Ferguson: Police Officer Kills 18yo Michael Brown; Protests/Riots Continue

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zuhzuhzombie!! said:
This is how police in every country Not America work.
Click to expand...
Too many people with guns in Not Not America.

timetokill said:
You can't guarantee a deadly weapon confirmation, but the cameras would help, and ultimately what I want is the police TRAINING and basic standards to not involve pulling their weapon to approach a suspect. To enforce shooting as a last resort as opposed to a first one.

It's true that there are additional costs here, but I'd think they could make a big dent in costs by selling most of their military equipment. They don't need tanks or military trucks in Ferguson. They don't need sniper rifles.

It's not going to stop cops from lying but I'm mostly just listing generally practical improvements. Ultimately there are a LOT of other changes that need to be made but I could see some of these in direct response to this situation in particular.
Click to expand...
Officer cameras would be big. Even better would be cameras live streaming to a neutral third party for safekeeping.
 
B3Pl3HLCAAAmj4s.jpg:large



They are getting ready for it.
 
Interesting take on the delay. Wilson might be having to arrange his surrender. Makes sense that they would be taking precautions to get him secretly into custody which is what's causing the delay. Not saying that's what's going on but it was just brought up on CNN.
 
This guy was Zimmerman's lawyer?

Man, he was saying all the right things and then my eyes just widened for a second.

(CNN)
 
timetokill said:
You can't guarantee a deadly weapon confirmation, but the cameras would help, and ultimately what I want is the police TRAINING and basic standards to not involve pulling their weapon to approach a suspect. To enforce shooting as a last resort as opposed to a first one. That guns are the last line of DEFENSE and not offense.

It's true that there are additional costs here, but I'd think they could make a big dent in costs by selling most of their military equipment. They don't need tanks or military trucks in Ferguson. They don't need sniper rifles.

It's not going to stop cops from lying but I'm mostly just listing generally practical improvements. Ultimately there are a LOT of other changes that need to be made but I could see some of these in direct response to this situation in particular.
Click to expand...

Yeah but then you gotta convince police to disarm in any way, and you know that's not going to happen. All trends these past twenty years have been to massive increase the way police are armed. The ridiculous government program giving decommissioned military grade weapons from the Iraq/Afghanistan war to different police stations for fucking pennies on the dollar is a goddamn tragedy frankly.

And who would they sell it to? I'd rather it be destroyed frankly :P
 
backslashbunny said:
Can you quickly educate me as to what the difference is between them.
Click to expand...
One is signing a statement that what they saw is the truth or they can be prosecuted. The other is actually testifying under oath before the grand jury in court under penalty of perjury.

The witnesses need to hav done either of those for their statements to count against he officer.
 
KHarvey16 said:
Can you maybe cite a source for that information? I cannot believe any armed officer, from any country, would be required to confirm specifically a deadly weapon before un-holstering their gun.
Click to expand...

In Europe they can only use it if their life is in danger, and can't shoot to kill.
 
Amir0x said:
Yeah but then you gotta convince police to disarm in any way, and you know that's not going to happen. All trends these past twenty years have been to massive increase the way police are armed. The ridiculous government program giving decommissioned military grade weapons from the Iraq/Afghanistan war to different police stations for fucking pennies on the dollar is a goddamn tragedy frankly.

And who would they sell it to? I'd rather it be destroyed frankly :P
Click to expand...

I'm sure a city council could vote on not authorizing police to carry firearms unless needed.
 
Volimar said:
The no riding solo one seems a little unrealistic as well. It'd result in incredibly slow response times.
Click to expand...

And probably increased budgets (more taxes) to hire more officers. I guess two could be made the preferred method but yeah, mandating always having a partner might be unworkable in practice.
 
Amir0x said:
What would the federal oversight entail? The reason I'm pushing a bit on this score is because the specifics of this are hugely important. There's lots of different ways to approach the idea of federal oversight, and some of them are more effective than others.

We also want to avoid the pitfall of them making some sort of empty gesture agreement, which looks on the surface as if it's progress but really is just lipservice.
Click to expand...
I would just like to see a special federal prosecutor, for one, come in whenever possible violation of law involves officers of the law. I don't see how anyone can expect the county prosecutor to be impartial to one of their own.
 
KHarvey16 said:
Can you maybe cite a source for that information? I cannot believe any armed officer, from any country, would be required to confirm specifically a deadly weapon before un-holstering their gun.
Click to expand...

I was being hyperbolic but in countries like the UK, New Zealand, Iceland, Ireland, and China have unarmed civilian police forces.
 
Most of my suggestions are there as general "increase accountability" measures. I'm open to changes to them to make them more feasible or other ideas entirely. But the whole point is to reduce situations where (a) cops are shooting unarmed people and (b) it's "cops' word" above all without any way to verify their story.

Amir0x said:
Yeah but then you gotta convince police to disarm in any way, and you know that's not going to happen. All trends these past twenty years have been to massive increase the way police are armed. The ridiculous government program giving decommissioned military grade weapons from the Iraq/Afghanistan war to different police stations for fucking pennies on the dollar is a goddamn tragedy frankly.

And who would they sell it to? I'd rather it be destroyed frankly :P
Click to expand...

Well, nobody said it would be easy ;) But disarming the police as much as possible is a critical step in fixing the police problem in this country. There's simply no way around it.
 
Amir0x said:
ANYWAY.

What do you guys think will be the likely outcome of the severe protests that are sure to arise? I've heard some people argue that a particularly violent protest will mean action is more likely.

But what actions would arise from it? What laws should be changed? What policy enacted? What would be the result of a particularly violent protest?
Click to expand...

What I'd ideally want is a general nationwide discussion about how black people often don't get the same benefit of the doubt that white people do, and that makes them more susceptible to a standard police protocol that has taken police safety to such an extreme that they are actually doing the opposite of protecting and serving.

What I'd probably have to take is enough of a headache that at least police officers have one more reason in the back of their heads to maybe not be so quick on the trigger.
 
Samowski said:
In Europe they can only use it if their life is in danger, and can't shoot to kill.
Click to expand...

Police here don't unholster their weapon unless they feel their life or the lives of others may be in danger as well.

And not shooting to kill isn't a thing. All gunshots are deadly force. Police are trained to shoot to stop.
 
Labor said:
I guess putting a Santa hat on your avatar makes you a mindreader now lol
Click to expand...
Post is just weird. If anyone is being racist they would be banned. (like on this very page) It's funny that people can read what you or I type and claim us to be racists. I find it's usually people who either have no sense of the subject, are all around incredibly young/naive, or simply hold a few weird views themselves that jump to those sorts of conclusions.
bishoptl said:
What?!
Click to expand...
Lmao, nobody knows.
bonercop said:
Yep.
Click to expand...

Well that's disgusting.
 
Out of curiosity, if they indict with something other than first degree murder, how do you think the public will react? How do you feel about that scenario? personally I would like to see him indicted on a first and if the jury at trial goes with the lesser included charge, so be it.
 
What are the best streams to watch all of this unfold, for better or for worse?

I hope it remains calm and they don't lose it over this no matter the decision. It's not worth trying to destroy a city, possibly hurting and killing other people, or even destroying the property of others. Ugh.
 
alstein said:
I'm sure a city council could vote on not authorizing police to carry firearms unless needed.
Click to expand...

That's actually more extreme than what timetokill was suggesting.

You're never going to successfully get a vote that says police must not carry a firearm. Police Unions will be all up in arms about how dangerous the profession is and how nobody is going to agree to fight crime without the ability to protect themselves at all times.

You're more likely to get a vote that police must confirm a deadly weapon before removing your firearm from the holster.


SliceSabre said:
I would just like to see a special federal prosecutor, for one, come in whenever possible violation of law involves officers of the law. I don't see how anyone can expect the county prosecutor to be impartial to one of their own.
Click to expand...

Ok, so then the federal prosecutor comes on. How do they deal with it? Do they have a special investigation? Who funds the investigation, the county/town where the crime happened, or the federal government? Where do the funds come from? How do we ensure the funds are handled appropriately?
 
Random Painted HIghway said:
Out of curiosity, if they indict with something other than first degree murder, how do you think the public will react? How do you feel about that scenario? personally I would like to see him indicted on a first and if the jury at trial goes with the lesser included charge, so be it.
Click to expand...

I could accept a lesser charge. Everyone else, I dunno but I wouldn't blame them for wanting otherwise. He deserves the harshest penalty but any justice at all at this point would make a difference for me.
 
backslashbunny said:
The weirdest part is that Labor actually said hockey, he actually just meant to dismiss white Americans. I'm surprised, since as a hockey fan, and as someone that was aware of the recent Vancouver hockey riots.... The involved a lot of, if not majority, Asian Canadians.


Well, I can't really fault you for your racism against white people given how the white hegemony treats everyone else, but if you actually look at *hockey* riots, you'll notice the majority of them are in Canada, and that people are prosecuted for them.

.
Click to expand...

No.
 
Samowski said:
In Europe they can only use it if their life is in danger, and can't shoot to kill.
Click to expand...

This is the main point. Police in America seems to be train to kill a suspect. There needs to be a change in the way cops are trained to neutralize 'dangerous' suspects. Someone I know joked that cops go with the motto, "Shoot. Ready. Aim". A little extreme but that's what it seems like these days.
 
Random Painted HIghway said:
Out of curiosity, if they indict with something other than first degree murder, how do you think the public will react? How do you feel about that scenario? personally I would like to see him indicted on a first and if the jury at trial goes with the lesser included charge, so be it.
Click to expand...

I was just thinking about that. Maybe they're preparing for riots/unrest/whatever because of how much lesser of a charge it is that they know it'll upset people.

Still think nothing will come of this though.
 
WhiskerFrisker said:
This is the main point. Police in America seems to be train to kill a suspect. There needs to be a change in the way cops are trained to neutralize 'dangerous' suspects. Someone I know joked that cops go with the motto, "Shoot. Ready. Aim". A little extreme but that's what it seems like these days.
Click to expand...

Police are trained to shoot to stop. No police in the world are trained to use a gun when deadly force is not authorized.
 
timetokill said:
You can't guarantee a deadly weapon confirmation, but the cameras would help, and ultimately what I want is the police TRAINING and basic standards to not involve pulling their weapon to approach a suspect. To enforce shooting as a last resort as opposed to a first one. That guns are the last line of DEFENSE and not offense.

It's true that there are additional costs here, but I'd think they could make a big dent in costs by selling most of their military equipment. They don't need tanks or military trucks in Ferguson. They don't need sniper rifles.

It's not going to stop cops from lying but I'm mostly just listing generally practical improvements. Ultimately there are a LOT of other changes that need to be made but I could see some of these in direct response to this situation in particular.
Click to expand...
Who in the hell are they going to sell their APC's to?
 
backslashbunny said:
I thought they had Internal Affairs.

I would also love to see the US federal government prosecute and handle cases like these.

I also would love to see the entire police force of each city be punished for what their individual officers do, but I guess that could backfire and result in even more coverups.

Maybe they could force the entire police department of any police officer involved in these shootings pay for and wear cameras?



Yeah, but they also have unarmed civilians...
Click to expand...
Yea there's internal affairs but I don't think anyone trusts what cops think of another cop's actions. Again Blue Shield.
 
My mom said they are waiting to 9 to wait until all the brown people are watching Jane the Virgin so they won't see....oh mom, we do have DVR's now lol.
 
Volimar said:
The no riding solo one seems a little unrealistic as well. It'd result in incredibly slow response times. I'd be in favor of this if there was the money to fund additional officers.
Click to expand...
Obviously the changes would need funding. Saying it is unrealistic due to needing funding seems a bit silly, considering the incredibly low likelihood of anything changing even if funding was provided.
 
backslashbunny said:
The weirdest part is that Labor actually said hockey, he actually just meant to dismiss white Americans. I'm surprised, since as a hockey fan, and as someone that was aware of the recent Vancouver hockey riots.... The involved a lot of, if not majority, Asian Canadians.



Well, I can't really fault you for your racism against white people given how the white hegemony treats everyone else, but if you actually look at *hockey* riots, you'll notice the majority of them are in Canada, and that people are prosecuted for them.
Click to expand...

I don't even know where to begin with this post.
 
timetokill said:
- Officers should represent the makeup of their community (in this case, more black officers)
- Cameras required on all on-duty officers
- Officers not allowed to pull firearm from holster unless a deadly weapon is confirmed to be present on a suspect
- No cops riding solo to assist with the above requirement
- Cops not allowed to not file a report or file a "blank" report as we saw in this case


Just some possible suggestions.
Click to expand...

-Easier said than done, but it's something to strive for
-100% agree.
-Will never happen.
-Will never happen strictly for budget reasons, but I'm in favor of it
-Again, not going to happen. While it's ridiculous that a report was not filed in this case, if every little instance requires a report, that's less time policing and more time pushing paper. This leads to more officers needing to be hired to cover for the same time/area that current officers do, leading to massive budget issues.
 
Random Painted HIghway said:
Out of curiosity, if they indict with something other than first degree murder, how do you think the public will react? How do you feel about that scenario? personally I would like to see him indicted on a first and if the jury at trial goes with the lesser included charge, so be it.
Click to expand...

Considering the length, measures, Police and Media responses so far, the impression is that no matter what, justice will not be served in this case. With so many witnesses ignored, calling of guards, media blackouts, lies and bigotry... it will not surprise me that this will go down as one of 2014's biggest f**kups and discrimination in the US and no one can do anything to stop it due to technicalities. ... If this was a comic world, this is where The Punisher, Batman or some other vigilante would kick in, but it's not. I don't know. I guess we have to see then take it from there, but I am not hopeful...
 
timetokill said:
- Officers should represent the makeup of their community (in this case, more black officers)
- Cameras required on all on-duty officers
- Officers not allowed to pull firearm from holster unless a deadly weapon is confirmed to be present on a suspect
- No cops riding solo to assist with the above requirement
- Cops not allowed to not file a report or file a "blank" report as we saw in this case


Just some possible suggestions.
Click to expand...

Most police departments are going away from dedicated partners because often the fear of your partner's safety was causing poor decisions like firing their weapons when not appropriate.
 
antonz said:
No Solo Riding I don't think would solve things. You have an issue of the blue shield itself needing to be overcome.
Click to expand...

No individual action would solve things. The no solo riding isn't just to prevent abuse by police, it would help reduce the chances of solo police being massively outnumbered and feeling threatened by those dehumanising stares.

turtle553 said:
Most police departments are going away from dedicated partners because often the fear of your partner's safety was causing poor decisions like firing their weapons when not appropriate.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting result though. Stupid humans, being all contradictory and shit.
 
backslashbunny said:
Well, I can't really fault you for your racism against white people given how the white hegemony treats everyone else, but if you actually look at *hockey* riots, you'll notice the majority of them are in Canada, and that people are prosecuted for them.
Click to expand...

Please enlighten us as to what was racist about Labor's post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Don't Run from the police
2
74
702
Mexen replied
Dragon Ball will continue for decades, says producer
News  2
76
4K
NahaNago replied
I’ve been binging Police Body Cam Footage on YouTube.
2
94
1K
TDiddyLive replied
  • Locked
Bishop stabbed during a church sermon in Sydney, riots developing between community & police
44
4K
IDKFA replied
2025 Super Bow Commercials Thread | The Return of Michael Bay
2
59
3K
ManaByte replied
Top Bottom