn't an irrelevant hypothetical. It was raised by a separate poster that the victim could have been lawfully shot while he ran away. That's a relevant hypothetical, and its an incorrect assertion for reasons already pointed out.

 

[Play by Numbers]

A police officer is attacked in his car. The attacker may have gone for the cops gun during this struggle as well. Then after that the attacker doesn't surrender and instead starts heading towards the cop.

What is the cop meant to do in this situation exactly? Let Brown run into him and hope for the best?

None of this has been tested in court.

There is eyewitness testimony indicating the victim had his hands raised and was shot execution style.