Page 4 of 6 [ 92 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Cash__
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Nov 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,390
Location: Missouri

19 Aug 2014, 4:40 pm

I am just glad I am not on that jury. All we have right now is eye witness accounts. And those are many and contradictory.



ScrewyWabbit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Oct 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,154

19 Aug 2014, 5:46 pm

Pretty sad what's happening here.

Cops, typically armed with an array of both lethal (gun) and non-lethal weapons (night stick, pepper spray, taser) are typically excused when they use deadly force even if their own life was not in immediate danger, when they had at their disposal more proportionate means of responding to the perceived threat.

Unarmed black men are now, post-Travon, apparently lethal weapons in and of themselves. Even against trained police officers who are usually large men. Their mere presence, unarmed, apparently can constitute a threat to someone else's life, even if that threat is not imminent.

I once sat on a jury where the defendant was charged with assault with a deadly weapon. The idea that the weapon in question could have been used to kill someone, especially in the way the prosecution described it being used by the defendant, was utterly laughable. But then the judge and prosecutor defined "deadly weapon" basically such that anything that might inflict a major injury, like putting out someone's eye, is "deadly". By that definition, the weapon in question, and probably pretty much any object you can think of, could be considered "deadly".

The law goes to great lengths to exaggerate the crimes of the accused. So do the police, prosecutors, and the apologists for the police.

If the officer really fired from 35 feet - and the other person was not armed, how can that be justified. In the time it would take to close range from 35 feet, the officer could have resorted to a less lethal means of subduing the other person. There is no rational, non-racist reason for the officer to be in fear of his life under such circumstances.



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

19 Aug 2014, 6:33 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
He would only be a felon had he lived to be tried and convicted.


Yes, but the act itself allows an officer to engage someone fleeing.

So, the only defense Brown now has is if he was on his knees and/or complying. Evidence doesn't seem to point to that.

Hell, I doubt the officer will even be sent to court unless the Feds try it (who would be pretty much abusing their power for purely interest reasons, but you know).



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

19 Aug 2014, 6:36 pm

ScrewyWabbit wrote:
If the officer really fired from 35 feet - and the other person was not armed, how can that be justified. In the time it would take to close range from 35 feet, the officer could have resorted to a less lethal means of subduing the other person. There is no rational, non-racist reason for the officer to be in fear of his life under such circumstances.


Someone charging or fleeing after a potentially lethal struggle. The former means fear of life (especially after being assaulted), the latter means fear for the safety of others.

A physically healthy 6 feet+ man is a dangerous weapon to any single individual. If I could get into fisticuffs range, I'm a lethal threat to any man out there.

Brain, use it.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Aug 2014, 7:20 pm

Dillogic wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
He would only be a felon had he lived to be tried and convicted.


Yes, but the act itself allows an officer to engage someone fleeing.

So, the only defense Brown now has is if he was on his knees and/or complying. Evidence doesn't seem to point to that.

Hell, I doubt the officer will even be sent to court unless the Feds try it (who would be pretty much abusing their power for purely interest reasons, but you know).


I wasn't talking about Brown being on his knees or not, or if he was fleeing or not, but the fact that he can not be called a felon because he had never been convicted of a crime - now he never will.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


NobodyKnows
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 635

19 Aug 2014, 8:35 pm

I'm not sympathetic to police in cases like this (see my first post to this thread), but I'm also not sympathetic to race-baiters who want to convict the officer on the testimony of a shady witness. With that in mind...

When I last checked, it hadn't been established that Brown was fleeing. I don't know whether a cop can ever legally shoot a fleeing suspect who isn't carrying a weapon. The NYPD shot a presumably-armed murder suspect who was not brandishing his weapon (wounding several bystanders in the process), and I don't remember them getting in trouble. I read recently about an officer shooting a suicidal man who refused to put down a weapon, even though the man hadn't threatened the officer. I don't like any of these cases.

ScrewyWabbit wrote:
Cops, typically armed with an array of both lethal (gun) and non-lethal weapons (night stick, pepper spray, taser) are typically excused when they use deadly force even if their own life was not in immediate danger, when they had at their disposal more proportionate means of responding to the perceived threat.


Was Wilson carrying a Taser?

Quote:
Unarmed black men are now, post-Travon, apparently lethal weapons in and of themselves. Even against trained police officers who are usually large men.


Evidence? Minneapolis cops look downright average.

Quote:
I once sat on a jury where the defendant was charged with assault with a deadly weapon. The idea that the weapon in question could have been used to kill someone, especially in the way the prosecution described it being used by the defendant, was utterly laughable.


I've served on a jury also. The defendant was a black woman who had almost certainly robbed a store. The evidence left reasonable (if tiny) doubt, so we acquitted her. That's all I'm asking you to do here, and only temporarily.

