114 replies to this topic

[Yehom]

Lysistrata, on 27 Nov 2014 - 04:12, said:

A 12 person jury found him innocent by reason of self defense. You can disagree with it, even get angry about it, but it's the law. Commiting more crime because you don't like the verdict is unacceptable.

 

Wouldn't you think that the jury system in especially criminal law is just an insult to actual justice? I completely understand why in America the jury system is in place, but because he's innocent by law doesn't mean he's actually innocent. The fact that x-number of random people decide that he was innocent doesn't feel right to me as someone who doesn't have a jury system in his own country. As a Law major I understand how criminal law works and frankly I just can't see justice in a jury system. The Ferguson and the Zimmerman case both prove that once more. 

 

About the rioting. The people that are demonstrating have every right to, but the people that are rioting and looting during the process are Neanderthals that see an opportunity in the chaos. Call it human nature, call it immorality. Frankly these are the people who can turn something that is bigger than all of them, protest against police brutality and racial profiling, into something they can turn into a personal benefit. These people should be as immorally punished as their deeds are. 

[Samus]

Yehom, on 27 Nov 2014 - 11:35, said:

 

Lysistrata, on 27 Nov 2014 - 04:12, said:

A 12 person jury found him innocent by reason of self defense. You can disagree with it, even get angry about it, but it's the law. Commiting more crime because you don't like the verdict is unacceptable.

 

Wouldn't you think that the jury system in especially criminal law is just an insult to actual justice? I completely understand why in America the jury system is in place, but because he's innocent by law doesn't mean he's actually innocent. The fact that x-number of random people decide that he was innocent doesn't feel right to me as someone who doesn't have a jury system in his own country. As a Law major I understand how criminal law works and frankly I just can't see justice in a jury system. The Ferguson and the Zimmerman case both prove that once more. 

 

About the rioting. The people that are demonstrating have every right to, but the people that are rioting and looting during the process are Neanderthals that see an opportunity in the chaos. Call it human nature, call it immorality. Frankly these are the people who can turn something that is bigger than all of them, protest against police brutality and racial profiling, into something they can turn into a personal benefit. These people should be as immorally punished as their deeds are. 

 

120% agree

[DeathMerchant]

As a college graduate with a Criminal Justice degree, I should point out that tasers are never used to supplement lethal force. Tasers also are not always reliable either. 2 barbs must connect to deliver the charge and one of them sometimes fails to connect. Especially if the suspect is wearing heavy clothing. Lethal force is used when deemed absolutely necessary and any other less than lethal response would be inadequate to deescalate the situation. As for firing so many bullets Officers are trained to keep shooting center mass until the threat stops. Its easy to deliver accurate rapid fire at close range so the police officer kept shooting until the suspect was incapacitated. This is why you hear on the news police officers fired 16, 20, or more rounds at a suspect. Because the suspect was still considered a threat. We also don't know what kind of bullets officer are using. Most use either 9mm or .45ACP Glocks. 9mm ballistic capabilities have come a long way in terms of stopping power I've the years but unless specific expanding rounds were used, it would have largely ineffective. .45 rounds on the other hand pack a large punch and transfer more energy. Less bullets have to be fired since they often stop a target quickly.

[Lysistrata]

The Garner video shows a really huge guy and alot of cops. The decision was made to arrest him, and when that decision is made there is nothing he could do to prevent that from happening. So it's immediately determined that he is resisting. Now the police have to figure out how they will manage an arrest without any of the police getting hurt. It's not some kind of game that maybe if I'm intimidating enough, all these cops are just going to leave and go on with their day. This arrest was going to happen. The man should have just did what he was told, and he would still be alive today. Instead he chose to put his life in the hands of a half a dozen cops that have been ordered to take him in. If the chokehold was an illegal method, that police officer will face justice.

 

Our system deals with these issues with courts, lawyers, judges, and jury. Because you believe something is wrong with it does not allow anyone to burn innocent people out of home or business. I'm not in charge, but if I was, we would have in Furguson hundreds of criminals in jail, several violent criminals dead, and business as usual the next day. But since that didn't happen, maybe I should get a mob together and go burn down some stores.

Edited by Lysistrata, 27 November 2014 - 03:03 PM.

[Shahenshah]

Read somewhere that first, shot twice , then shot 4 times in head and neck, shot to kill.  However, looting and rioting are absolutely not justified.

[Road2Victory]

Well for a place that is improvished and 75% of the population is African-American.  He should have used a tazer in my opinion 

[DeathMerchant]

Why should the officer used a taser? Because of fear of starting a riot? Fear of backlash for shooting an African American? Any time a police officer discharges there firearm it is because it is the absolute last measure that can be taken. They know that pulling the trigger will bring relentless scrutiny. If your life was on the line, and your only option to protect yourself and those around you was to discharge your firearm, would you do it? Or would you risk possible career ending injury or immediate death? I can guarantee you that every single military member, policeman, security guard, bodyguard, etc.. . Has this exact mindset before the draw their weapon. Its an incredibly difficult decision making the choice to take someone's life and its a decision I hope to never have to make. Its not something to take lightly and whatever decision you end up choosing will likely haunt you for the rest of your life.

[onbekende]

While many if not all cases the current outrage is going on for were justifiable, its the perceived discrimination that should be adressed. Sadly neither side (yes both sides need to work on it) are in any way helping the issue now.

