RE: Rioting is the answer

RE: Rioting is the answer (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/20/2014 9:09:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I suspect that Wilson was shocked that jaywalking turned violent. He most likely went in expecting to talk to them and that would be the end of it. By the time he needed backup it was too late. I was thinking that after I sent it. That because the incident seemed so minor, he probably didn't think he needed backup. There might have been a point, where things were just starting to get heated and words were being exchanged, that it might have been best to just back off and wait for backup, but again it might have seemed like the suspect was just talking tough and would back down once confronted. Very hard to say.

BamaD -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/20/2014 9:12:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I suspect that Wilson was shocked that jaywalking turned violent. He most likely went in expecting to talk to them and that would be the end of it. By the time he needed backup it was too late. I was thinking that after I sent it. That because the incident seemed so minor, he probably didn't think he needed backup. There might have been a point, where things were just starting to get heated and words were being exchanged, that it might have been best to just back off and wait for backup, but again it might have seemed like the suspect was just talking tough and would back down once confronted. Very hard to say. Yes, very hard

TheHeretic -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/20/2014 9:19:55 PM)
FR I didn't say to ban all unions. That's the sort of distraction technique I expect from the likes of Ken and co. I said ban POLICE unions. Personally, I'd carry that all the way out to all government unions, but that's another thread, and another discussion. They work for the public. Assuming the review comes up as a clean shooting (or death caused by any other means) they can take their pro-rated pension and a nice reference, but that is the end of them being a cop. Go watch the video on Lucy's thread, and tell me it's a good idea for those two to get a month off with pay, and be right back out on patrol.

BamaD -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/20/2014 9:40:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic FR I didn't say to ban all unions. That's the sort of distraction technique I expect from the likes of Ken and co. I said ban POLICE unions. Personally, I'd carry that all the way out to all government unions, but that's another thread, and another discussion. They work for the public. Assuming the review comes up as a clean shooting (or death caused by any other means) they can take their pro-rated pension and a nice reference, but that is the end of them being a cop. Go watch the video on Lucy's thread, and tell me it's a good idea for those two to get a month off with pay, and be right back out on patrol. There has to be a better way to take care of bad shooting. Another bad affect would that it would cause cops to hesitate getting good cops killed. How would you man swat teams with your plan? The only ones you would get would be people wanting to get out of law enforcement with that prorated pension.

ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/20/2014 9:40:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Right, you have sympathy for you own causes, namely pouring anonymous money into electoral races while hiding behind 503(c) fronts, but none for an unarmed 18 year old who could have been handled with pepper spray, better policing skills, or some physical savvy. Racist profiling by POLICE. Check, that's allowed. IRS profiling. Sorry, that's unacceptable. Just out of curiosity, have you ever been pepper sprayed? It's not a magic wand. It doesn't stop someone in their tracks. I've gotten dosed by both CS and pepper spray, not at the same time, and it's not that hard to keep functioning to some degree afterwards. It hurts, and it's incredibly unpleasant, but it's not crippling. You also have to wait till the person is pretty much right on top of you to start spraying it, and if it doesn't work and you're alone, you're screwed. Someone else posted a few pages back about another shooting in this area, where two officers shot a man armed with a knife, and I agreed that it seemed odd that that both went for their guns rather then at least one trying pepper spray. There you had two officers, one perp, he was moving slowly, and they had plenty of time to try other options. So it seemed out of place that they both drew their weapons and shot him. But in the case of Brown, it was a lone officer, two suspects, and (according to Wilson) it escalated to violence very quickly. Physical savvy - it takes a a LOT of physical savvy to over-come someone who is much bigger and stronger then you are. Especially if you don't know if his buddy is going to jump in also. (I don't know Wilson's size, I'm basing this on my perspective. For all I know, Wilson could be a body double for the Incredible Hulk.) I was in the military and studied martial arts when I was younger. I was pretty good in a fight. My brother was the same size as Brown, or fairly close anyway, back when he was in HS and played football. (My Brother, I don't know if Brown played football or not) He and I sparred and as long as I did everything right, I could generally take him. But the slightest slip-up, and he would pound me just from shear size and weight. Would you want to risk having to be perfect if losing meant that someone could grab your gun?

subrosaDom -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/20/2014 9:43:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic FR I didn't say to ban all unions. That's the sort of distraction technique I expect from the likes of Ken and co. I said ban POLICE unions. Personally, I'd carry that all the way out to all government unions, but that's another thread, and another discussion. They work for the public. Assuming the review comes up as a clean shooting (or death caused by any other means) they can take their pro-rated pension and a nice reference, but that is the end of them being a cop. Go watch the video on Lucy's thread, and tell me it's a good idea for those two to get a month off with pay, and be right back out on patrol. Oh, yeah, I knew you meant police unions only. My point was not distraction; I just don't think that's the root of the problem. That the only real solution is to put all unions, police included, on a level playing field. Then the police union issue, to my mind, goes away.

ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/20/2014 9:51:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You've already refused to believe the facts so I know you won't accept them. If Brown had powder burns on the lethal wound then Wilson might have an argument but there isn't so Wilson shot him at a distance so even if you are arguing that he was in danger he shot him before the danger was imminent. So you are full of shit. The DA has already refused to prosecute other cops who killed unarmed men several times before. He has publicly said he won't ever do so. The guy's entire family are cops and his father was a cop killed in the line of duty. No one sane thinks he is unbiased. Ok, once again, quit fucking lying and telling me what I think. I've said repeatedly that if the facts are against him, I'll happily see Wilson in prison. You're the one who is making proclamations about his absolute guilt, and already setting the stage for you to claim that you're still not wrong if he's acquitted or not charged. Three feet is "at a distance"? Because that's how close he could have been and still not gotten any powder residue around the wound. I'm 5'10" and have a reach of 27". So he'd almost be in my reach, much less someone who's 6'3" tall. By the way, love how you keep using those cute little debating tricks to make yourself look like the only reasonable one. Insisting that I'm the one who refuses to accept facts, when in your last post you admitted outright that you're already sure he's guilty and will continue to believe so regardless of what else happens. I also love how you completely dodged the other question. You know, the one that shows what a biased prick you are.

TheHeretic -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/20/2014 9:52:02 PM)
That other shooting is what Lucy started a thread with, ThirdWheel. There is cell phone video from before the police arrived, all the way up to the crime scene tape going up, and the witnesses being pushed back. Youtube seems to be censoring the video, but try cut/pasting the title into the search for the latest upload.

DomKen -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/20/2014 9:58:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Doesn't matter. The Supreme Court has laid out when a LEO can use deadly force and if Brown wasn't attempting to escape then Wilson couldn't shoot. It's called the rule of law. Ken you said he had nothing to fear because he had called for backup. Do the math 53 man force 24/7 manning there were maybe 8 patrol officers on duty including Wilson, wouldn't expect backup real soon. I suspect the Supreme Court also allows use of force is the officer is being attacked. That too is called the rule of law. He knew the backup would arrive within seconds. He'd heard the response and acknowledged it. The guy was on scene less than 3 minutes after he called for backup. We have the radio traffic. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/14/michael-brown-ferguson-missouri-timeline/14051827/ And no SCOTUS does not allow a LEO to use lethal force simply because he is being attacked. The only expansion of the usual person's rights to use deadly force, i.e. in defense of their own or another's life, is to stop a fleeing felon. There is no other exception. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner That's why if the prosecutor actually follows the law Wilson has to be charged. You would think that a great expert on law and close combat would know that in this situation Wilson would think his life was in danger, and that 3 min is forever. In that situation there is only now. I know that time had passed since he called for backup and he was dealing with an unarmed person. He had options besides killing him. He shot Brown at such a distance that the fatal wound had no powder residue so he was in imminent danger when he fired. He committed murder. Taking a life should always be the last not the first resort. Let us assume Brown was 10 feet away and charging at 10mph. That's 1 mile every 6 minutes or 5280 ft/360 seconds or a bit of 14 ft/sec. Now, even if Brown were "charging" at 7mph, that is 10ft/sec. So perhaps you'd like to explain how someone closing in on you at the rate gives you a lot of time and other options. Do you suspend the laws of physics? Let's get actually real and deal with the distances and speeds more likely involved. The witnesses say he was more like 20 to 30 feet away when he turned back so even if he was "charging" at a generous 7 mph Wilson had at least 5 seconds to make a decision (acceleration to top speed is not instantaneous). Which is more than enough time to sidestep someone with their head down, as the killer claims Brown had, and place him in any number of control holds or use pepper spray or a taser on him. The use of deadly force is not the first resort but the last and this cop clearly did not try anything else just like those 2 in St. Louis yesterday and all 3 should face charges.

DomKen -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/20/2014 10:00:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Gauge quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen He shot Brown at such a distance that the fatal wound had no powder residue so he was in imminent danger when he fired. Please cite a credible source for this statement. The independent autopsy report. That says he had no powder burns. As my previous post explains, and I know Ken that you are more than scientifically literate, the physics explains very easily why he could have been in imminent danger when he fired. No. He was not. Brown was not in arms reach when he was shot. The lack of gunpowder residue proves that. Wilson fired long before he had to even if Brown was actually attacking him and shouldn't have fired at him at all once he turned back. He should have subued him using non lethal techniques as called for by law.

DomKen -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/20/2014 10:04:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I know that time had passed since he called for backup and he was dealing with an unarmed person. He had options besides killing him. He shot Brown at such a distance that the fatal wound had no powder residue so he was in imminent danger when he fired. He committed murder. Taking a life should always be the last not the first resort. ======================================== Ken Why didn't you tell us you were there and saw the whole thing. I realize that you don't think anyone, least of all a cop, has the right to defend themselves until they are half dead, but get real if Brown was charging him and he waited till Brown got to him it would be too late. As always you think self defense means you get a little nervous and you can kill someone. That is not what it means. The standard is that you have to have a reasonable fear that your life is in imminent danger and being bull rushed by an unarmed teen ager doesn't qualify, if that is even what happened. Being in a fistfight never gives you the right to kill the other party.

DomKen -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/20/2014 10:06:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: ChainedByAnkle In Georgia, a 17 year old white boy was killed by a white female police officer, on February 14th of this year. That's right, this year. He was at home, answered the door when someone knocked, and as he opened the door, the policeman opened fire, killing him with one bullet wound to the chest. His siblings watched him die. Blacks misunderstand the police. They're not picking on blacks. All kinds are victims of police overreaction. I doubt the Ferguson case is an overreaction, but the Eurharlee, Georgia case definitely was one. The white kid is dead. No riots. What a shame. Notice a major difference, the investigation was done openly and the case went before the grand jury very quickly. They didn't return an indictment, which is likely what will happen here as well. We're a week and a half in a we still do not have the cop's incident report or any of the official documents from the shooting despite the fact that Missouri law requires they be released. The shooting was in Feb they just decided not to charge him. That is 6 months. And you are whining about less than two weeks. When was the last time white people rioted over something like this? Being the expert on everything I am sure you know. The incident report was out within days and the entire thing was handled publicly without the stink of a coverup. The officer's name was released quickly etc. Compare to this.

DomKen -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/20/2014 10:08:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Your link has nothing to do with mine... I've already said blacks should be pulled over more in suspicious situations because they commit MORE CRIME a lot more... But Ferguson black to white pull over rate is lower than the state and the US average.. that is a fact. Butch WTF? Did you even look at the stats? Whites were caught breaking the law far more often in Ferguson despite blacks being pulled over far more often.

Gauge -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/20/2014 10:12:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No. He was not. Brown was not in arms reach when he was shot. The lack of gunpowder residue proves that. Wilson fired long before he had to even if Brown was actually attacking him and shouldn't have fired at him at all once he turned back. He should have subued him using non lethal techniques as called for by law. From an article posted on ABC news, link to follow: quote: *The absence of gunpowder on Mr Brown's body indicated that the muzzle of the gun could have been as close as a foot or two away, or up to 30 feet away, he added.* http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-19/private-autopsy-finds-michael-brown-shot-six-times/5679864 So, tell me something Ken, in your expert opinion, citing the same report... how do you explain the fact that he could have been as close as a foot away and as far as 30 feet away? I don't know about your arms, but mine reach a bit further than 12".

DomKen -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/20/2014 10:12:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted quote: ORIGINAL: Gauge quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen He shot Brown at such a distance that the fatal wound had no powder residue so he was in imminent danger when he fired. Please cite a credible source for this statement. He can't, because it doesn't exist. As I've already pointed out, drop-off for pistol residue is around 3 feet. So Brown could have been as close as 37" and still not gotten any residue around the wound. He keeps saying "the independent autopsy report", but amazingly enough, it says no such thing. As a matter of fact, that very report states that Brown could have been charging head down when he received the fatal wound. But Ken, if I'm wrong, please show us where exactly the report states that the officer was in absolutely no danger. Or are you the one who's full of shit now? Gunshot residue from a 9 mm can be deposited up to 5 feet away and 3 feet is beyond arms reach so yes that does mean the officer shot before he was in physical danger. Anyway we also have the videos of the scene that show the location of the body and the officers car that show that Brown was quite a distance away from the police vehicle when he was killed. The witnesses all say Wilson got out and simply shot at Brown so the location of the vehicle is a good approximation for his location when he was firing and it is more like 20 feet from Brown.

ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/20/2014 10:15:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No. He was not. Brown was not in arms reach when he was shot. The lack of gunpowder residue proves that. Wilson fired long before he had to even if Brown was actually attacking him and shouldn't have fired at him at all once he turned back. He should have subued him using non lethal techniques as called for by law. Possibly as little as 3 feet, which you conveniently keep ignoring.

DomKen -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/20/2014 10:18:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Just a couple ideas to toss out for discussion: Ban police unions. Any officer who kills someone in the line of duty is done being a police officer. Automatic desk duty until the case is closed, then off the job permanently. People would have to be pretty stupid to go into a field where if they ever had to do a recognized part of their job, they'd be out of work. Like it or not, sometimes the police have to shot someone. Maybe one day there will be non-lethal solutions that work perfectly every time. If that happens, I'll sure as hell carry one instead of a conventional gun, but such a thing just doesn't exist. I think that police should always work in tandem, an officer alone is just at too much risk, and should be trained to employ non-lethal means to subdue suspects whenever possible. But I don't think it's fair to automatically penalize an officer if they have to use lethal force. As far as unions go, I'm torn. I think unions were needed at one point, but now they seem to have way too much power. The problem is, if you do away with them, will things drift too far back the other way? I think they probably would. You'd bankrupt small rural forces by forcing them to put 2 officers in each car. Patrolmen's unions protect officers from backlash for doing their job correctly, writing a traffic ticket to someone with pull for instance, and negotiates their salary and benefits rather than forcing each officer to be at the mercy of each department when hired.

BamaD -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/20/2014 10:21:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I know that time had passed since he called for backup and he was dealing with an unarmed person. He had options besides killing him. He shot Brown at such a distance that the fatal wound had no powder residue so he was in imminent danger when he fired. He committed murder. Taking a life should always be the last not the first resort. ======================================== Ken Why didn't you tell us you were there and saw the whole thing. I realize that you don't think anyone, least of all a cop, has the right to defend themselves until they are half dead, but get real if Brown was charging him and he waited till Brown got to him it would be too late. As always you think self defense means you get a little nervous and you can kill someone. That is not what it means. The standard is that you have to have a reasonable fear that your life is in imminent danger and being bull rushed by an unarmed teen ager doesn't qualify, if that is even what happened. Being in a fistfight never gives you the right to kill the other party. No I have never said that and if you weren't such a bigoted moron I would say you are a liar but I am sure your delusion leads you to believe it is true.

BamaD -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/20/2014 10:24:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: ChainedByAnkle In Georgia, a 17 year old white boy was killed by a white female police officer, on February 14th of this year. That's right, this year. He was at home, answered the door when someone knocked, and as he opened the door, the policeman opened fire, killing him with one bullet wound to the chest. His siblings watched him die. Blacks misunderstand the police. They're not picking on blacks. All kinds are victims of police overreaction. I doubt the Ferguson case is an overreaction, but the Eurharlee, Georgia case definitely was one. The white kid is dead. No riots. What a shame. Notice a major difference, the investigation was done openly and the case went before the grand jury very quickly. They didn't return an indictment, which is likely what will happen here as well. We're a week and a half in a we still do not have the cop's incident report or any of the official documents from the shooting despite the fact that Missouri law requires they be released. The shooting was in Feb they just decided not to charge him. That is 6 months. And you are whining about less than two weeks. When was the last time white people rioted over something like this? Being the expert on everything I am sure you know. The incident report was out within days and the entire thing was handled publicly without the stink of a coverup. The officer's name was released quickly etc. Compare to this. In the time frame you just gave there were already riots and looting in Ferguson. Nobody was going to hunt the cop down and kill them in Georgia.

BamaD -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/20/2014 10:27:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted quote: ORIGINAL: Gauge quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen He shot Brown at such a distance that the fatal wound had no powder residue so he was in imminent danger when he fired. Please cite a credible source for this statement. He can't, because it doesn't exist. As I've already pointed out, drop-off for pistol residue is around 3 feet. So Brown could have been as close as 37" and still not gotten any residue around the wound. He keeps saying "the independent autopsy report", but amazingly enough, it says no such thing. As a matter of fact, that very report states that Brown could have been charging head down when he received the fatal wound. But Ken, if I'm wrong, please show us where exactly the report states that the officer was in absolutely no danger. Or are you the one who's full of shit now? Gunshot residue from a 9 mm can be deposited up to 5 feet away and 3 feet is beyond arms reach so yes that does mean the officer shot before he was in physical danger. Anyway we also have the videos of the scene that show the location of the body and the officers car that show that Brown was quite a distance away from the police vehicle when he was killed. The witnesses all say Wilson got out and simply shot at Brown so the location of the vehicle is a good approximation for his location when he was firing and it is more like 20 feet from Brown. Your definition of being in danger is silly, Wilson was already injured and whether you like it or not could easily have ended up dead if he followed your advice.

Page: << < prev 43 44 [45] 46 47 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625