Not anymore foolish than just sitting by waiting for mainstream society to save you from their own police force.
I have already stated the rioters did not have a true outlet for revolutionary thought. That action was misguided.
Ferguson: Police Kill 18yo Black Male; Fire Gas/Rubber Bullets Into Protesting Crowds
- Thread starter jordan0386
- Start date
- Status
Not anymore foolish than just sitting by waiting for mainstream society to save you from their own police force.
I have already stated the rioters did not have a true outlet for revolutionary thought. That action was misguided.
Posts like that help to know who to put on the Ignore List, though, so it has its uses...
No, I'm simply aware that the police have (or rather should have) training and equipment to stop someone by other means than deadly force, even if he's fleeing.
It works for the rest of the world, why is it so hard for the US?
TheChocolateWar
Member
Brolic Gaoler
formerly Alienshogun
Then you simply aren't understanding how this all works and your analogy doesn't work either.
One is a potentially wrongfully convicted individual, the other is a verified threat to the public. Not sure how you aren't seeing what a bunch of people keep pointing out through other scenarios.
In any regard, we are getting pretty far off topic.
You don't use less than lethal force against lethal force. That's asking to get yourself in a bad situation.
The people who can overlook your widespread suffering just because a few angry youths looted a store were more than likely already not going to be sympathetic to your cause anyways.
But it's less nice to know that the same policy is being abused to justify unjustifiable killings of unarmed men, because it's a simple and apparently convenient solution.
PoweredBySoy
Banned
I'm having trouble figuring out a lot of what it is you're saying, but if you condone looting you can't be all bad...
TheChocolateWar
Member
The mere fact that he is unarmed does not remove the monicker of dangerous felon from him. A person is dangerous not by the weapon he wields, but the mind he possesses after engaging in the act. A man with nothing left to lose can be just as scary without a gun.
I don't like that solution at all, as so many scenarios can pop into my head why that can be very dangerous for the officer.
googleplex
Member
Our society is made up of more then just the laws and constitution.
The prevailing attitude that Whites are fundamentally better, more worthy and should have more privileges was there at founding of this country and its STILL permeates every level of our society today. Its called institutional racism. You see it at all level of the Justice system and Political system, filling out a job application, trying to get a home load or just walking down the street as a person of color.
Its there its real and closing your eyes to it is part of the problem.
Unless the police employs unfallible telepaths I don't see how a potential mindset is grounds for killing someone.
Brolic Gaoler
formerly Alienshogun
The problem is there's presumptions both ways. And you're right, there shouldn't be presumptions either way but there is. Hell, look at the title of this thread. "Cop executes teen" then the ensuing "kill the pigs" posts in here. Clearly the OP picked a side before any investigation was even begun. Most/all cop threads on GAF look like this. There's an immediate outcry of the cops HAVE to be wrong. It's overwhelming and concerning.
So so true.
societal ills doesn't mean you get carte blanche to inflict pain or act in a manner which punishes an individual for the crimes of a collective or an unjust system. Spreading misery and pain is hardly the solution.
I never really argued against that this doesn't exist.
benjipwns
Banned
It's not, but furtive movements are. Or holding any kind of object. Or not obeying conflicting orders.
JeTmAn81
Member
Anybody seen this video of a guy called Deandre Smith justifying the looting? It's on this page:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/natio...lice-shooting-teen-20140811-story.html#page=1
I can't say he's wrong about 100% of the things he says, but secret societies? C'mon man, you just want an excuse to unleash your rage indiscriminately. Also, lol at "you can lock'em up"...that's ok huh?
http://www.latimes.com/nation/natio...lice-shooting-teen-20140811-story.html#page=1
I can't say he's wrong about 100% of the things he says, but secret societies? C'mon man, you just want an excuse to unleash your rage indiscriminately. Also, lol at "you can lock'em up"...that's ok huh?
Minority Report is now canon.
Of course, but the entire world does not stop supporting legitimate gripes just because a few from the group act out in desparation.
What precisely do you mean when you agitate for revolution? Overthrowing the US government? How do you propose to do this?
benjipwns
Banned
One word: Plastics.
No, revolutionary education means teaching people how to gain their own freedom from an oppressive state. That has nothing to do with overthrowing the US government.
I'm talking about actual, legal presumptions. Not presumptions made by message board posters or even local people in the community.
In Missouri (and, I'm sure, most other jurisdictions), when an officer uses lethal force to arrest or subdue an individual suspected of fleeing from the location where they allegedly committed a felony, the legal presumption is that the officer acted correctly. That he or she correctly weighed the risk posed to the community by the fleeing felon. And that he or she acted correctly in using lethal force.
When it comes time to review the shooting, there should be no presumption as to the correctness of the officer's actions. There should not be this default position that the officer acted correctly.
I understand how it works just fine, but I also understand that the fleeing felon policy is incredibly vague and inherently dangerous to anyone who pisses off a cop, be he/she guilty or not.
No it's asking you to play to your advantage in numbers, training and equipment and not take the shortcut of snuffing out a life on hunch.
jhmtehgamr20xx
Banned
Sadly that's all he'll probably say.
Obama has been very, very bearish on race issues when it pertains to black people, moreso than any other group.
It's almost embarrassing at times.
People seem to fail to take into account that American police behavior is a reaction to American gun culture. Standards and protocols are different in a country where anyone could be holding a handgun.
Brolic Gaoler
formerly Alienshogun
The immediate action is an investigation. The officer is placed on paid leave and an investigation occurs. If there was a presumption of no wrong doing, this wouldn't happen at all.
The immediate response is "let's make sure this was justified and beyond reproach."
In fact, when ever something like this happens at all, there's an immediate investigation. And in this case, the FBI, and County are assisting the city in the investigation.
TBH, he can't do much more IMO. Don't get me wrong here, I'd love to see more too. But when he's getting sued because he went around congress after they basically cockblocked him, well...
This has nothing to do with whether or not there is a presumption as to the correctness of the action... You are categorically wrong if you are suggesting that there is no such presumption.
Yeah but giving cops military grade weapons and equipment, training them to use it as if they're an occupying army means that they'll probably start acting like an occupying army. Don't think people are advocating cops go completely unarmed but it would be ideal if the circumstances were different.
I don't think this situation is the result of the militarisation of the police force, as scary as that is.
jhmtehgamr20xx
Banned
True enough.
Voting for what? This isn't the best time for this discussion, but some of us know how broken the political system really is. The differences in the two major parties are mostly optics, popular vote only influences an electoral college of votes rather than directly, the Diebold voting machine scandals, lobbies and lobbyists,...that rabbit hole doesn't end.
When a person sees how little seems to get done, and all the political gridlock over stupid trivial things, that motivates to not get motivated. They play around and get their pay and bonuses, while the average citizen continues to suffer because representatives aren't doing their job.
Then again, maybe the reason they can't get anything done, is because the political system they're a part of is practically phucked up. That explains otherwise decent politicians getting little accomplished (or what is accomplished, gets reversed).
Jeez, have you guys ever been in a fucking cop car? The amount of weaponry they have is fucking terrifying.
Brolic Gaoler
formerly Alienshogun
Again, if that was the case, there would be no investigation. Legally the perception is to investigate the situation and prove he broke he law/acted incorrectly or show that what he/she did was justified.
M16 and a shotgun. Hardly terrifying. And the M16 is usually not readily accessible.
Future PhaZe
Member
It's definitely getting to a point where we need working cameras on all on foot law enforcement.
It's just too tough to get a jury to convict "without a reasonable doubt" when the defense is going to stand by an officers statement that the victim went for a gun or showed whatever behavior makes a deadly response acceptable/legal. And at this point there really is no excuse. The tech is cheap enough.
It's just too tough to get a jury to convict "without a reasonable doubt" when the defense is going to stand by an officers statement that the victim went for a gun or showed whatever behavior makes a deadly response acceptable/legal. And at this point there really is no excuse. The tech is cheap enough.
The presumption is there because the officer like a judge or doctor is considered an expert. Can legally experts make mistakes or break the law? Absolutely which is why the investigation takes place. The presumption of innocence is given as a professional courtesy like the officers give to people within the Criminal Justice field.
Now, does that mean the officer's wrongdoing won't come to light? Nope. But it really depends on the department and how they set up their internal investigations. (which is why approve of transparent processes rather than closed door ones) Often, like in this case, they call a neutral party to investigate but the officer will always be given professional courtesy until something dirty comes up. If something wrong is indeed found, most if not all professional courtesy is replaced by a collective throwing of the person under the first incoming bus.
Brolic Gaoler
formerly Alienshogun
A lot of departments are pushing for this too, believe it or not.
Again, you are categorically WRONG.
Furthermore, the presumption is that peace officers are in the lawful discharge of their duty in attempting to make arrests. The presumption is difficult to rebut when the person arrested admits the commission of the felony.
State v. Nolan, 354 Mo. 980, 990, 192 S.W.2d 1016, 1021 (1946) (internal citations omitted).
This Missouri Court of Appeals confirmed that, in Missouri, this presumption that a police officer acted correctly extends to those cases where lethal force is used:
In the Nolan case, our Supreme Court held that a police officer was justified in using deadly force to apprehend a felony suspect based on probable cause, if a felony had actually been committed. A presumption was also upheld that police officers are in the lawful discharge of their duties when making arrests.
Walsh v. Oehlert, 508 S.W.2d 222, 224 (Mo. Ct. App. 1974).
I'm well aware of the policy reasons behind the presumption. I'm advocating for a change to the public policy reasons that gives life to the presumption.
This really isn't the place for it, but suffice to say I believe your impressions are loaded with a whole heap of erroneous info, and arguing about the Electoral College is another topic entirely.
You do realize a large majority of black people in the US have some form of European ancestry right?
SmoothOperator
Banned
Everytime this kind of story goes up, i'm kind of relieved that police officers don't have this kind of power in my country (they don't any at all to be completely honest : Hello France).
You do realize a large part of that was because of the rape of black slaves, right?
Umm. I counted four guns and three non lethal weapons. That's pretty damn scary.
Of course. It was an attack on him trying to claim Obama being "black" as a reason this country is not racist.
True but Obama identifies as a black man and he doesn't pass for white so everyone else sees him as a black man despite his lineage.
Brolic Gaoler
formerly Alienshogun
You should look at those two things you cited.
One is the presumption of legality when making an arrest when the suspect admits to committing the felony. the other is the use of deadly force to apprehend an individual whom had committed a felony, and in the commission of an arrest. It should also strike you that it made it to the Supreme Court. So it was in effect litigated and investigated.
Either way, when this happens a cop is taken off the street and investigated. And again, if it was the case that he was simply thought to be in the right, is wouldn't happen at all. It must be shown he was right or wrong before he can be tried or returned to duty.
It's not going to happen.
You are advocating of an entire field removing the oil that keeps them running and working in harmony together. Presumption of innocence is not only legal but an understanding within the criminal justice field among all those that participate within it. It goes from judges, police, attorneys, prosecutors, bailiffs, to the local parking attendant that get's off tickets because they enforce traffic laws. It's one of the things that allows police officers, judges, attorneys, prosecutors, and even jail guards to go to eat together at the restaurant across the street from the court and talk about stuff.
It's no different than other professional courtesies in other fields. Which is why it's more logical to advocate public and transparent investigations and investigation processes. Because many are behind closed doors, documents sealed, and officers given more than the benefit of the doubt.
That's not relevant to the point I'm trying to make. Keep reading...
If you want to point out Obama's ancestry in regards to discrimination in this country that's fine, but saying or implying that black men can't be born from non black women/non black men or that black men are only of full African heritage is BS.
heliosRAzi
Banned
- Status