[Samus]

DeathMerchant, on 27 Nov 2014 - 19:05, said:

Why should the officer used a taser? Because of fear of starting a riot? Fear of backlash for shooting an African American? Any time a police officer discharges there firearm it is because it is the absolute last measure that can be taken. They know that pulling the trigger will bring relentless scrutiny. If your life was on the line, and your only option to protect yourself and those around you was to discharge your firearm, would you do it? Or would you risk possible career ending injury or immediate death? I can guarantee you that every single military member, policeman, security guard, bodyguard, etc.. . Has this exact mindset before the draw their weapon. Its an incredibly difficult decision making the choice to take someone's life and its a decision I hope to never have to make. Its not something to take lightly and whatever decision you end up choosing will likely haunt you for the rest of your life.

 

He should have used a taser for fear of killing another human being.

 

He chose to kill this guy. It's bad enough he shot him in the first place, but shoot 4 more times in fatal areas when the suspect is already down and bleeding? That's straight murder.

 

Nobody would be defending the policeman's acts if it was their own blood family member dead now.

[Captain Crozier]

Clue UP:  IF my Father or Mother or Brother or Sister went into the cop's car as did this one in Ferguson and grabbed the cops gun to wrest it from his control, THEY should be DEAD.  IF they then ran away only to turn around and then charge the officer in a furher attempt to again assault the officer in lawful pursuit of them who had broken the law, they should be doubly dead.  MY FAMILY, all of them DEAD.  Read it and WEAP.  I WOULD, it would still be justified.... oh, yeah, AND, they are white!

[Samus]

Captain Crozier, on 27 Nov 2014 - 21:41, said:

Clue UP:  IF my Father or Mother or Brother or Sister went into the cop's car as did this one in Ferguson and grabbed the cops gun to wrest it from his control, THEY should be DEAD.  IF they then ran away only to turn around and then charge the officer in a furher attempt to again assault the officer in lawful pursuit of them who had broken the law, they should be doubly dead.  MY FAMILY, all of them DEAD.  Read it and WEAP.  I WOULD, it would still be justified.... oh, yeah, AND, they are white!

Wow. Just wow.

[Samus]

Only in America taking away another humans beings life can be justified.

[Road2Victory]

I agree with you Samus

Why would you shoot somebody four times when he's already dying? I heard that the policer officer has no regrets or apologies for shooting him.

Does Missouri have some police code of conduct when encountering somebody who might physically harm them? I know for a fact each police in every state have different rules and guidelines.

[onbekende]

Think I heared all the shots were in rapid succesion.

[Road2Victory]

Well if it was rapid fire why hit him multiple times when his hands were raised?

[Yehom]

DeathMerchant, on 27 Nov 2014 - 19:05, said:

Why should the officer used a taser? Because of fear of starting a riot? Fear of backlash for shooting an African American? Any time a police officer discharges there firearm it is because it is the absolute last measure that can be taken. They know that pulling the trigger will bring relentless scrutiny. If your life was on the line, and your only option to protect yourself and those around you was to discharge your firearm, would you do it? Or would you risk possible career ending injury or immediate death? I can guarantee you that every single military member, policeman, security guard, bodyguard, etc.. . Has this exact mindset before the draw their weapon. Its an incredibly difficult decision making the choice to take someone's life and its a decision I hope to never have to make. Its not something to take lightly and whatever decision you end up choosing will likely haunt you for the rest of your life.

Again I completely understand where you, I'm going to generalize you with 'America', the US and her rules and customs because I know you are a weapon fanatic so to say, are coming from. Yes policemen have the right to defend themselves in danger, but the way and the reason why policemen have to defend themselves stems from something that is in my opinion the root cause of a lot of the violence in the US, namely the firearm industry. The reason why policemen are ordered and trained to shoot someone down until they aren't a threat anymore is because people can potentially be such huge threat, i.e. carrying a gun. The right to bear arms in the US is so much a solution to these kinds of situations as playing with waving a red blanket at an angry bull. In my opinion the fact that people are allowed to carry guns makes it that policemen have to anticipate this fact and therefore always have to keep in the back of their mind that it is indeed his/her life or yours as an officer. If carrying a gun was rarity, policemen can be trained to disarm (in case of carrying say a knife)/control people (fistfight), not 'disable' them to the point where they are not a threat. Weapon lobbyist always say that people have the right to protect themselves, but protecting someone doesn't mean that firearms are needed. Yes, in very specific situations having a firearm will protect you, but those situations are only created by the fact that firearms are so freely obtainable in the US. Again the right to carry a firearm is not the solution of the problem, it is the root cause of the same problem in my opinion. I feel that if the right to carry a firearm didn't exist, policemen could be trained more suited to control and protect civilians and all of this wouldn't have taken place. 

[onbekende]

Road2Victory, on 27 Nov 2014 - 22:56, said:

Well if it was rapid fire why hit him multiple times when his hands were raised?

was not shot while holding hands in the air, no credible witness ever came forward (not even the guy he was with saw anything, actually there have been 0 witnesses coming forward) and neither the autopsy report nor the cop give any indication he ever had his hands up.

[Road2Victory]

I remember there was this construction worker and a colleague who were recorded one of them said " he fucking put his hands up" it was obtained by CNN but I'm not sure if they used this evidence

[onbekende]

as far as I know, only the cop himself is witness to the shooting (and offcourse party involved). Alot of people claim they were there, none actually sticked to it nor could prove they were even remotely close to it.

 

I would rather wonder where the friend he was with buggered off to, he was jaywalking together with him.

[Road2Victory]

Well the evidence presented by witnesses was inconsistent with the physical evidence presented by the grand jury.

I'm pretty sure they were going to his grandmothers house. I thought his friend is another witness too.