Quote:
If the officer really fired from 35 feet - and the other person was not armed, how can that be justified.


The wound pattern could fit the story that Brown was standing at 35' with his hands up, but two witnesses gave conflicting accounts. Dorian Johnson said that Brown was shot in the back. (He claimed that he was right next to Brown when it happened.) Piaget Crenshaw said that Brown was shot as he ran. The autopsy showed that Brown was shot only from the front. Tiffany Mitchell's story is the most consistent with the autopsy, but she didn't come forward until four days later*, and she was vague about whether Brown had been shot in the back. She's an associate of Crenshaw.

(*By that point, pundits had already convicted the officer in absentia on the basis of testimony by a petty street-thug, and that of another witness whose account has since been discredited by the autopsy.)



Last edited by NobodyKnows on 19 Aug 2014, 10:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.

NobodyKnows
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 635

19 Aug 2014, 9:18 pm

Here's an analysis of some of the evidence:

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/08/19/w ... ael-brown/

Allahpundit wrote:
Is there any corroborating evidence that Brown hit Wilson in the face? Yeah, sort of. If ?Josie,? the now famous caller to Dana Loesch?s radio show, really is who she says she is, then Wilson himself told her that Brown punched him....

And yet ? Josie doesn?t claim that Brown busted Wilson?s eye, a detail you?d think she would want to mention to emphasize the severity of the attack. Also, if you look back at the cellphone video captured by Piaget Crenshaw, you?ll see Wilson standing by Brown?s body with no apparent injury and seemingly in no distress from what allegedly would have been a nasty eye injury.


If the remorseless right-winger above can give Brown the benefit of doubt, why can't CBS, CNN and The Daily Mail do the same for the officer? If they were half as fair as "one of the right-wing bloggers whose 'wild and hateful claims' helped destroy CBS?s story about the Bush National Guard memos", then we'd have a pretty constructive debate.

BTW - If should be pretty easy to establish whether Wilson's eye was fractured, since there would usually be an X-ray involved in that diagnosis. We'll see.



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

19 Aug 2014, 10:08 pm

NobodyKnows wrote:
When I last checked, it hadn't been established that Brown was fleeing. I don't know whether a cop can ever legally shoot a fleeing suspect who isn't carrying a weapon.


They can.

Though from the wound patterns, it looks like none could be conclusively said to be from the back. Perhaps some may have missed, and then Brown turned around and charged. That will be hard to prove purely on eyewitness accounts.



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

19 Aug 2014, 10:57 pm

There were some more unsubstantiated reports today. The grand jury tomorrow should hear some real evidence and eventually so will everyone else.



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

20 Aug 2014, 1:17 am

I'd be surprised if it makes it past the GJ, unless evidence that the state has is enough to convict (which they haven't released).

I can't see "murder" able to be proven going by eyewitnesses + the forensics released so far.

They have to show he intended to murder Brown. Good luck with that.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

20 Aug 2014, 11:20 am

I very much doubt the cops gets charged too, if he was a private citizen sure but cops aren't held to the same standard.



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

20 Aug 2014, 11:35 am

If Brown broke into a local house and was killed in the same way, I doubt that would go anywhere either.

Nor do I think it would have turned into the circus it has if such happened.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

20 Aug 2014, 12:21 pm

Dillogic wrote:
If Brown broke into a local house and was killed in the same way, I doubt that would go anywhere either.

Nor do I think it would have turned into the circus it has if such happened.


Brown didn't break into a house tho, he was unarmed and shot 6 six times in the middle of the street. 100% a civilians gets detained and probably charged with something.



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

20 Aug 2014, 12:23 pm

ScrewyWabbit wrote:
...If the officer really fired from 35 feet - and the other person was not armed, how can that be justified. In the time it would take to close range from 35 feet, the officer could have resorted to a less lethal means of subduing the other person. There is no rational, non-racist reason for the officer to be in fear of his life under such circumstances.

Sure there is. If Michael Brown already tried to take his gun once, and was attacking him again, and the officer had no backup, and may not have been an expert in hand to hand fighting, he could reasonably assume his life was in danger.



trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,919

20 Aug 2014, 5:13 pm

Dillogic wrote:
Misslizard wrote:
They didn't like hippies or ... .


Man, who the hell likes hippies?

You can see past color. You can't see past the bong smoke.


If you take a puff yourself you won't smell it anymore.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

20 Aug 2014, 6:53 pm

trollcatman wrote:
Dillogic wrote:
Misslizard wrote:
They didn't like hippies or ... .


Man, who the hell likes hippies?

You can see past color. You can't see past the bong smoke.


If you take a puff yourself you won't smell it anymore.


:lol: :lol: :lol:


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer