PDA

View Full Version : Until You Don't Like the Verdict


Pages : [1] 2

meadowrun
25th Nov 2014, 04:12
Brown's mother Lesley McSpadden had to be held up by relatives as she stood on a car outside the Ferguson police station listening to the decision not to indict her son.
She put her face in her hands and sobbed violently.
Seconds before she had said: 'This is wrong!
'Everybody want me to be calm but you know how them bullets hit my son.
'Ain't nobody had to live through what I had to live through.
'Why? They (pointing at the police) ain't never gonna care.'


Brown's step father Louis Head jumped up and down as he erupted in rage and said: 'Burn this b**** down! Burn this b**** down!'
Minutes earlier as Miss McSpadden listened to the decision being read out she shouted: 'What was he (Wilson) defending himself from?
'Some of you motherfu**ers think this is a joke!'


Officially, the family released a statement saying their were 'disappointed that the killer of our child will not face the consequence of his actions'.


Protesters started throwing rocks and bottles at police officers, damaging cars, starting fires and looting local businesses.
Some rioters were even seen looting a liquor store.

mikedreamer787
25th Nov 2014, 04:37
damaging cars, starting fires and looting local businesses.
Some rioters were even seen looting a liquor store.

Any excuse will do to start robbing stuff.

Carbon Bootprint
25th Nov 2014, 04:57
Scheiße, like this is a surprise to anyone?

MD, as his usually quite astute self, hit the nail on the head. It was going to be ugly no matter what happened.

You know what? Even though it's a crappy situation, life goes on. There were "protests" around the US scheduled well in advance of this.

There are underlying reasons for this that are hard to deal with and I'm not sure they will ever be reconciled anytime soon.

MTOW
25th Nov 2014, 06:11
At the risk of offending some here, the current events in Ferguson would seem to be a clear indication that you can take the African out of Africa, but even after more than a hundred years, it's far harder to take Africa out of the African.

ExXB
25th Nov 2014, 06:38
Verdict hardly a surprise given the racial makeup of the grand Jury. ie 75% white, 75% male. Oh, a 75% majority needed for a verdict.

obgraham
25th Nov 2014, 06:59
ExXB do you have some inside information about how the Grand Jury's votes went down?

Didn't think so.

Capetonian
25th Nov 2014, 07:34
A society that lost the plot a long time ago That supposes that they had a plot to start with.

P6 Driver
25th Nov 2014, 08:30
I feel that some Americans will always have an attitude problem until they can lose the idea that they are "African American", "Hispanic American", e.t.c and just regard themselves as being "American".

tony draper
25th Nov 2014, 08:51
Well there had to be a riot,the worlds press was there in full expectation of it and they cant disappoint the news media can they.
:uhoh:

megan
25th Nov 2014, 08:53
Where in the world did the African American originate? Why not an American African? We never hear of Australian American, British American, French American etc etc Agreed P6, you are but of one nationality.

Capetonian
25th Nov 2014, 08:59
I feel that some Americans will always have an attitude problem until they can lose the idea that they are "African American", "Hispanic American", e.t.c and just regard themselves as being "American". We have the same problem in South Africa. A large section of the black community regard themselves as 'previously disadvantaged' (by the previous regime) and are determined to play the martyr for ever and for generations. In doing so they have painted themselves into a corner in which they are doomed to remain until they change the attitude. They will continue to play the race card, the last resort of the loser.

No black person who was born in ZA after about 1992 can claim to have suffered any disadvantage at the hands of the Nationalist government, in fact the reverse applies.

It is also worthy of note that one of the most prosperous, educated, and successful elements of society in South Africa is the Indian community, once subject to much the same restrictions and prejudices as blacks. You don't hear them bleating about 'previously disadvantaged' and 'racism', or setting light to cars and throwing rocks at police cars, they just get on with educating and improving themselves to make a better life for each successive generation.

Flyingmac
25th Nov 2014, 09:02
12 shots fired. 6 hit the target. The killing shot went through the top of the head, out through the chin and lodged in the chest. FIRED WHEN THE GUY WAS ALREADY DOWN.

Whether or not you can excuse this by citing adrenalin over self-control, would you be happy to see him given back his gun and let loose on the streets again?

Wingswinger
25th Nov 2014, 09:09
We never hear of Australian American, British American, French American etc etc

Or English American, Scottish American, Welsh American. But you do hear Irish American. Another "victim" group, perhaps?

Flyingmac
25th Nov 2014, 09:22
How about White South African?

Coronation squatters live in harmony with neighbours | Krugersdorp News (http://krugersdorpnews.co.za/250366/coronation-squatters-live-in-harmony-with-neighbours/)

Capetonian
25th Nov 2014, 09:36
That refers to the previously privileged, who under the old regime were in sheltered employment in government departments, and who under the new regime are disadvantaged.

rh200
25th Nov 2014, 09:58
12 shots fired. 6 hit the target. The killing shot went through the top of the head, out through the chin and lodged in the chest. FIRED WHEN THE GUY WAS ALREADY DOWN.

I guess thats your interpretation, I don't know, without going though all the evidence. You could take the stand that he was being charged head down I suppose?

Whether or not you can excuse this by citing adrenalin over self-control, would you be happy to see him given back his gun and let loose on the streets again?

Don't know, thats what a standards type of committee etc has to decide, not an armchair expert such as my self.

This case is like so many others, politized with none actually wanting true justice, only what they see as justice. A classic example is how the case was presented to the grand jury.

ExXB
25th Nov 2014, 11:12
ExXB do you have some inside information about how the Grand Jury's votes went down?

Doesn't take a rocket scientist ... It only took 4 votes to prevent a verdict.

parabellum
25th Nov 2014, 11:24
ExXB

Had you bothered to either watch/listen to, or read the verdict, when delivered, you might have noticed that most of the evidence offered against the policeman was contradictory, both one witness versus another witness and also one witness against their own previous statements.

If, has been suggested, the shot person was leaning into the car and trying to grab the policeman's pistol then the wounds, as described, would be typical.

The media continually talk about the black teenager who was shot, no mention that he was also a black teenage criminal? Strange, yes?

Limeygal
25th Nov 2014, 11:31
Brown's mother Lesley McSpadden had to be held up by relatives as she stood on a car outside the Ferguson police station listening to the decision not to indict her son

It doesn't help when the media apparently get the story wrong. I am assuming the OP posted a direct quote from a newspaper? It is my understanding that it was the officer not Brown that they decided not to indict. I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong :)

Super VC-10
25th Nov 2014, 11:33
Brown's mother Lesley McSpadden had to be held up by relatives as she stood on a car outside the Ferguson police station listening to the decision

Strange, because that's precisely what her son did to a local store before he was shot by the police. :confused:

Gertrude the Wombat
25th Nov 2014, 11:39
no mention that he was also a black teenage criminal?
Possibly because we forget that there are uncivilised places that still have a death penalty, in which "being a criminal" is sufficient reason to be killed.

rgbrock1
25th Nov 2014, 11:39
I sincerely hope that they burn the entire town of Ferguson down to the ground. I really do. And after they get finished with that, they can all live in the street, where they belong.

rgbrock1
25th Nov 2014, 11:42
P6 wrote

I feel that some Americans will always have an attitude problem until they can lose the idea that they are "African American", "Hispanic American", e.t.c and just regard themselves as being "American".

Ain't gonna happen. Why change things when you can successfully play the victim all the time?

ExXB
25th Nov 2014, 11:47
I have a problem with the decision of guilt being made in secret, behind closed doors. While it is marginally better than an 'elected' prosecuter deciding who goes to court it is far from perfect.

rgbrock1
25th Nov 2014, 11:54
I have a problem with the decision of guilt being made in secret, behind closed doors.That's your problem indeed, not ours. It's the way things are done in our country. If you have a problem with that, that is on you. Deal with it.

PS. It is not a decision of guilt or non-guilt. It is a decision based on the evidence the grand jury hears and sees, and based on this evidence whether or not to forward this evidence to a judicial court of law for prosecution.

Boudreaux Bob
25th Nov 2014, 11:55
Let's be honest here shall we.....Mike Brown was a Thug. He was a very large young Man and violent who was involved in Drug Use and Strong Armed Robbery just before the encounter with Officer Wilson.

Brown violently attacked Officer Wilson BEFORE Wilson could get out of his Patrol Car.

Brown tried to take Officer Wilson's Firearm from him.

Two Shots were fired INSIDE the Police Car.

Brown had one Wound that contained Gun Powder Residue inside the Wound.

Brown's Blood was found INSIDE the Police Car and on Officer Wilson's Firearm and on Officer Wilson's Uniform.

Those facts are undeniable.

What reasonable person could doubt the Officer felt he was in danger....possibly in danger of being seriously injured or even killed if his assailant got control of the Firearm?

Brown started running and Wilson gave chase.

Brown stopped, turned, and charged the Officer.

The Officer shot at Brown, Brown continued to advance on the Officer....the Officer shot again....this time killing Brown.

Again, what reasonable person would not feel threatened by a very large Man who had just tried to wrest a firearm from you....and despite being shot at twice...would continue to attack you....even after a second round of gunshots being fired at him.

Oh....I forget.....we are not arguing with "reasonable" people here.

So....never mind.

If you are not happy with the Grand Jury Decision then that is your Cross to bear. Our Judicial system worked....the People made the decision and not just a single Judge, Magistrate, or Prosecutor. All of the evidence and testimony was provided to the Grand Jury, they themselves asked questions and examined the evidence, and decided the Officer had not committed ANY crime.

I see it as a success all the way around.

Justice was done....on the street and in the Court Room.

TowerDog
25th Nov 2014, 11:57
. Quote:
no mention that he was also a black teenage criminal?
Possibly because we forget that there are uncivilised places that still have a death penalty, in which "being a criminal" is sufficient reason to be killed.

Meh thinks the reason the criminal was killed, was not because he was a criminal per se, but because he tried to take a gun from a police officer. Doing such things are incredibly stupid and can be very dangerous to ones health, but some folks are too dense to understand just that.
Sad really :sad:

Dushan
25th Nov 2014, 12:02
I have a problem with the decision of guilt being made in secret, behind closed doors. While it is marginally better than an 'elected' prosecuter deciding who goes to court it is far from perfect.

The decision made was not to indict, meaning there was not enough evidence that could lead to a possible conviction, so if anything the decision was 'no guilt'. The process of presenting evidence was in the open. The only thing done in secret was the deliberation of the grand jury. This is done in order to protect the individual jurors from possible repercussions by those who do not agree with the decision.

Gertrude the Wombat
25th Nov 2014, 12:34
Meh thinks the reason the criminal was killed, was not because he was a criminal per se, but because he tried to take a gun from a police officer.
That's fine, of course.


But just "being a criminal" is not reason for being killed, in our view: we don't think the police are free to wander the streets taking pot-shots at anyone with a known face.

chuks
25th Nov 2014, 12:41
No, in the UK you have to chase them first, down the stairs into the London Underground for instance, then shoot and kill them!

Just wandering the streets "taking potshots at anyone," well ... that's not sporting!

rgbrock1
25th Nov 2014, 12:42
But just "being a criminal" is not reason for being killed, in our view: we don't think the police are free to wander the streets taking pot-shots at anyone with a known face.

Which is exactly what DID NOT happen here. Do you not understand that the suspect Brown attempted not only to take the cop's gun away from him but also charged the officer WHILE REACHING INTO HIS WAISTBAND?

Here are some snippets from the officer's grand jury testimony.

Officer Wilson told the grand jury that Brown punched him in the face when the officer drove back to him.
Wilson said he tried to get out of his cruiser but Brown slammed the door shut twice and hit him with his fist.
"I felt that another of those punches in my face could knock me out or worse ... I've already taken two to the face and I didn't think I would, the third one could be fatal if he hit me right," Wilson said.




Twelve shots were fired by Wilson. Wilson said two shots were fired during a struggle at his police vehicle when the suspect attempted to take the officer's weapon from him and that he then fired three bursts of gunfire as he chased and then backed away from Brown. He testified that his Sig Sauer .40 caliber gun held a maximum of 13 bullets.
Twelve casings were recovered and one bullet remained in the weapon, according to the grand jury documents.




Wilson had never fired his gun on duty before shooting Michael Brown, he told the grand jury.
Asked if he had ever used excessive force before, he replied: "I've never used my weapon before."




Wilson called the area where Brown was shot a "hostile environment."
"There's a lot of gangs that reside or associate with that area. There's a lot of violence in that area, there's a lot of gun activity, drug activity, it is just not a very well-liked community. That community doesn't like the

police."

Wilson told the grand jury his original goal was to arrest Brown, after identifying him as a possible suspect in a shop theft.
"My main goal was to keep eyes on him and just to keep him contained until I had people coming there," he testified.
"I knew I had already called for backup and I knew they were already in the area for the stealing that was originally reported. So I thought if I can buy 30 seconds of time, that was my original goal when I tried to get him to come to the car. If I could buy 30 seconds of time, someone else will be here, we can make the arrest, nothing happens, we are all good. And it didn't happen that way."




Wilson testified he shot at Brown on the street when Brown turned on him.
"As he is coming towards me, I tell, keep telling him to get on the ground, he doesn't. I shoot a series of shots. I don't know how many I shot, I just know I shot it," he said.
"I know I missed a couple, I don't know how many, but I know I hit him at least once because I saw his body kind of jerk," he said.
Wilson testified that Brown did not slow down.
"At this point I start backpedaling and again, I tell him get on the ground, get on the ground, he doesn't. I shoot another round of shots," he said.
"Again, I don't recall how many him every time. I know at least once because he flinched again. At this point it looked like he was almost bulking up to run through the shots, like it was making him mad that I'm shooting at him.
"And the face that he had was looking straight through me, like I wasn't even there, I wasn't even anything in his way."
He told the jurors he thought Brown was going to tackle him.

Just coming straight at me like he was going to run right through me. And when he gets about that 8 to 10 feet away, I look down, I remember looking at my sites and firing, all I see is his head and that's what I shot.
"I don't know how many, I know at least once because I saw the last one go into him. And then when it went into him, the demeanor on his face went blank, the aggression was gone, it was gone, I mean, I knew he stopped, the threat was stopped.
"When he fell, he fell on his face."




Brown put his hand under his shirt into his waistband when he ran at Wilson, Wilson told the grand jury.
"He turns, and when he looked at me, he made like a grunting, like aggravated sound and he starts, he turns and he's coming back towards me," Wilson said.
"His first step is coming towards me, he kind of does like a stutter step to start running. When he does that, his left hand goes in a fist and goes to his side, his right one goes under his shirt in his waistband and he starts running at me."

meadowrun
25th Nov 2014, 12:51
Wilson says he first noticed two males walking down the middle of the street, obstructing traffic. "And the next thing I noticed was the size of the individuals because either the first one was really small or the second one was really big." He also made note of Brown's socks: "bright yellow ... [with] green marijuana leaves as a pattern on them." He approached them and suggested they walk on the sidewalk. Brown's companion, Dorian Johnson, initially spoke to Wilson. But then Brown stepped in, saying, per Wilson, "F--- what you have to say." That line "drew my attention totally to Brown." It wasn't the "expected response from a simple request." The pair continued walking in the center of the road.




Wilson reversed toward them and started to open his door. Brown slammed it shut. Wilson pushed his door open again, telling Brown to "get the f--- back." Instead, Brown punched him. Wilson says he tried to hold on to Brown's right arm, but "I felt like a 5-year-old holding on to Hulk Hogan." Brown then struck Wilson again. Wilson said he feared a third punch "could be fatal."
Wilson explained why he didn't use mace (he couldn't easily access it since his left hand was shielding his face; also Brown's hands were in front of his face, which would have blocked the spray); he didn't carry a Taser; his flashlight was too far away. So he drew his gun and threatened to shoot. Brown grabbed the gun and said, "You are too much of a pussy to shoot me," Wilson testified.
There was a struggle for the gun; Wilson says Brown tried to get his finger on the trigger. Wilson pulled the trigger. The gun just "clicked" twice; the third time, it fired, with the bullet going through his door panel. He says Wilson looked as angry as a "demon." The gun clicks several more times before firing once more.
Brown ran; Wilson followed, saying his main goal was "to keep eyes on him" and that he expected backup to arrive shortly. Wilson told Brown to get on the ground. "When he looked at me, he made like a grunting, like aggravated sound and he starts, he turns and he's coming back towards me. ... His right [hand] goes under his shirt in his waistband and he starts running at me. .. I remember having tunnel vision on his right hand."
Wilson shot two series of shots. Then he aimed at Brown's head. "I saw the last one go into him. ... The demeanor on his face went blank. .. The threat was stopped.



Not exactly taking a pot shot at a criminal face.

Hempy
25th Nov 2014, 12:57
Well he said it, so it must be true!!!

In other news, Global Warming is over because I was cold today. Also, Global Hunger is over because I ate..

:rolleyes:

Mr Chips
25th Nov 2014, 13:05
I'd say it makes sense that such decisions are made by lawyers rather than lay people.

Yeah, in the UK the CPS never ever make stupid decisions....... :ugh::ugh:

rgbrock1
25th Nov 2014, 13:09
Well he said it, so it must be true!!!

Trying to be a smart ass are we? No, the grand jury heard testimony not only from the officer involved in the shooting but from quite a few other witnesses as well. Most of whom are black.

Boudreaux Bob
25th Nov 2014, 13:12
I'd say it makes sense that such decisions are made by lawyers rather than lay people.

Our Constitution says otherwise.

It says something about a Jury of One's Peers.

rgbrock1
25th Nov 2014, 13:19
Terrorists in the Middle East?

https://www.yahoo.com/sy/nn/fp/rsz/112514/images/smush/ferguson_635x250_1416917904.jpg

Nope, just local citizens in Ferguson, MO on their way to burn down a few more strip malls. Have at it guys. burn it all down.

probes
25th Nov 2014, 13:25
so, here we are - i happened to hear an extract from an interview with a teenager complaining: "He was just standing on the street, with his hood on, and he got shot. He was my friend and I'm worried about us as anybody could get shot like that."
too bad I don't remember where from. :sad:
There might have been a comment before or after, but the snippet of information I got was - black teenagers are shot because they are wearing hoods and nothing happens.
Seriously... :sad:

rgbrock1
25th Nov 2014, 13:27
probes:

black teenagers get shot, and sometimes killed, when they try to take a police officer's weapon away from him. As do white teenagers, and asian teenagers, mexican teenagers, etc.

probes
25th Nov 2014, 13:29
yes, but the point was - it's probably not only me who does not get the full picture (well, now I have). :sad:

OFSO
25th Nov 2014, 13:34
are uncivilised places that still have a death penalty

It is customary to quote Heinlein at this point so I will paraphrase him: he said something along the lines of "the death sentence is over, short and sharp; whereas robbing a man of his liberty for the rest of his life - but keeping him alive - is inhumane."

Solid Rust Twotter
25th Nov 2014, 13:36
...inhumane...


Assuming he's not back on the street in eight years or so.

rgbrock1
25th Nov 2014, 13:41
"the death sentence is over, short and sharp; whereas robbing a man of his liberty for the rest of his life - but keeping him alive - is inhumane."

Or, some people just need killing. Or removal from the earth. :ok:

West Coast
25th Nov 2014, 14:31
I have a problem with the decision of guilt being made in secret, behind closed doors.

Clearly no studying completed as to what a grand jury does.

Lonewolf_50
25th Nov 2014, 14:35
12 shots fired. 6 hit the target. The killing shot went through the top of the head, out through the chin and lodged in the chest. FIRED WHEN THE GUY WAS ALREADY DOWN.

Whether or not you can excuse this by citing adrenalin over self-control, would you be happy to see him given back his gun and let loose on the streets again?Yes.
You are, of course, only telling part of the story. I will presume that, like the enraged "burn this down" feckwits, that you only want to hear part of the story. Good for you, an apologist for riots and wanton destruction. Hope it happens in your town, real soon. :mad:

You need to go back to the beginning and see how this event/confrontation took place. When you tell half a story, you risk telling a half truth, which is a short walk to a lie.

Lonewolf_50
25th Nov 2014, 14:39
But just "being a criminal" is not reason for being killed,
As that isn't why he was killed, why do you throw that out there?
. in our view: we don't think the police are free to wander the streets taking pot-shots at anyone with a known face.
They don't. What has a made up fairy tale like that got to do with this case? nothing, other than to betray your ignorance, dishonesty, and bias.

Nothing new under the sun. See LA, 1992. Haters are gonna hate.

Probesit's probably not only me who does not get the full picture
That is the understatement of the week.

rgbrock1
25th Nov 2014, 14:41
The killing shot went through the top of the head, out through the chin and lodged in the chest. FIRED WHEN THE GUY WAS ALREADY DOWN.

Outright bullshit. Brown was hunched up like a friggin' middle linebacker and was about to plow into the cop. Thus the shot in the top of the head. And not when he was already down.

rgbrock1
25th Nov 2014, 14:45
As per the latest from the media it seems the majority of downtown Ferguson is in flames. The fire department refuses to respond due to the "war zone like atmosphere" in that town.
A think that's splendid news. Burn the whole damn town down is what I say. Burn baby, burn.

TheBigD
25th Nov 2014, 14:47
I think Chris Rock explained it best a few years back.
chris rock how not to get beaten up by police - Bing Videos (http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=chris+rock+how+not+to+get+beaten+up+by+police&FORM=HDRSC3#view=detail&mid=F3E1ADC10B14812F1F38F3E1ADC10B14812F1F38)

rgbrock1
25th Nov 2014, 14:55
TheBigD:

Thanks for the video: laughed my ass off. Haven't seen it before. :ok:

Lonewolf_50
25th Nov 2014, 14:59
As per the latest from the media it seems the majority of downtown Ferguson is in flames. The fire department refuses to respond due to the "war zone like atmosphere" in that town.
A think that's splendid news. Burn the whole damn town down is what I say. Burn baby, burn.
And all of those folks who run small businesses in Ferguson, who bust their butts to make a go of it ... where is the outrage for them, who have just had their livelihood taken from them by the outrage promoters and those like Sharpton who endorse "outrage" and violence?

Time for a class action suit against Al and the rabble rousers. Hate speech ... cause haters are gonna hate. :mad:

rgbrock1
25th Nov 2014, 15:05
LW50:

Although I feel for those small business owners in that town you have to keep in mind they are of the same race. You would think the rioters and destroyers would bear that in mind when engaged in their destructive behavior.

So I guess in their minds they destroy, loot, pillage and burn the homes and businesses of their own in response to the killing of one of their own by a white cop. Makes perfect, logical sense.

Seldomfitforpurpose
25th Nov 2014, 15:13
There was no ryme nor reason to the actions of the rioters and looters post the Mark Duggan shooting in London in Aug 2011.


Its just an excuse for the pond life in society to do wrong, I genuinely doubt a single one of those involved in the riots here had an ounce of sympathy for Duggan's demise and were just doing bad for bad's sake.

rgbrock1
25th Nov 2014, 15:14
sffp:

Spot on. :ok:

Capetonian
25th Nov 2014, 15:22
At the risk of offending some here, the current events in Ferguson would seem to be a clear indication that you can take the African out of Africa, but even after more than a hundred years, it's far harder to take Africa out of the African.
Or, some people just need killing. Or removal from the earth.
There was no ryme nor reason to the actions of the rioters and looters ...........Its just an excuse for the pond life in society to do wrong, I genuinely doubt a single one of those involved in the riots here had an ounce of sympathy ........ and were just doing bad for bad's sake.

The lefties are going to have a feeding frenzy on this thread.
Wonderful!

Lonewolf_50
25th Nov 2014, 15:26
LW50: Although I feel for those small business owners in that town you have to keep in mind they are of the same race. Whatever their race or identity group, they didn't do a damned thing to that Brown fella. Haters are gonna hate.
You would think the rioters and destroyers would bear that in mind when engaged in their destructive behavior.
I know better, see LA riots 1992.
So I guess in their minds they destroy, loot, pillage and burn the homes and businesses of their own in response to the killing of one of their own by a white cop. Makes perfect, logical sense. Once again, see LA riots, 1992. Nothing new under the sun.

SFFP: point well made.

Robert Cooper
25th Nov 2014, 15:27
For anyone interested in the facts in Ferguson, the transcripts from the Grand Jury are online. Seven black eyewitnesses gave testimony that almost exactly matched the Policeman's testimony and were born out by all three of the medical examiners one of which was hired by the Brown family...The Jury verdict was unanimous and that included three black jurors who knew what would happen when they said the cop did nothing wrong.

Bob C

airship
25th Nov 2014, 15:38
Elvis sang it all well back in the '60s:

Elvis Presley - In The Ghetto (Music Video) (1969) - YouTube

Or if you prefer, TIME 'The more it passes the more it stays the same' according to Al Stewart:

Nostradamus - Al Stewart - YouTube

You're welcome. :sad:

fitliker
25th Nov 2014, 15:41
Why is nobody calling for the prosecution of those who lied about the child being shot in the back ?
Why are none of the religious leaders not outraged against those who are selling illegal unregulated drugs to these children ?
Why are none of the religious leaders giving biblical quotes against bearing false witness ? What a perfect opportunity to give the youth guidance in how to live a happy productive useful life and teach some manners and respect.


The violence,robbery and drugs in these racial ghettoes will never improve while the Police are made not welcome by the thugs and the thugs families who do not believe that their lovely little baby could possibly be involved in violent acts against their fellow citizens. Even with a security video showing their darling offspring grabbing a store worker by the throat. None so blind as those who will not see.


The Parents should be sent a bill for the bullets used to kill their violent offspring. They should be made apologise for failing to warn their son of the dangers of drugs and not teaching him right from wrong. They should be made apologise for not teaching him how to make a purchase in a peaceful manner in a public store. They should be made apologise for not teaching their violent son some respect for men in uniform that are trying to protect their communities from violent thieves like their son.


The parents should at least apologise to the store owner for being such bad parents and raising a violent thug.

ExXB
25th Nov 2014, 16:05
Clearly no studying completed as to what a grand jury does.

However, unlike the vast majority of trials, grand jury proceedings are kept in strict confidence.

How Does a Grand Jury Work? - FindLaw (http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/how-does-a-grand-jury-work.html#sthash.kMLpKUdF.dpuf)

NO studying required

rgbrock1
25th Nov 2014, 16:36
From today's edition of "The Patriot Post"

Ferguson: A Race Bait Case Study (http://patriotpost.us/alexander/31256)

http://assets.patriotpost.us/images/2014-10-01-944dda74.jpg By Mark Alexander
As anticipated, St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch announced (http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/11/24/ferguson-police-officer-darren-wilson-not-indicted/) Monday night that the shooting of Michael Brown by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson was justified self defense. "[The grand jury] determined that no probable cause exists to file any charge against officer Wilson, and returned a 'No True Bill' on each of the five indictments," said McCulloch. In fact, Brown's autopsy determined he was facing Wilson when shot, and one of Brown's wounds was at close range inside Wilson's patrol vehicle, the result of Brown's attempt to reach through the driver's door window and take the officer's gun after having assaulted Wilson.
Predictably, Barack Obama and his dependable stable of "race bait (http://patriotpost.us/alexander/13059)" surrogates immediately set about to convert the verdict into political capital. Of course, the 24-hour news recycling talking heads, all vying for advertising market share, provided the race agitators a very big stage (http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/24/grand-jury-decides-not-charge-ferguson-police-officer-shooting/), and will continue to do so as long as they can stir up enough protestors.
For his part, Obama claimed the racial anger was "understandable (http://patriotpost.us/posts/31235)," but, given that there is no upcoming election, he left the constituent building to his race baiting attorney general, Eric Holder (http://patriotpost.us/alexander/29609), who ensured the nation that the Justice Department investigation remains open (http://patriotpost.us/posts/31248): “While the grand jury proceeding in St. Louis County has concluded, the Justice Department’s investigation into the shooting of Michael Brown remains ongoing."
Holder is a master race baiter, and, when joined by race hustlers, including Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and legions of lesser useful idiots (http://patriotpost.us/alexander/15881), they have become very effective at promoting hate crime hoaxes (http://patriotpost.us/alexander/22737) in order to foment discontent and rally black constituents.
Ahead of the 2012 presidential election, Holder and company set the race bait by vowing to "seek justice" after a "white-Hispanic" man, George Zimmerman, shot and killed, in self-defense, a black teenage thug (http://patriotpost.us/alexander/19185) named Trayvon Martin.
Ahead of the 2014 midterm election (http://patriotpost.us/alexander/30689), Holder promised to "seek justice" in the shooting of another black teenage thug (http://patriotpost.us/alexander/28379). In both cases, for political expedience, Holder assumed the shooters were guilty until proven innocent. Obama even suggested in an address to the UN (http://patriotpost.us/posts/29435) that the Ferguson shooting could be seen in the same light as atrocities committed by ISIL cutthroats (http://patriotpost.us/alexander/28994).
Among the more visible racists in Ferguson immediately after the shooting were the Black Panthers, who coined the chant, "What do we want? -- Darren Wilson! -- How do we want him? -- Dead!"
Missouri Democrat Gov. Jay Nixon, who is fishing for a 2016 veep slot under Hillary Clinton, joined that chant, referring to Brown as an "unarmed teenager" and promising "to achieve justice for Michael Brown," but omitting any reference that Wilson's actions might have been justified.
Having worked as a uniformed officer in two states while completing my undergraduate degree, I take great offense at the constant description of Michael Brown as an "unarmed teenager." No law enforcement officer should ever approach a suspect or assailant, whether in a vehicle or on a street, with the assumption he or she is "unarmed." I would not be writing these words had I wavered from that precautionary training. The fact that Brown did not possess a weapon is hindsight 20/20, not something Wilson knew at the time of the altercation.
For the record, according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund (http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/daifacts.html), over the last decade there were an average of 58,261 assaults against law enforcement personnel each year, resulting in 15,658 injuries and more than 150 deaths per year.
Now, after three Brown autopsies and copious deliberations, the verdict is in -- the shooting was justified. But don't expect the facts to get in the way of the race bait political agenda.

rgbrock1
25th Nov 2014, 16:39
And now a few words from the black civil-rights activist, Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson:

The Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, a conservative black civil-rights activist and national radio talk show host, said Monday night that he supports the grand jury decision in the Michael Brown shooting case.

The grand jury ruled (http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Ferguson-grand-jury/2014/11/24/id/609373/) that Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson should not face charges in the shooting death.

Peterson called the people rioting and causing chaos in Ferguson "racist black thugs."

He released the following statement:

"The decision not to indict officer Darren Wilson proves that our justice system works. The outcome shows that justice prevailed despite a concerted effort by rabble rousers, corrupt civil-rights 'leaders,' Attorney General Eric Holder, and even President Barack Obama, who attempted to tip the scales of justice and convict the officer without due process.

"Emboldened by irresponsible public statements made by race baiters like Al Sharpton and Eric Holder, the professional community organizers have been planning to create havoc in Ferguson for months. Some are looking for an excuse to loot and riot. Racist black thugs in Ferguson even issued a $5,000 bounty on officer Wilson's life.

"If blacks riot, the blame lies with the so-called 'leaders' and elected officials who condemned the officer without knowing all the facts and who treated the thug Michael Brown like a hero by sending White House officials to his funeral.

"The problem with most blacks in Ferguson and across America is that they want to blame police and scapegoat whites for their anger rather than taking responsibility for raising their children and improving their communities.

"Intimidation and lawlessness cannot be tolerated. Law enforcement must be allowed to do their job and protect law-abiding citizens and businesses, and we must all repudiate irresponsible race hustlers who incite violence with their lies and encourage the foolishness of black thugs who act like spoiled children."

rgbrock1
25th Nov 2014, 16:52
We're talking about lay persons making technical legal decisions on whether to proceed with a case.

Based upon evidence as presented to this jury. Like in any other jury.

Such decisions are best made by lawyers.

Says you. Our Founders thought differently.

rgbrock1
25th Nov 2014, 16:57
Dear Citizens of Ferguson, MO:

http://assets.patriotpost.us/images/2014-11-25-3f285bea.jpg

con-pilot
25th Nov 2014, 17:15
Robert

For anyone interested in the facts in Ferguson

It is quite obvious that not only do many people in Ferguson not care about the facts, there are posters in this thread that do not give a crap about facts, but are only using this thread to bash the US, a country they do not live in and show just how ignorant they are.

‘All the members of the Grand Jury found no cause to indict, including the members who were black’.

The goal of a Grand Jury is not, repeat not, to determine guilt or innocence, but to determine if a crime has been committed.

The only crime that day was Brown’s strong-arm robbery of a convenience store. Michael Brown was a thug, pure and simple.

Boudreaux Bob
25th Nov 2014, 17:24
Strong Armed Robbery, Drug Use, Assault on a Police Officer, Failure to Obey a Lawful Order of a Police Officer, Resisting Arrest, Jay Walking, Obstructing Traffic and a few more offenses probably.:=

The young lad was a hoodlum.....just like Obama's other Son, Trayvon was.

He decided to open up a Can of Whoop Ass and spilled it all over himself.:=

airship
25th Nov 2014, 17:25
rgb wrote: Based upon evidence as presented to this jury. Like in any other jury.

Hopefully both US justice and juries have moved on since the '70s. But the release of Ricky Jackson after having served 39 years (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/ohio-men-wrongly-convicted-murder-after-39-years-released-n253356) was even reported on the TV news here in France a couple of days ago: Two Ohio men wrongly accused of murder experienced freedom for the first time in nearly four decades on Friday morning, but said they don’t harbor bitterness over their unjust imprisonment...

There ain' no discrimination against negroes no more honey. An' white folk just like de police-man in Ferguson git acquitted al' de time, not even havin' to stand trial, jes' like it always was. Only now-a-days, we got dem' durned dumb black folk like Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson supportin' de whi-t-e folk too... :p

obgraham
25th Nov 2014, 17:29
Well Con, facts are not relevant to those who have already made up their minds. ExXB was on about the racial makeup of the Grand Jury, suggesting that somehow made the decision invalid.

Ignoring the fact that the decision of the Grand Jury was unanimous. That means from both the white and black members.

Our trusty New York Times has published all of the testimony to the grand jury. It's hundreds of pages. Not possible to read it all yet. But a quick perusal of some witness testimony other than that of the policeman suggests that his version of the incident is pretty close to reality.

But there again is Skinny Al, because there are microphones and cameras to be stood before.

Boudreaux Bob
25th Nov 2014, 17:31
Smith, Ten Seconds of Googling would have prevented you from looking un-informed. You forget we have State and Federal Law both of which must square with the Constitution.....both Federal and State Constitutions.

If you are going to inform us about our own Law.....do try to be accurate will you.



Grand Jury
A panel of citizens that is convened by a court to decide whether it is appropriate for the government to indict (proceed with a prosecution against) someone suspected of a crime.

An American institution since the colonial days, the grand jury has long played an important role in Criminal Law. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that a person suspected of a federal crime cannot be tried until a grand jury has determined that there is enough reason to charge the person. Review by a grand jury is meant to protect suspects from inappropriate prosecution by the government, since grand jurors are drawn from the general population. It has been criticized at times as failing to serve its purpose.

The grand jury system originated in twelfth-century England, when King henry ii enacted the Assize of Clarendon in order to take control of the courts from the Catholic Church and local nobility. The proclamation said that a person could not be tried as a criminal unless a certain number of local citizens appeared in court to accuse him or her of specific crimes. This group of citizens, known as the grand assize, was very powerful: it had the authority to identify suspects, present evidence personally held by individual jurors, and determine whether to make an accusation. Trial was by ordeal, so accusation meant that conviction was very likely. (Trial by ordeal involved subjecting the defendant to some physical test to determine guilt or innocence. For example, in ordeal by water, a suspect was thrown into deep water: if he or she floated, the verdict was guilty; if the suspect sank, the verdict was innocent.)

The grand assize was not designed to protect suspects, and it changed very little over the next five hundred years. Then, in 1681, its reputation began to evolve. An English grand jury denied King Charles II's wish for a public hearing in the cases of two Protestants accused of Treason for opposing his attempts to reestablish the Catholic Church. The grand jury held a private session and refused to indict the two suspects. This gave the grand jury new respect as a means of protection against government bullying (although ultimately in those particular cases, the king found a different grand jury willing to indict the suspects).

After this small act of rebellion, the grand jury became known as a potential protector of people facing baseless or politically motivated prosecution. The early colonists brought this concept to America, and by 1683, all colonies had some type of grand jury system in place. Over the next century, grand juries became more sympathetic to those who resisted British rule. In 1765, for example, a Boston grand jury refused to indict leaders of protests against the Stamp Act, a demonstration of resistance to colonialism.

The grand jury was considered important enough to be incorporated into the U.S. Constitution, and has remained largely unchanged. Grand juries are used in the federal and most state courts. Federal grand juries use a standard set of rules. States are free to formulate their own pretrial requirements, and they vary greatly in the number of grand jurors they seat, the limits they place on the deliberations of those jurors, and whether a grand jury is used at all. Federal courts use a grand jury that consists of 23 citizens but can operate with a quorum of 16. Twelve jurors' votes are required for an indictment. States use a grand jury consisting of as few as five but no more than 23 members. Grand juries are chosen from lists of qualified state residents of legal age, who have not been convicted of a crime, and who are not biased against the subject of the investigation.



Fifth Amendment: General

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

John Hill
25th Nov 2014, 17:31
The goal of a Grand Jury is not, repeat not, to determine guilt or innocence, but to determine if a crime has been committed.

The only crime that day was Brown’s strong-arm robbery of a convenience store. Michael Brown was a thug, pure and simple.

Police shooting a black man is not a crime? Does this come under the 'presumption of innocence'?

What about the presumption of innocence of the dead guy?

rgbrock1
25th Nov 2014, 17:33
john smith wrote:

"Your founders" didn't say anything about the use of grand juries.

No, they didn't have anything to directly to say about the use of grand juries. But they did outline, in the Bill of Rights, that

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Thus it is a State's right to have grand juries.

TowerDog
25th Nov 2014, 17:35
No discrimination airship, if a white teenager tried to beat up a cop, steal his gun and charge him while reaching in his pocket for a hidden weapon, he would also be shot.
Not many teens are as stupid as the one in Ferguson however.:sad:

Capetonian
25th Nov 2014, 17:37
Good discussion on BBC WS 'World Have Your Say' right now.

Boudreaux Bob
25th Nov 2014, 17:39
In the State of North Carolina....these be the Rules.

The grand jury consists of eighteen persons, half drawn from the jurors called for the first criminal term after January 1 and half from those called for the first criminal term after July 1. Indictment (official accusation by the grand jury) is a necessary prerequisite to trying a person initially in the superior court, unless the accused waives it. The accused may waive indictment in all cases except those for which the punishment would be death. A grand jury member serves twelve months. The grand jury usually meets for one or two days at the beginning of each criminal session or once a month in counties with multiple criminal sessions. A few large urban counties have two grand juries to avoid imposing unduly on those called to serve in this capacity.

obgraham
25th Nov 2014, 17:39
Race-baiters will stop at nothing to make their vile points.

Once again we hear the lament here that we Americans have an inherently unfair system, whereas if we just used their Euro/UN scheme all would be well. Ignoring, of course, the racism and xenophobia rampant in places like Switzerland.

The places that use the Grand Jury system believe that it PROTECTS citizens from overambitious prosecutors. Force the prosecutor to show that he has a case by explaining it to ordinary citizens.

Now if you want to get on the topic of Elected Prosecutors, that is a different one, and I've never understood why DA's, Sheriffs, Judges, and County Assessors stand for election. But that's the system we have, and is irrelevant to the current topic.

TowerDog
25th Nov 2014, 17:40
Police shooting a black man is not a crime? Does this come under the 'presumption of innocence'?


Self defense is not a crime...what planet are you from Sir?

con-pilot
25th Nov 2014, 17:44
Police shooting a black man is not a crime?

That is a very general wide open question John.

In this case, the Grand Jury, made up of citizens who live in the same general area, not on an island near Australia, after viewing all the evidence, evidence that you have not seen or examined, after interviewing nearly 50 witnesses, came to a unanimous decision that there was, in fact no crime committed by the police officer.

Do you have facts that the Grand Jury did not see?

Did you witness the shooting?

Police shooting a white man is not a crime John?

How about a black police officer shooting an unarmed white man is not a crime?

rgbrock1
25th Nov 2014, 17:45
TowerDog:

what planet are you from Sir?

New Zealand I believe is the planet he's from. I believe it's in the Andromeda galaxy.

John Hill
25th Nov 2014, 17:50
what planet are you from Sir?

Apparently one a long way from the town of Ferguson.

OFSO
25th Nov 2014, 17:53
British TV news this evening keeps referring to the "shooting of an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson".

Almost as sickening as the President saying he would make sure that Michael Brown would get "justice".

Someone should inform Obama that Michael Brown already got "justice".

Boudreaux Bob
25th Nov 2014, 17:55
What part of the Fifth Amendment escaped you?

We do not have to have a Consensus in this Country due to the structure of our Government.

What part of Con's reminder that we are made up of States, each with its own sovereignty for admiinistration of its own laws is lost on you?

Our Law varies amongst the many States.....by choice and historical background.

Each State is free to enact its own Laws.

All that is contained within the Constitution.

Whether a State has a Grand Jury or not is a moot point as a result.

You may not like the procedure but that is your own personal issue to deal with.



The Bottom Line is if a Prosecutor cannot convince a Grand Jury (with its relaxed Rules of Evidence and lack of Defense Counsel to challenge any Testimony or Evidence) to Indict a Suspect....there is no way that case will prosper in Open Court. That is what happened here in this Case. The Jury heard the Evidence and Testimony and determined there was no basis to charge the Officer with a Crime of any kind.

airship
25th Nov 2014, 17:56
con-pilot wrote: In this case, the Grand Jury, made up of citizens who live in the same general area, not on an island near Australia, after viewing all the evidence, evidence that you have not seen or examined, after interviewing nearly 50 witnesses, came to a unanimous decision that there was, in fact no crime committed by the police officer.

Just what is 'evidence'? Was it all there? You could have the fairest, most unbiased jury in the World, but if they don't see all the 'evidence'...?! After all, it would appear that Ricky Jackson and others were convicted solely on the basis of the eye-witness testimony of a 12 year-old. Something which wouldn't (or shouldn't) be allowed today.

rgbrock1
25th Nov 2014, 17:58
The Jury heard the Evidence and Testimony and determined there was no basis to charge the Officer with a Crime of any kind.

Apparently lost on the uber-racist Eric Holder & Co. who has already said the DoJ will continue with the civil rights violation case. Not surprisingly the officer in question is not out of the woods quite yet.

rgbrock1
25th Nov 2014, 18:01
You know, I'm getting sick and tired of all those from the other side of the pond, in this thread and several others, who insist on lecturing us Americans on what is wrong with our country, how we should do things differently - and better - etc., etc., yada-yada-yada.

Look, you tried this with us up until a few hundred years ago when we had enough and kicked your asses for a month of Sundays and then showed you the door with your tails tucked between your legs.

If you don't like the way we do things, too bad. Get over yourselves and look within. You have your own problems to deal with. And don't make like you don't.

con-pilot
25th Nov 2014, 18:04
Just what is 'evidence'? Was it all there?

Do you have any facts or evidence that the Grand Jury did not see that would have changed their decision?

Did you interviewed the nearly 50 witness that the Grand Jury did?

Unless you can answer ‘yes’ to the above questions, all you are doing is flapping your gums and showing your ignorance.

rgbrock1
25th Nov 2014, 18:05
Unless you can answer ‘yes’ to the above questions, all you are doing is flapping your gums and showing your ignorance.

Imagine that. :}

obgraham
25th Nov 2014, 18:08
It amuses me, RGB, when I hear our Euro betters going on about our unfair systems.

This from a continent which has allowed its policies, regulations, and legal processes to be determined by a bunch of unelected professional bureaucrats hiding behind massive amounts of red tape, making decisions affecting people in countries they don't even live in.

Flash2001
25th Nov 2014, 18:09
I'd be entertained to see an investigation into the death of Michael Brown conducted according to the rules the NTSB uses, in other words, what caused the death and how could it have been prevented rather than satisfying legal niceties. Such an investigation might address a number of questions that the Grand Jury didn't have to answer.

airship
25th Nov 2014, 18:16
I have to admit defeat. With all due respect to both con-pilot and rgb. But like General George Custer, they're quite adamant in holding their steadfast views of both the Union's and their own positions... :p

con-pilot
25th Nov 2014, 18:19
Apparently lost on the uber-racist Eric Holder & Co. who has already said the DoJ will continue with the civil rights violation case.

Rodney King all over again.

One other fact that some of our friends from across the and one from a small group of islands near Australia or ignorant of or just refuse to accept, is that Brown could have face indictment on a range of charges ranging from murder in the first degree all the way down to involuntary manslaughter*.

After viewing all the evidence and more importantly interviewing nearly 50 witnesses, the majority of which did not actually witness the shooting, the Grand Jury did not find enough grounds to indict Brown for involuntary manslaughter.


* Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought, either express or implied. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention. It is normally divided into two categories; constructive manslaughter and criminally negligent manslaughter, both of which involve criminal liability.

con-pilot
25th Nov 2014, 18:22
I have to admit defeat. With all due respect to both con-pilot and rgb. But like General George Custer, they're quite adamant in holding their steadfast views of both the Union's and their own positions...

Again Airship, if you have any information that would affect the decision of the Grand Jury, please come forward.

I for one would be very interested to see or hear any such information. So would US Attorney General Holder I would suspect.

TowerDog
25th Nov 2014, 18:23
words, what caused the death and how could it have been prevented rather than satisfying legal niceties. Such an investigation might address a number of questions that the Grand Jury didn't have to answer..

The NTSB would have ruled the whole thing a suicide as the idiot was begging for an armed confrontation from the very beginning :rolleyes:

con-pilot
25th Nov 2014, 18:26
Dog.

Good to see you back in Jet Blast again. :ok:

TowerDog
25th Nov 2014, 18:26
. TowerDog:

Quote:
what planet are you from Sir?
New Zealand I believe is the planet he's from. I believe it's in the Andromeda galaxy.

Is it true then that self defense is a crime in New Zealand?
If so, how does it work? When attacked people just lay down and play dead so as not to get arrested and convicted of Self Defense? :sad:

TowerDog
25th Nov 2014, 18:28
. Good to see you back in Jet Blast again.

Aye, like a moth attracted to a flame :E

rgbrock1
25th Nov 2014, 18:35
As previously stated, fewer than half of the states use grand juries for criminal matters.

Ahhh, wrong. Sniff, sniff. What's that smell? the smell of, perhaps, horse poo-poo?

As a matter of state law, the states of Alaska (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska), Arizona (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona), California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California), Colorado (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado), Georgia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_%28U.S._state%29), Idaho (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho), Illinois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois), Kentucky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky), Massachusetts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts), Minnesota (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota), Missouri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri), Nebraska (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska), Nevada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada), New Hampshire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire), New Jersey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey), New Mexico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexico), New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York), North Carolina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina), Ohio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio), Oregon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon), South Carolina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina), South Dakota (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota), Tennessee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee), Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas), Utah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah), Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia), and West Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia), as well as the District of Columbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia), employ some form of grand jury.

Not counting the District of Columbia the other above-listed States count of 27. And 27 of 50 is more than 50%.

:p:p:p

Lonewolf_50
25th Nov 2014, 19:38
john smith, there is an old saying that is updated for the year 2014:

Better to STFU and be thought a fool than to open your soup strainer and remove all doubt.

Merry Christmas

obgraham
25th Nov 2014, 19:45
Well perhaps they should re-institute the Grand Jury system in that little island nation some are so enamored of:
September 2008: Otara liquor store owner Virender Singh was charged with injuring with intent to injure after he defended himself with a hockey stick against five drunken teenagers, one of whom had stabbed him in the thigh. A justice of the peace dismissed charges.
Certainly appears the prosecutors (are they still "Crown Counsel" there?) sometimes lack common sense.

rgbrock1
25th Nov 2014, 19:52
Bringing a hockey stick to a knife fight? Wow. :eek:

Dushan
25th Nov 2014, 20:19
Police shooting a black man is not a crime? Does this come under the 'presumption of innocence'?

What about the presumption of innocence of the dead guy?

Shooting someone is not automatically a crime, so guilt or innocence has nothing to do with it.

There is a concept of self defense and imminent threat. That was the case here.

Dushan
25th Nov 2014, 20:24
Apparently one a long way from the town of Ferguson.

Well, duh, or should I say baaaaaa.

Seldomfitforpurpose
25th Nov 2014, 20:27
There is a concept of self defense and imminent threat. That was the case here.


Having read the posts detailing the 'timeline' of this incident I am surprised some on here are still questioning the Officers actions.

Dushan
25th Nov 2014, 20:36
The NTSB would have ruled the whole thing a suicide as the idiot was begging for an armed confrontation from the very beginning :rolleyes:

But the investigation would have included:
Ford Motor Comapny - cop car
Goodyear tire company - tires
Sam Brown Shoes - cop shoes and belt
Federal Ammo - ammunition
Motorola - cop radio
Adidas - hoodie

Etc, etc, you get the picture.

prospector
25th Nov 2014, 20:40
If the Americans had just picked their own cotton many years ago.

Dushan
25th Nov 2014, 20:43
Having read the posts detailing the 'timeline' of this incident I am surprised some on here are still questioning the Officers actions.

I could be mistaken, but are you actually agreeing with something I said? :eek:

Dushan
25th Nov 2014, 20:45
This whole thread reminds me of the rioting, by white people, after the OJ jury rendered "not guilty" verdict. Do you remember that?



Neither do I.

Seldomfitforpurpose
25th Nov 2014, 20:46
I could be mistaken, but are you actually agreeing with something I said? :eek:


Why would I not? If the facts as presented in earlier posts are correct then what other conclusion is there to arrive at?

junior.VH-LFA
25th Nov 2014, 21:07
Having taken the time to look through the evidence, I am surprised so many here are taken offence to how the Grand Jury has played out...

Apparently you think its okay for people to assault police officers?

Bronx
25th Nov 2014, 22:14
Seldom
Why would I not? If the facts as presented in earlier posts are correct then what other conclusion is there to arrive at?

Dushan isn't familiar with that way of thinking.
You'll have to explain it.

Boudreaux Bob
25th Nov 2014, 22:25
Prospector,

If we had known how it was going to turn out.....we would have.

con-pilot
25th Nov 2014, 23:05
Protesters have just shut down the entrance to the Lincoln Tunnel from Manhattan, NYC. More protests are expected in Detroit, Chicago, Oakland and other major cities tonight.

Protests are fine, that is part of our Rights. But looting and burning down buildings, that’s just criminal activity and should be treated as such.

“Oh man, that guy, whoever he was, was shot by a white cop, so I need a big screen TV!”

Boudreaux Bob
25th Nov 2014, 23:07
How much you want to be the Federal Employees will get a paid day off tomorrow?:ugh:

rh200
25th Nov 2014, 23:16
Apparently you think its okay for people to assault police officers?

Yep I think thats it, moral bracket creep. Once upon a time it was considered bad to insult and verbally abuse them as well. Usually some minor consequences associated with it. Now the huggy fluffies and the left wing judges have made that okay, we seem to bee moving onto the its alright to assault them.

Wonder whats next, giving police a tune up becomes normal, then killing them becomes a sport?

con-pilot
25th Nov 2014, 23:16
How much you want to be the Federal Employees will get a paid day off tomorrow

Maybe, but the St. Louis cops and the activated National Guard units will not and most likely not have Thanksgiving with their families, but rioters will.

After they get though looting and burning down buildings.

“Don’t worry mom, I’ll be there in time for Thanksgiving dinner, I just need to loot this store and then burn it down. By the way, what size flat screen TV do you want?”

Mr Chips
26th Nov 2014, 00:15
Could any UK based poster criticising the grand jury system please let us all know why they think the incompetent Crown Prosecution Service are any better?

parabellum
26th Nov 2014, 01:03
Well said Mr Chips!:D:D

421dog
26th Nov 2014, 01:47
It says something about a Jury of One's Peers

I think you'll actually find that an English convention not officially espoused in the the American legal doctrine, except by association with Common Law.

We are routinely tried by the absolute least common denominator.


(Much to the advantage of the litigators who get 40% and expenses, and are off the hook if they lose.)

galaxy flyer
26th Nov 2014, 02:23
If the Americans had just picked their own cotton many years ago.


And, as we are learning, freed slaves make the worst masters.

GF

BOING
26th Nov 2014, 03:31
Seldom's post on another thread;

I, like many others would not have lost a seconds sleep if the police had turned up and shot them dead but that didn't happen but these two are quite probably never going to see freedom again or certainly not until they are very old men which according to our laws is the right and proper way of things.

What wonderful hypocrisy.

.

pigboat
26th Nov 2014, 03:32
Were there any work boots taken during the undocumented shopping last night?

Taki's Magazine: Low Information Looters. (http://takimag.com/article/low_information_looters_steve_sailer/print#axzz3K5oNEIuQ)

West Coast
26th Nov 2014, 04:55
Were there any work boots taken

Chuckling for a few minutes over that.

Krystal n chips
26th Nov 2014, 04:57
A little question, or two, for our American brethren......

When was the last tine a police officer was charged and successfully prosecuted for the unlawful killing of an unarmed person?

How many prosecutions have there been in this respect over the years ?

The word disproportionate may not spring readily to mind in your replies.

obgraham
26th Nov 2014, 05:32
Krystal, I don't know the answer to your specific question.

But I do know that "Unlawful killing of unarmed civilians by police" is an extremely rare event. I might ask, then, when was the last time there was such a case?

We ask a great deal of police officers, and we place them in dangers that the rest of us are not willing to assume. We give them great latitude to act in ways we ourselves cannot.

There is always room for improved training of police -- in how to deal with certain suspects, how to get along with some segments of the population, etc. The current racial animosity does not help in that process.

Right here in my town several months ago a policeman shot and killed a young man who lunged at him with a knife, but who turned out to be significantly mentally ill and off his medications. We need to help our police deal with these matters. Surely there were other ways my case could have been handled.

That does not make the unfortunate killing a crime.

chuks
26th Nov 2014, 05:39
A New York City policeman just shot and killed a young man, in an incident that the Chief of Police denounced as unjustified. Expect to see him prosecuted ... or not.

You know, if you want to say that you think most Americans will not see something as disproportionate, why not just write that? All this BS about "... may not spring readily to mind ... " seems to come across as subtlety to a Brit, but as typical mealy-mouthed obfuscation to a Yank, part of the reason so many of us find so many British posts so, well, despicable. You think we don't get irony, we think you don't get straight speech.

megan
26th Nov 2014, 05:59
Were there any work boots takenOf course. They have steel caps. All the better when giving someone a kicking.

ExSp33db1rd
26th Nov 2014, 06:15
[quote]Of course. They have steel caps. All the better when giving someone a kicking.[quote]

Friend preparing to retire back to South Africa, carried his ski boots by hand, strapped to one of those little ski clips designed for carrying ski boots, on one working trip. Plonked them down on the Customs counter - what are those, said the Customs Hofficer - Kaffir kicking boots, said my friend. Jeez, said the Hofficer, can you bring me a pair next time ?
(http://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=8758062&noquote=1)

spInY nORmAn
26th Nov 2014, 06:41
Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn "opens up" as he speaks to reporters after a Fire and Police Commission meeting on November 6th concerning the shooting of Dontre Hamilton (Goggle this case for details). During the meeting, Flynn learned that a 5-year-old girl was shot and killed. He was taken to task for being on his cell phone during the meeting as he received the call about the young girl and was accused of being "insensitive".

T7MAO7McNKE

The officer involved in the Dontre Hamilton case was subsequently fired and no decision has yet been made regarding him possibly facing charges. Keep an eye on this one as well.

Ancient Mariner
26th Nov 2014, 06:46
Base your society on "survival of the fittest", and you get a jungle.
Per

Seldomfitforpurpose
26th Nov 2014, 07:24
Seldom's post on another thread;



What wonderful hypocrisy.

.

Do feel free to elaborate my confused friend :ok:

John Hill
26th Nov 2014, 07:44
But I do know that "Unlawful killing of unarmed civilians by police" is an extremely rare event. I might ask, then, when was the last time there was such a case?

An extremely rare event! Yeah right. American police shoot an unarmed black man about every week and you tell me these killings are, near as dammit, always lawful.

That may even be what you believe.:rolleyes:

Solid Rust Twotter
26th Nov 2014, 07:50
Were there any work boots taken during the undocumented shopping last night?


Now there's a thing. During the Westgate mall attack and siege in Nairobi, a lot of looting took place. Turns out there weren't that many terrorists (who actually got away) to have done as much looting as was found to have taken place, and police and security forces were suspected of having a go. Many were charged I believe, although no idea of the eventual outcome of those charges.

Among the stores looted was a book store. Computers, laptops, furniture, coffee machines, coffee cups and other paraphernalia were taken but not a single book according to staff. Makes you think, eh...?:}

chuks
26th Nov 2014, 08:16
So, John, do you have some statistics for what you choose to believe, that an "unarmed black man" is shot, often unlawfully, by American police "about every week"?

You could start by telling us what the name of this unfortunate is, the black man who is shot about every week. He must be one tough hombre to survive this sort of mistreatment; I would hate to meet him in a dark alley.

Or if this is just another example of sloppy writing, so that you meant to say that "American police unlawfully shoot unarmed black men at the rate of about one every week," please provide the factual basis for your opinion. Actually, I don't think that you have one!

rh200
26th Nov 2014, 08:26
When was the last tine a police officer was charged and successfully prosecuted for the unlawful killing of an unarmed person?

Probably because for all intents and purposes it doesn't happen. A police officer deliberately murdering someone is a rare event.

Their is a difference between defending oneself, mistaking the situation, and Murder. Though I guess in the socialist left side, their isn't, when it suits them.

I find it amazing how people here should justify someone attacking a police officer physically and trying to steal their weapon.

I find it amazing here that people here who are so vile against the people who go out and try to make the place safe for us against what can only be described as human garbage, will go crying to them when their, wife, daughter or mother is raped or killed.

I find it amazing the very same people outraged here that they want police hung out to dry for making mistakes, will be the first ones crying foul if they where sacked or held to account when they made mistakes.

MagnusP
26th Nov 2014, 09:03
You make a good point, rh200. Many of the yoghurt-knitters I encounter are in jobs where it becomes virtually impossible to sack them irrespective of their ability to do their jobs properly (think local councils, government departments), yet are quick to demand that heads must roll when there is a perception that someone's "yoominrites" have been violated.

prospector
26th Nov 2014, 09:35
An extremely rare event! Yeah right. American police shoot an unarmed black man about every week

Apparently, according to witnesses, at the very thorough enquiry, that lasted many weeks, the unarmed black man was trying very hard to become an armed black man, with the police officers hand gun. If he had of succeeded and killed the police officer would we have heard anywhere near as much cries of outrage from the people who are now so vocal in their condemnation of a police officer who not only was doing his job but also trying to stay alive?

Thomas coupling
26th Nov 2014, 09:52
I can only speak from experience working with the police - front line for 13+yrs in the UK. They are a truly amazing bunch of diligent hard working conscientious people - on the whole. They seem to have a streak of humaneness in them - in that they genuinely believe in upholding the good for society. Of course there are rogue elements in all walks of life - but I didn't detect this in the vast majority. I am proud of our 'cops'.
Why am I spouting off like this - well, when I read about the Ferguson debacle and then listened to the cop who was interviewed this morning (on TV), I really do wonder about the psychology of the "American Cop". They must have either been trained differently, bred differently or been affected by society significantly differently to function the way this guy did on that fatal and very tragic day in August.
It goes without question that this cop was in grave danger from this assailant - the evidence supports this unquestionably....but.....
why on God's earth did the cop empty his entire magazine into one guy, some of which made contact after the assailant was effectively 'down and out'?

My ONLY observation from all of this together with recent events of an 8yr old girl killing her gun instructor at a gun range and also the shooting of a 12 year old in a schoolyard in Connecticut, not to mention the countless shootings in schools which has become an annual event.......suggests that the American people are gun happy, gun fearing citizens who resort to this level of insanity as easily as we in the UK would resort to drink!
FFS America when are you lot going to wake up and smell the damn coffee - DO AWAY WITH PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF GUNS!

megan
26th Nov 2014, 10:45
A three year old shoots his Mum.

3-year-old boy accidentally shoots, kills mother | www.fox23.com (http://www.fox23.com/news/news/national/mom-shot-3-year-old-monday-night/njFj7/?icmp=cmgcontent_internallink_relatedcontent_2014_partners1)

Toadstool
26th Nov 2014, 10:48
Oh God Thomas C
You will be for it when the fondlers wake up!!

On the bright side, it gives them someone else to gang up on and give JH a rest.

Crepello
26th Nov 2014, 11:04
We get it, guys - all guns are evil, the problem would disappear if they were outlawed, and anyone who disagrees with you is stupid.

However, this is a thread about the Michael Brown case and the issues that surround it. If you want to debate gun control, may I suggest the many JB threads initiated for that purpose.

:rolleyes:

rh200
26th Nov 2014, 11:04
why on God's earth did the cop empty his entire magazine into one guy, some of which made contact after the assailant was effectively 'down and out'?

My understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but reading the official reports the last shot was in the head and that was what actually stopped him. I believe it was described as some sort of bull charge head down bent at waist charging type of thing.

TowerDog
26th Nov 2014, 11:20
.
why on God's earth did the cop empty his entire magazine into one guy, some of which made contact after the assailant was effectively 'down and out'?


Whatever it takes I'd say.
One bullet at a time, then wait and see would probably be the preferred method.
Rinse and repeat if desired results not obtained.
Occasionally there is no time, sh!t happens fast...:sad:

Capetonian
26th Nov 2014, 11:37
why on God's earth did the cop empty his entire magazine into one guy, some of which made contact after the assailant was effectively 'down and out'? Waste of good bullets when there are others out there who deserve them.

Lonewolf_50
26th Nov 2014, 12:01
FFS America when are you lot going to wake up and smell the damn coffee - DO AWAY WITH PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF GUNS!
FFS: when are you annoying foreigners going to learn to STFU and mind your own business?

Boudreaux Bob
26th Nov 2014, 12:02
TC,

I seem to recall some of your compassionate Plod chased an innocent guy down into the London Underground and shot him in the head while he was pinned down in a scrum.....where did they learn to do that?

What about the guy that had a Table Leg wrapped in paper.....and all the other "Bad Shoots" your Armed Response Teams have had? Where did they develop those talents?

Your sweeping generalizations don't meet the smell test.

Your facts are wrong.

You want to figure out what our problem with Gun violence is in the United States.....very carefully study the Chicago Police Department Statistics on Murder.

There are several web sites dedicated to that run by other sources and what you will find is Drugs, Race, Gang Membership and neighborhood play a HUGE role in the problem.

We have far too much violence in our Society and Guns are far too much involved but the pipe dream of removing all the Guns from the Country is just down right stupid thinking. It cannot be done for any number of reasons.

The Criminal element shall always have guns....ask the Australians about how their effort turned out.....or ask the Canadians how their's worked out. Just look at your own country....you still have Guns being used in crimes.

I suggest you deal with reality rather than resorting to Pipe Dreams.

Lord Spandex Masher
26th Nov 2014, 12:08
FFS: when are you annoying foreigners going to learn to STFU and mind your own business?

When you stop putting it all over the world's media?

galaxy flyer
26th Nov 2014, 12:14
One point, "unarmed" does NOT mean not a "threat". This officer was injured in the event, plenty of people, both criminally and in combat have been killed by "unarmed" men. Brown was much physically larger than the officer Wilson. As Jesse Jackson once said, paraphrasing, "I'm embarrassed to say, when I hear foots coming up behind me, I'm relieved to turn and see while people approaching."

GF

Boudreaux Bob
26th Nov 2014, 12:30
LSM,

When will you stop watching? You have full control over the Binary Switch on your Telly. That switch marked ON/OFF....granted you probably only have a half dozen channels to select from if you stick to your National TV choices.

Lonewolf_50
26th Nov 2014, 12:36
When you stop putting it all over the world's media?
I seriously doubt that.
When one's own house is a mess, a way for the weak minded to feel better about themselves is to look at someone else's situation and convince themselves that they are better off than that other guy.

Seem to fit you busybodies about to a T.
Your obsession with your neighbor isn't healthy.

Lord Spandex Masher
26th Nov 2014, 12:40
Bob, why should I stop watching? You think I should change channel everytime something about another American riot/shooting/plague comes on? What happened to freedom of choice chap?

LW, if it's not in the media we won't know about it. And it's not an obsession it's an interest.

galaxy flyer
26th Nov 2014, 12:42
Here's another story of a black man being killed by police. Sorry for the Foxnews link, it seems no other media bother to cover it, perhaps too local, perhaps not PC.

man shot by police (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/10/24/ax-attack-terror-connection/)

pigboat
26th Nov 2014, 15:36
'Bout sums it up, I reckon.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/p235x350/10348273_10153260966544881_7501048097993575608_n.jpg?oh=32ec dcebf7536dddbb478f7ac2a9164a&oe=54DB9DBA&__gda__=1427656259_fc746ab5fc91cc88f752194264414e18

PTT
26th Nov 2014, 16:06
To be 100% clear, I am not condoning the actions of those in Ferguson.

That said, could it be argued that this is a case of the public (or a section of the public) rising up against perceived tyranny by the state? Would it, perhaps, have been prudent to have a public trial and have the policeman exonerated rather than have what amounts to a secret ballot as to whether he committed a crime at all? It begs the question as to why prosecutor Robert McCullough didn't choose to go to trial anyway if only for the clarity.

I appreciate what the aim of a Grand Jury is, but when the law is not serving the needs of the people through opacity then it might reasonably be called tyrannical.

rgbrock1
26th Nov 2014, 16:09
PTT wrote:

That said, could it be argued that this is a case of the public (or a section of the public) rising up against perceived tyranny by the state?

No it has nothing to do with perceived tyranny by the State and all to do with the fact that a white cop shot and killed a black man. Had the cop been black, which happens often enough but never reported, no one would have said boo and it would have been a non-issue.

obgraham
26th Nov 2014, 16:10
LSM: who's media are you complaining about? Your media is responding to the interests of your people, aren't they? BBC has a crew in Ferguson breathlessly awaiting drama to report.

So yes, your and your ilk are obsessed with what goes on in America. If you don't like it, don't watch, and get your media to cover something else. What's Charles and Camilla up to today?

rgbrock1
26th Nov 2014, 16:11
LSM: who's media are you complaining about? Your media is responding to the interests of your people, aren't they? BBC has a crew in Ferguson breathlessly awaiting drama to report.

And all the other media buzzards who are on location.

Who are just as complicit in the rioting in Ferguson as the rioters themselves, when you think about it.

PTT
26th Nov 2014, 16:14
rgbrock1 - that's your perception and I understand that. Is it the perception of those who are rioting, though?

Apparently indictments against police are few and far between, whereas against civilians they are far more common than not.

Boudreaux Bob
26th Nov 2014, 16:31
You reckon the reason the Police rarely are indicted by a Grand Jury as compared to Non-Police might be they commit far fewer crimes than do all the rest of the Population?

Add in the fact that even when they do make mistakes and wind up shooting or killing someone there is no "Intent" to do harm thus they do not cross the line into criminal culpability but may only be found liable in a Civil Proceeding.



http://www.dailyliked.com/security-cameras-captured-officers/

Lord Spandex Masher
26th Nov 2014, 16:42
LSM: who's media are you complaining about? Your media is responding to the interests of your people, aren't they? BBC has a crew in Ferguson breathlessly awaiting drama to report.

So yes, your and your ilk are obsessed with what goes on in America. If you don't like it, don't watch, and get your media to cover something else. What's Charles and Camilla up to today?

I'm not complaining about the media. I'm pointing out that while events in your country are plastered all over the world media you might expect some comments about it. If you don't like that get your country to stop showing itself up.

So no, I'm not obsessed - by you, your country or pretty much anything else.

Boudreaux Bob
26th Nov 2014, 16:48
https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10387456_1508445122740777_6352069252277419707_n.jpg?oh=a2924 f9a541414cd7c33d9ef206fc79a&oe=5520503B&__gda__=1423420676_a7685772f2c5b5b36796fdd3db3538c0



Remember to have your Friends scrub your Face Book Page if you get shot dead by the Cops!

VP959
26th Nov 2014, 17:03
I've just heard the interview with the police officer who fired the shots, and by his account he was between a rock and a hard place. He was being attacked by a guy who was stronger than he was (for no reason other than the police officer had asked to speak to him), was repeatedly punched through his open car window, was pinned in his car by the assailant for a time, and then, when he managed to get his gun out the assailant grabbed the gun such that it failed to fire a couple of times. The first shots either missed the assailant or failed to cause significant injury, because the assailant ran off.

The police officer called it in and asked for backup, before going after the assailant with a view to apprehending him. This is where there is probably a US/UK divergence - it is very unlikely that a UK police officer would have chased after a violent assailant alone, but by this police officers statement this seems to be standard procedure. It was the second encounter, when it was clear that the assailant was not going to stop the attack when confronted, and where he allegedly put one hand in his waistband (which caused the police officer to suspect he may be armed) where further shots were fired. Not all appeared to hit the assailant, as the police officer stated that although he saw a reaction to one shot, indicating it had hit, the assailant continued to run towards the police officer. The fatal shot was at close range with the assailant head-down in what seems to have been a bull-charge, which is why the fatal shot was through the top of his head.

From the police officers account, if true (and he sounded pretty level-headed and experienced to me) then, according to the procedures he was trained to use this outcome seems to have been almost inevitable.

The media have turned it into a racist thing, and have probably done more to cause the rioting than the event itself.

One can question lots of things about this case, like why was the police officer on patrol alone, why is it standard procedure to give chase to a known to be violent assailant when alone, but what's happened is what's happened.

Events like this acts as triggers for a whole host of pent up rage that seems to exist in some sectors of society. We've had similar here with riots in London and several other major cities all triggered by a similar police shooting, of Mark Duggan. I don't think it's a uniquely US event, and suspect it has to do more with one sector of society feeling oppressed, even if the reality is that they aren't oppressed for the reasons they believe.

finfly1
26th Nov 2014, 17:04
This thread might be improved a little if each person posting here prefaced their comments thusly (pick one)

-I have read and understand the entire grand jury proceedings
-I have read and understand a reputable summary of same
-I have heard someone on teevee tell me what it said
-I have read but do not understand the proceedings
-I have not read and do not care what it says

It would make a smoother read overall, imo. That said, it is often possible to tell from the content of the posting what category is involved. From a quick (somewhat nauseating) glance on livre des visages, almost all the commenters there fall in the last category.

Krystal n chips
26th Nov 2014, 17:06
From a more civilised perspective.....in case some of you missed it.

Cartoon | Global | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/cartoons/archive)

rgbrock1
26th Nov 2014, 17:10
VP959:

One can question lots of things about this case, like why was the police officer on patrol alone, why is it standard procedure to give chase to a known to be violent assailant when alone, but what's happened is what's happened.There are police departments here in the U.S. where standard operating procedure is one cop per patrol cop and no more than that. Regardless of the environment they may be patrolling in. I know for a fact that in the state of Connecticut, SOP is for the State cops to have no more than one officer per car. And in the years I lived there I never did see more than one cop in a car.
I New York one will never see more than one State cop in a car either.

don't know why this is, all things considered, but it is what it is.

As for a sole cop giving chase to a violent assailant. Probably happens more often than we care to think.

G-CPTN
26th Nov 2014, 17:33
he saw a reaction to one shot, indicating it had hit, the assailant continued to run towards the police officer. The fatal shot was at close range with the assailant head-down in what seems to have been a bull-charge, which is why the fatal shot was through the top of his head.Isn't that worthy of a Purple Heart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_the_Army_Award_for_Valor)?

brickhistory
26th Nov 2014, 17:43
I apologize to G-CPTN.

Krystal n chips
26th Nov 2014, 17:44
Purely to keep a balanced perspective, here's a couple of the UK's version....

BBC News - Policemen 'chased autistic man Faruk Ali for fun' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-30210199)

rgbrock1
26th Nov 2014, 17:53
brick:

If you click on the link provided by G-CPTN you'll note that it links not to the Purple Heart Wiki entry but the 'Medal of the Secretary of the Army Award for Valor' which is bestowed upon civilians-only for 'An act of heroism or sacrifice, with voluntary risk of personal safety in the face of danger either on or off the job'. Which, one can argue, Officer Wilson could be entitled to.

When I first saw the 'Purple Heart' term I too took offense. Not only because I myself have one but because a couple of dear brothers of mine received one as well, many moons ago. Unfortunately, posthumously. :{

Dushan
26th Nov 2014, 18:55
An extremely rare event! Yeah right. American police shoot an unarmed black man about every week and you tell me these killings are, near as dammit, always lawful.

That may even be what you believe.:rolleyes:

John, what makes those events you talk about and the one in Ferguson different? There must be something, because only in Ferguson are there riots and major mayhem, since August, because a white cop killed a black attacker in self defence.

Why aren't there riots and mayhem in other places, every week*?







* Maybe there are but since I do not subscribe to Kiwi Times I could be uninformed.

Dushan
26th Nov 2014, 18:58
So, John, do you have some statistics for what you choose to believe, that an "unarmed black man" is shot, often unlawfully, by American police "about every week"?




If I were him (the unarmed black man) I'd get armed, in the very least.

Lord Spandex Masher
26th Nov 2014, 19:07
Why aren't there riots and mayhem in other places, every week*?

Are you citing lack of evidence of rioting as evidence that white cops don't shoot black kids every week?

rgbrock1
26th Nov 2014, 19:09
Last week in Hartford, Connecticut (the bowels of CT) an "unarmed black man" was shot dead by a cop. (A daily occurrence, not weekly) I have yet to see any outrage displayed over this killing. Where are the riots in Hartford? Where is the media and why are people not demonstrating all across the nation?

Oh. Wait a minute. The cop who shot the "unarmed black man" dead was black himself. That makes it okay then.

Dushan
26th Nov 2014, 19:11
why on God's earth did the cop empty his entire magazine into one guy, some of which made contact after the assailant was effectively 'down and out'?

My ONLY observation from all of this together with recent events of an 8yr old girl killing her gun instructor at a gun range and also the shooting of a 12 year old in a schoolyard in Connecticut, not to mention the countless shootings in schools which has become an annual event.......suggests that the American people are gun happy, gun fearing citizens who resort to this level of insanity as easily as we in the UK would resort to drink!
FFS America when are you lot going to wake up and smell the damn coffee - DO AWAY WITH PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF GUNS!

Thomas, Thomas, in your "work with police" did you have the opportunity to practice with a handgun? It's not that easy to hit a target at 30 feet. Now add the "excitement" of being punched and assaulted by a 290 lb man who tried to take your weapon away. Then the chase, the reversal and he charging you. You think you could hit any better? He may have emptied (actually he shot two in the car, there was one left in the chamber, so only 10 were fired at Brown, but not all hit him. Some hit him superficially. It appears that the shot that stopped him was the last one, to the top of the head, as he leaned forward to charge Willson. He wasn't stopping despite being hit several times (then there's that whole .40 v. 45 ACP discussion, Mr. Brick)

who resort to this level of insanity as easily as we in the UK would resort to drink!

So are you going to suggest to UK citizens :

"FFS UK citizens when are you lot going to wake up and smell the damn coffee - DO AWAY WITH ALLOWING PEOPLE TO DRINK!"

obgraham
26th Nov 2014, 19:13
Are you citing lack of evidence of rioting as evidence that white cops don't shoot black kids every week? The statement was made that cops regularly "unlawfully shoot unarmed black kids".

There's been no evidence presented here to support that. It is, as I stated, an extremely rare event.

rgbrock1
26th Nov 2014, 19:14
LSM:

Following the link you provided one encounters this:

"According to data (http://www.cjcj.org/news/8113) stretching from 1999 to 2011, African Americans have comprised 26 percent of all police-shooting victims"

26% of all police shooting victims. Okay. So who are the other 74% if not African Americans then?

fabs
26th Nov 2014, 19:15
Bordeaux Bob. That's not Brown that is someone called Joda Cain (an equally nefarious individual by all accounts).

Lord Spandex Masher
26th Nov 2014, 19:17
Have you evidence to support that statement Ob?

Lord Spandex Masher
26th Nov 2014, 19:22
RG, I deleted that link as it appeared to contradict itself.

rgbrock1
26th Nov 2014, 19:26
LSM:

Glad you did because I was about to poke a lot of holes in some of the so-called "statistics" on that page.

Dushan
26th Nov 2014, 19:26
Are you citing lack of evidence of rioting as evidence that white cops don't shoot black kids every week?

In the context of JH's statement, yes.

John Hill
26th Nov 2014, 19:42
One source, in a report called "Operation Ghetto Storm" says that of the 739 "Justified" shootings shown above from 2012, 313 of them were black people. 44% of them or 136, were unarmed. 27% (83) were claimed by law enforcement to have a weapon at the time of the shooting, but that could not be later confirmed or the "gun" was a toy or other non-lethal object. 20% of them (62) were confirmed to have been armed with a gun, knife or cutting tool.
How Often Are Unarmed Black Men Shot Down By Police? | Alternet (http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/how-often-are-unarmed-black-men-shot-down-police)

Operation Ghetto Storm - Home (http://www.operationghettostorm.org/)

So then, 739 killed by police et al, pretty darn close to two every day, of those 313 were black people so thats about one every 28 hours.

44% were unarmed and 27% claimed by the police to be armed were unable to be confirmed, lets stick with the 44% eh?

So of the 313 black people killed by police that year around about 137 were unarmed.

I am quite happy to retract my estimation of "an unarmed black man about every week " and amend it to " an unarmed black man about three days!"

chuks
26th Nov 2014, 20:24
Okay, so, moving right along, would you like to tell us how many of these deaths were unlawful? Michael Brown's killing seems to have been judged as lawful, at least according to the grand jury, so I guess you can skip that one, but how about the rest?

Too, what about that " ... we apparently don't know," from one of your sources, "alternet," which then goes on to cite your other source, "ghetto storm" as if to say that yes we do know. It would seem that in official terms, no, we don't know; there's no official tracking of unlawful killings of unarmed black men by the police. Or do we know? Which is it?

"Ghetto storm" cites killings by three bodies, "police, security guards and vigilantes," but here we are supposedly looking only at killings by the police. You seem to have thrown a few non-police killings into the mix you are using to bolster your loose guess of a killing every three days, not that I would worry about that too much, given your usual level of meticulousness.

Shall I try to guess that if you want to believe, then you "know." If you don't, or if you are somewhat neutral, then you don't. Sort of like Kim Jong Un being a "progressive," some of us seem to "know" stuff that others of us just do not see as real, substantiated by reliable proof, and hence unknowable.

You still haven't given us the name of the unarmed black man, the one who gets shot about [every] three days now. His first name must be "Job," or perhaps "Jonah." Putting this guess of yours in "bold," well, that makes it much more convincing, I guess ....

con-pilot
26th Nov 2014, 20:52
Dang, that unarmed black dude must be getting pretty annoyed being shot three times a day*. :p





* About.

John Hill
26th Nov 2014, 21:30
This is what I wrote..

An extremely rare event! Yeah right. American police shoot an unarmed black man about every week and you tell me these killings are, near as dammit, always lawful.
Since amended to read an unarmed black man about three days!"

Hardly an 'extremely rare event'!

obgraham
26th Nov 2014, 21:34
The fact that these shootings have not been determined to be "unlawful" seems lost on you.

LSM wants me to prove that an event I said was extremely rare, is extremely rare. How the H am I supposed to prove that something that seldom happens, seldom happens?

John Hill
26th Nov 2014, 21:42
LSM wants me to prove that an event I said was extremely rare, is extremely rare. How the H am I supposed to prove that something that seldom happens, seldom happens?

You could start by telling us how often we should expect American police to shoot a black man. If we should expect a police killing of an unarmed black man every hour for example then we could say that twice a week would be rare.

meadowrun
26th Nov 2014, 21:53
Back to the question of why not trial instead of grand jury.


It would have made no difference, it is all going according to the standard formula.


Ferguson - Black American population - 65.04%


Of which a sizeable percentage, regardless of trial or grand jury are/were just waiting for an excuse for free things, destroying stuff and getting out the guns. The FAA declared a no-fly zone over Ferguson because of the amount of shots fired into the sky, on a day when the police say they did not fire any shots during that time period. This segment does not care for Brown or blacks or the judicial process.


Brown was supposedly scheduled to start (college) next month. He was also scheduled to appear in court that month. charged with four serious felonies. Big scheduling conflict. His juvenile record is still sealed but there are initiatives underway to get it un-sealed.


His family, now saying their son was "crucified", appear to be lining up quite nicely for their own main chance, while the step-father and role model yells for the crowd to "burn this bitch down".


Forty odd people were arrested in Ferguson today including one from Berlin.
All these events were totally predictable with some certainty.

Flash2001
26th Nov 2014, 22:28
Who, pray tell, is the bitch in question?

After etc...

PTT
26th Nov 2014, 22:39
You reckon the reason the Police rarely are indicted by a Grand Jury as compared to Non-Police might be they commit far fewer crimes than do all the rest of the Population?I've no idea. Do you have some data which suggests that they commit fewer crimes than the rest of the population when a Grand Jury is not involved? That would give us a control to test against.Add in the fact that even when they do make mistakes and wind up shooting or killing someone there is no "Intent" to do harm thus they do not cross the line into criminal culpability but may only be found liable in a Civil Proceeding.Assuming it is a mistake. I'm not saying it's not, merely that you are assuming it is.

meadowrun - maybe it would have made no difference to some people, but the limpidity of a trial would have made a difference to a good number of others.

rh200
26th Nov 2014, 23:04
Come on PTT, you supposedly know statistics etc. Stop hiding behind bullsh!t technicalities. We know for a fact that groupings in statistics are very prominant due to various reasons. The obvious one being suicide rate in the armed forces versus general public. The general publics could be broken down as well.

The lefts continued use of bullsh!t to hide its failed social policies is the problem

There would be an obvious bias in the results of grand jury results in indictments in relation to police and the general public. In fact there should be a huge difference, if there wasn't I would be extremely worried! Now think why that might be, a very simple sociological mind game.

parabellum
26th Nov 2014, 23:15
When you stop putting it all over the world's media? Lead item on BBC World news this morning, (here in Australia), was all about the police "shooting an unarmed Black man" and the emphasis of the news reader was so obvious. The report that followed was equally biased against the police, giving maximum time to Brown's relatives and support group to scream and shout their irrelevant crap. The BBC are no better than any other media outlet and considering their world wide coverage are just as guilty of, "putting it all over the world's media".

Lord Spandex Masher
26th Nov 2014, 23:18
Yes, they are.

finfly1
27th Nov 2014, 00:13
I think some things might be obvious to most Americans, but not so much, perhaps, to those others.

The police forces in many parts of the US are overwhelmingly Caucasian.

One reason is because in some areas, Caucasians comprise almost 100% of the population in the area. Another is because the screening process which at one time eliminated candidates with arrest records reduced the number of qualified non-white candidates, as did somewhat rigorous literacy tests which the cops need to pass to stay abreast of laws, court cases, ordinances etc.

Police contact is often with individuals who are stressed for one reason or another. Further, their presence is often requested due to a law being broken or public safety being jeopardized. For whatever reason anyone may wish to posit, black people seem to present a disproportionate percentage of individuals whose behavior for one reason or another results in calls for police.

Therefore, white cops interact with black lawbreakers more frequently than might be the case if the proportions of cops and lawbreakers were balanced racially. This increases the likelihood of white cop/black perp interaction.

This does not even begin to address behavioral and attitudinal differences in black communities concerning police function, power, legitimacy etc. Many white children are taught to obey police instructions without comment and file a complaint later if they feel the police over-reacted or behaved improperly. They are taught not to talk back, not to argue, not to run or try to hide and most particularly, white children are often raised to believe that it is a real REAL bad idea to assault a cop and try to wrestle his gun away from him (or her).

Flash2001
27th Nov 2014, 00:19
I listened to some of the George the Greek interview. He asked "Is there anything you could have done to avoid the situation etc". He did not ask "Is there anything M B could have done to avoid etc. etc".

After etc...

G-CPTN
27th Nov 2014, 00:38
The evidence submitted to the Brown Grand Jury seems to exonerate the Police officer, however there is a much more disturbing case IMO - that of the shooting of a black youngster brandishing a replica (BB) pistol that he refused to lay down.

Video evidence has been published of this youth posing and pointing his weapon at passers-by. Non of this video was available to the Police before they attended.

The informant who called 911 explained that the person was on a children's playground, and that the weapon might not be a real gun. None of this information was relayed to the attending officers.

On arrival, the Police allegedly told the person to lay down his weapon, but he, apparently, continued to posture and point the gun at the Police, so they shot him (fatally).

The CCTV images seem to suggest that the shots were fired within a couple of seconds of the cruiser arrival.


Oh, the victim was aged 12 or 13, black and the weapon was a BB gun (without the orange identification usually carried by a 'toy' gun like the one carried by the young man).

IMO, this incident seems to have the potential of greater controversy than the Brown shooting.

con-pilot
27th Nov 2014, 00:47
Oh, the victim was aged 12 or 13

One thing that I have not seen relased is how big was this kid, becasue when I was 12-13 years old I was the size of many adults, over 5'6".

Brown was over six feet tall and weighted 285 pounds, little of it fat.

finfly1
27th Nov 2014, 00:48
If true, the fact that info reported by the caller was not relayed to the responding officer is very disturbing.

Dispatchers are taught rigorously to convey any and ALL information presented by a complainant to the responding officers. It used to be hand written on punch cards, but today is often typed on a computer by the 911 operator and the cop in the car can see that screen on a computer located in the car.

Obviously, the bright colored bands required to be on toy guns are there a reason. This reason.

G-CPTN
27th Nov 2014, 01:03
The call handler asked the informant whether the suspect was black or white.
I suppose that was to identify which person was brandishing the 'gun'.

Boudreaux Bob
27th Nov 2014, 01:36
Dang....Fox News just showed London Plod fighting with Protesters at the US Embassy in London as the Protesters were tearing down Barricades and generally raising Hell.

Now someone please explain to me what a bunch of Dorks in London can possibly use as an excuse for violence in protesting something that happened in Ferguson, Missouri?

Dushan
27th Nov 2014, 01:46
A bunch of students protested in front of the the American Consulate in Toronto yesterday. The probblem was that there were more whites than blacks. The black organizers asked the white people to stand in the back so that news cameras see the black people only, and if approached by reporters to say nothing and to refer them to one of the black people.

con-pilot
27th Nov 2014, 02:20
The call handler asked the informant whether the suspect was black or white.
I suppose that was to identify which person was brandishing the 'gun'.

You really don't need that explained to you, do you?

Really? :rolleyes:

finfly1
27th Nov 2014, 02:26
G-CPTN, in the old days, a description of an individual included race as well as sex, age, height, weight, clothing and anything else unusual.

It is only recently that many news media in the NYC area began forgetting to mention that a violent predator was black. They were usually quick to describe Asian or white subjects completely. Funny that.

con-pilot
27th Nov 2014, 02:29
It is only recently that many news media in the NYC area began forgetting to mention that a violent predator was black. They were usually quick to describe Asian or white subjects completely. Funny that.

Yes, it is called 'race by omission'.

This has even spread to the NBC affiliate here in Oklahoma City, if the color (race) of any suspect is not mentioned, one can rest assured that the suspect is black.

PC at its finest.

Dushan
27th Nov 2014, 02:35
You can also bet that any crime committed in the name of a religion would be in the name of Swedish Protestants, and therefore needs not be mentioned.

sitigeltfel
27th Nov 2014, 04:54
Lead item on BBC World news this morning, (here in Australia), was all about the police "shooting an unarmed Black man" and the emphasis of the news reader was so obvious. The report that followed was equally biased against the police, giving maximum time to Brown's relatives and support group to scream and shout their irrelevant crap. The BBC are no better than any other media outlet and considering their world wide coverage are just as guilty of, "putting it all over the world's media".

Th BBC also showed footage of the police lines yesterday with great emphasis by the reporter that all the officers appeared to be White. He was determined to present the situation as White versus Black, not law and order versus wrongdoing.
He never once mentioned that the officer in charge on the street was Black.

Post #200 by finfly nails it. (http://www.pprune.org/8759414-post200.html)

Carbon Bootprint
27th Nov 2014, 05:01
OK, and the Beeb is now reporting that the family are "crushed (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30214001)" by the verdict.

Whatever. Locked and loaded here.

PTT
27th Nov 2014, 06:04
rh200Stop hiding behind bullsh!t technicalities. We know for a fact that groupings in statistics are very prominant due to various reasons. The obvious one being suicide rate in the armed forces versus general public. The general publics could be broken down as well.Yes, you can make breakdowns, but in order to do so you need controls. Simply saying "this happens" as a correlation is no indication of cause. Your own example of Mil vs Civ suicide rates is a case in point.
There would be an obvious bias in the results of grand jury results in indictments in relation to police and the general public. In fact there should be a huge difference, if there wasn't I would be extremely worried! Now think why that might be, a very simple sociological mind game.There only should be if there were evidence that police actually do carry out fewer crimes outwith those Grand Jury indictments. That's what I mean about controls. Your argument otherwise is circular: "they are police therefore they are indicted fewer times, and that's good because they are police...".

prospector
27th Nov 2014, 06:19
Our news people insist on using the headline "White police officer shoots and kills unarmed black teenager"

Surely someone in the news world could come up with a photo of the police officer and the black teenager together, what was happening when the black teenager was shot, and what other options the police officer had.

I have not seen any details on the physical size of the police officer, but from what I have seen on this and other sites the black teenager was a very big person, but it stirs more emotional angst to keep referring to him as an umarmed black teenager.

Why is the video of him steeling cigars and assaulting the Asian storekeeper not shown every time we hear about this innocent poor black teenager being shot by the nasty white policeman?

Is it because it would then show that this black teenager brought his own fate upon himself?

rh200
27th Nov 2014, 06:38
There only should be if there were evidence that police actually do carry out fewer crimes out with those Grand Jury indictments. That's what I mean about controls. Your argument otherwise is circular: "they are police therefore they are indicted fewer times, and that's good because they are police...".

No they are Police, in the perfect world then every time a police officer killed or shot someone they would be cleared, because thats their job and in the perfect world they only get it right.

On the civvy side in the perfect world its a bit harder, we have to convolve justifiable self defense and criminal intent shootings.

Now in the real world, we know there are some bad cops, we know there are mistakes, we know there are justifiable shootings.

What I'm saying is, the statistics are reflecting what you should expect. Putting an emotional statement syaing, hi look how onesided the statistics are, to show the system is broke, is wrong. 1) because its showing whats expected in a good system, not what your implying it to be. 2) As you say, correlation doesn't imply causation.

So from the view point of the indictment rate is lope sided, hence the system is wrong argument, is incorrect in itself.

If I was using that as a rough indicator, it would say, nothing wrong with the police force in their shooting statistics. Now that said there is a lot underneath, and that doesn't say that there is not a systematic bias clearing the masses of "evil:ugh:" police that we obviously (sarcasim) employ.

Its just unlikely, so unless someone can come up with something saying other wise, I believe "nothing to se here move along". Another words do a root cause analysis of the problem.

VP959
27th Nov 2014, 07:30
There is a core problem, both sides of the Atlantic, with over-sensitivity to mentioning race when talking about crime, and with there being a higher number of detected crimes of some types being perpetrated by black individuals than white.

That's not a racist comment, it's an observation that was made to me some time ago by a policeman acquaintance (who happens to be black, of West African origin).

There are some possible reasons for this that go back 50 years or more. There is a greater proportion of black people here in the UK (and I suspect, in the US) that come from a relatively poor background and social class than whites.

It seems that people from a poor or deprived background are more likely to commit some types of crime, and are less likely to be able to gain the education needed to become police officers, totally irrespective of the colour of their skin or their ethnicity. So if you have a deprived black area you can be pretty sure that the statistics are going to show that more crimes of some types are committed by blacks than whites and there will be more white police officers than blacks.

This isn't racism, it just reflects the social imbalance in that area.

PTT
27th Nov 2014, 08:13
What I'm saying is, the statistics are reflecting what you should expect.That doesn't validate your expectation without a further confirmation of the statistics. Intuition isn't evidence, and a single statistic which is in line with your beliefs is no more valid than a single statistic which is not.
Putting an emotional statement syaing, hi look how onesided the statistics are, to show the system is broke, is wrong.Good thing nobody did that, then. All I did was point out that there is a difference: I've implied nothing about the system itself. What I asked for was confirmation that the large disparity is reflected in other areas.So from the view point of the indictment rate is lope sided, hence the system is wrong argument, is incorrect in itself.I didn't say that. What I said was there is a lopsided rate of Grand Jury indictments in favour of police (which there undoubtedly is) and asked if there was evidence which supported it as unbiased. I've not said it is a conscious bias, merely that it might be and I would like to test that hypothesis. What might be a useful comparator is the rate of acquittal or case dismissal in trials in states where there is no Grand Jury system.I believe "nothing to se here move along".And you may well be right, but you are wrong to not ask the question to validate (or otherwise) that belief.

chuks
27th Nov 2014, 08:14
Michael Brown was a good boy who would never do anything against anybody, says she. (6' 5", 285-pound boy? "Who you calling 'boy,' Lady?")

So, how did he come to be shown on CCTV doing a strong-arm robbery of a convenience store? Too, numerous sworn eye-witness reports to the grand jury state that he was fighting, struggling, whatever, with the policeman who shot him. Then there are the pictures of the policeman's minor injuries, seemingly sustained in the fight or struggle.

Something does not add up here, between what the grieving mother has to say and what the evidence shows. Although "She be black," and therefore presumed to be some sort of victim of our racist society, I do not think that woman is telling the unvarnished truth.

G-CPTN
27th Nov 2014, 09:47
There are many cases (not involving people of colour) where suspects of serious crimes (including murder) are described by their parents as 'innocent' and other eulogies that declare what a well-behaved individual the accused is.

Gertrude the Wombat
27th Nov 2014, 10:08
it is a real REAL bad idea to assault a cop and try to wrestle his gun away from him
Like I said, not enough guns - if you give all the children enough guns they won't need to try to take them from the cops.

Go Smoke
27th Nov 2014, 10:16
It's all about the spin.
Remember this one....

Afterburner w/Bill Whittle: The Lynching - YouTube

Boudreaux Bob
27th Nov 2014, 13:14
Good Men with Guns....due to the Second Amendment.

The Irregular Militia Deploys To Ferguson | Opinion - Conservative (http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2014/11/the-irregular-militia-deploys-to-ferguson-2939764.html)

Thomas coupling
27th Nov 2014, 14:48
Especially for you Boudreaux Bob:

http://www.gunpolicy.org/

In 2011 - 32000 gun deaths in the good old Us of A.
In the same year - 146 deaths in the UK. [A country with a population 5 times smaller than yours].
Pro rata - not even in the same galaxy buddy. Cops and guns in this country are few and far between. The public are proud of that fact and so too are the cops.

Like Alcoholics, Obese people, people with mental issues - these individuals see themselves (from within) - as normal when confronted. "What's the problem?"

And so too the same psychology exists with Americans and guns. They have been brought up and taught to believe this is their "right" to bear arms.

For the nnnnth time: You reap what you sow. How the US can call themselves civilised when cases identical to this are now arising on a monthly basis.

For the record: This cop in Ferguson wnet on to say:

I wasn't fightened - didnt have time...my training took over. It was the first time I had ever fired my handgun in anger.......
He fired 12 rounds. 6 missed the target! the final bullet entered the top of his head from above and exited through the bottom of his chin. The guy was stationary and on his knees when the coup de grace was delivered.

Training took over???????

Boudreaux - you can now add me to your peanut gallery (again) if it makes the pain in your head go away :E

con-pilot
27th Nov 2014, 15:04
In 2011 - 32000 gun deaths in the good old Us of A.
In the same year - 146 deaths in the UK. [A country with a population 5 times smaller than yours].
Pro rata - not even in the same galaxy buddy. Cops and guns in this country are few and far between. The public are proud of that fact and so too are the cops.



OH WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nobody has ever posted this before!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

gsky
27th Nov 2014, 15:15
Does that make it any the less valid or true?
Perhaps its appropriate to put things in a comparable context!

West Coast
27th Nov 2014, 15:23
Thomas

Is the number of 146 an acceptable one to you?

If so,why? If not, why are you posting on an anonymous board about a foreign country when there's work to be done in blighty?

West Coast
27th Nov 2014, 15:32
Murders in the UK (http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/murders-fatal-violence-uk.html)

When y'all get your panties in a wad about the US, remember everyone of the murders committed in the UK. I would expect your focus to remain overseas given the ostrich tendencies.

Nick Riviera
27th Nov 2014, 15:40
Thomas

The guy was stationary and on his knees when the coup de grace was delivered.


Would you care to present your evidence for this assertion?

GTM

Now we have your flippant remark about guns out of the way, would you like to give us your opinion on the shooting based on the evidence that has been presented?

Let me stress, shooting an unarmed man posing no threat is wrong. That scenario does not apply in this case. All of the evidence points to this being a justifiable shooting by Officer Wilson. Those of us who would rather ignore this and use the situation to promote our hatred of America and all things American should be held in contempt.

There are plenty of us non-Americans who are prepared to look at the facts and not be swayed by the media, of which the BBC in particular has been disgraceful in its reporting (no surprise there), nor the words of your President who has shown himself to be influenced by race above all else.

G-CPTN
27th Nov 2014, 16:13
the words of your President who has shown himself to be influenced by race above all else.Well, he's not going to alienate his brothers . . .

West Coast
27th Nov 2014, 16:32
Well, he's not going to alienate his brothers .

Whut..a crack in the liberal euro solidarity with the President? You guys gave him a Nobel and a helleva warm welcome in Germany. I'm hoping he emigrates to euroland after his tenure here given the love affair of past y'awl have with him.

con-pilot
27th Nov 2014, 17:09
Does that make it any the less valid or true?
Perhaps its appropriate to put things in a comparable context!

As 62% of the deaths by gun are self-inflicted (suicide), that does change things quite a bit.

But hey, go with what you've got.

Of course if Thomas had bother to keep track of these never ending, ‘You Yanks are stupid gun nuts’ threads, he would already know that. :rolleyes:

west lakes
27th Nov 2014, 17:54
Though the circumstances are confused by all sorts of input this does concern me

For the record: This cop in Ferguson went on to say:

I wasn't frightened - didn't have time...my training took over.


Sorry but that seems to suggest that training is to draw and fire when threatened, that is a concern for some reason.

Dushan
27th Nov 2014, 18:31
T


Sorry but that seems to suggest that training is to draw and fire when threatened, that is a concern for some reason.

How so? Is the cop not entitle do go home to his family, after his shift? If he is threatened he has every right to protect himself. That is why he is given a gun. To use it in case, he, one of his colleagues, or a member of general public is threatened. The phrase "to serve and protect" does not mean "stop, or I shall yell 'stop', again".

That is exactly what he was trained to do. To use his sidearm until the threat is eliminated.

What do you think he should have done after a 290 lb man punched him, attempted to take his gun away, and charged him?

con-pilot
27th Nov 2014, 18:44
What do you think he should have done after a 290 lb man punched him, attempted to take his gun away, and charged him?

Well shoot, that's easy. What he should have done was;

Yell "Stop, or I shall yell Stop again."

"If you continue to beat me, I shall be forced to write your name down in my book."

west lakes
27th Nov 2014, 18:53
How so? Is the cop not entitle do go home to his family, after his shift? If he is threatened he has every right to protect himself. That is why he is given a gun. To use it in case, he, one of his colleagues, or a member of general public is threatened.

Ah so that is their only form of personal protection, no pepper spray, no night stick, just a gun? If that is the case fine

To use it in case, he, one of his colleagues, or a member of general public is threatened.

So that is the only option, if someone is threatened with, say, physical violence like punching or kicking, just use the gun

Understand that I'm not attempting to criticize just better my knowledge

Andu
27th Nov 2014, 19:15
After the policeman's address was published in the New York newspaper, how long before his house suffers a mysterious, accidental fire?

But I suppose that presupposes that the people we see robbing and burning local businesses in Ferguson under the wafer thin disguise of outrage over the killing of this quaintly-labelled 290 lb 'teenager' have ever read a ***ing newspaper to learn where the cop lives.

If that house does burn down, or any other 'incident' occurs in or near that house, I would think there'd be more than one ambulance-chasing lawyer out there willing to sue the publisher of that newspaper for millions.

TowerDog
27th Nov 2014, 19:18
A gun seems to work to stop a threat if you are being attacked.
It would also be a good reason not to attack a cop, but some people are unable to draw conclusions and therefor end up like Brown, or in jail...:sad:

Romeo Oscar Golf
27th Nov 2014, 19:21
My son is an armed policeman. If he was faced with the same situation as occurred in Ferguson, I would expect him to act with the same professionalism and result. If the parents of the deceased scumbag wished to discuss the matter, then I would happily oblige them.

11Fan
27th Nov 2014, 19:30
The guy was stationary and on his knees when the coup de grace was delivered.

Only in Al Sharpton's dreams. :hmm:

So that is the only option, if someone is threatened with, say, physical violence like punching or kicking, just use the gun.

Use the level of force necessary to address the threat. Given that the Officer's sidearm was already unholstered (thanks to the now dead guy, who by the way, according to some statistics had already been shot twice that week), the sidearm seemed the reasonable course of action.

west lakes
27th Nov 2014, 19:34
Use the level of force necessary to address the threat. Given that the Officer's sidearm was already unholstered (thanks to the now dead guy, who by the way, according to some statistics had already been shot twice that week), the sidearm seemed the reasonable course of action.

That makes sense, thanks

G-CPTN
27th Nov 2014, 19:44
It seems that the media have misrepresented this young man.

“Everything happen for a reason,” he posted to Facebook the night before he was shot. “Just start putting 2 n 2 together. You’ll see it.”

“He was quiet. He didn’t have too many friends,”

“Just two weeks ago, he received the Lord Jesus as his savior.”

13 Things You Didn’t Know About Mike Brown. (http://styleblazer.com/345997/mike-brown-things-you-didnt-know-about-him/)

Dushan
27th Nov 2014, 19:45
Ah so that is their only form of personal protection, no pepper spray, no night stick, just a gun? If that is the case fine



So that is the only option, if someone is threatened with, say, physical violence like punching or kicking, just use the gun

Understand that I'm not attempting to criticize just better my knowledge

You got that right.

Pepper spray and stick - you have to get too close to be safe. In this case the perp was aggravated enough and showed willingness to use brutal force when punching and attempting to take the gun away.

If the assailant is outnumbered by police they may try to subdue him, but always taking into consideration their safety first. If he is armed, in any way, he is going down.

obgraham
27th Nov 2014, 19:55
So evidently we've got protesters against police brutality, including, inexplicably, in the UK. Chanting "Black lives matter".

Too bad the black population of places like Chicago, New York, DC don't happen to agree.

Romeo Oscar Golf
27th Nov 2014, 19:58
It seems that the media have misrepresented this young man.

Really!!



Oh bogger!!!!! You're fishing and I've been caught.

rh200
27th Nov 2014, 20:33
Thomas

The guy was stationary and on his knees when the coup de grace was delivered.

Sorry, that comment seems to just wrong according to the evidence, you could even class it as deliberate misinformation.

This is the reason we have riots, this is the reason innocent people get there business burnt down, this is the reason actual innocent people get killed in riots etc as a result of these things. Deliberate misinformation for political purposes.

There was only on victim in this saga at the start, the police officer, Michael Brown was a in the process of committing a crime. It has been deliberately set up to make Michael Brown as this innocent victim.

It is slowly coming light he was just another criminal violent thug. America does have a problem, one of those problems is the media, until it can come up with a way to compensate for the effects of media, things will only get worse.

fitliker
27th Nov 2014, 23:50
There is a lot of blame to go around.
How does a 300 lb military aged male with a history of violence and facing four felony charges get to walk about free ? Not even an ankle bracelet ?
Maybe if the courts had of incarcerated him for the four felonies he was alleged to be charged with he might still be alive today.
Perhaps, that is what they mean when they say he was denied Justice.

11Fan
28th Nov 2014, 00:13
As comedian Richard Prior used to say regarding the larger black population in most prisons, "Ya'all say ya want justice, well, look around and that's what you see. Just us."

parabellum
28th Nov 2014, 00:27
The Police were a lot closer than I thought AND the video of what the kid was doing before the police arrived put a different slant on it.

He doesn't look 12 and walking up and down the street waving the gun around :rolleyes:

http://media.smh.com.au/national/sel...d-6031969.html (http://media.smh.com.au/national/selections/video-shows-us-police-shoot-12yearold-6031969.html)

rh200
28th Nov 2014, 00:51
Who is 'professor' from Michael Brown autopsy? - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/26/health/ferguson-michael-brown-pathologist-credentials/index.html?hpt=hp_c3)

You really couldn't make this sh!t up:ugh:

con-pilot
28th Nov 2014, 00:58
13 Things You Didn’t Know About Mike Brown.

Wow, the guy was a friggin saint, a saint I tell you.

So who was the arsehole thug that strong armed the store owner?

Couldn't have been Brown, he was a friggin saint!

I mean he was the “oldest sibling”, that alone bestows sainthood on one.


What a bunch of crap.

fitliker
28th Nov 2014, 01:38
Is slander protected under free speech ?

Is the publisher responsible for the seditious lies in their online publication?


Tatayawa Yomary should stick to writing about nail polish for men or have someone fact check what she writes before she hits the submit button. Since Tatayawa has failed to check any facts before posting.The publisher should be given the opportunity to explain that particular piece of sedition in court.


The police lawyer should sue, sue ,sue ,all those liars and seditious troublemakers who threatened the peace of that community by spreading the lies of the false witness's who said the gentle giant was shot in the back.

Boudreaux Bob
28th Nov 2014, 02:06
TC,

Do use true Facts and not the ones you purport to be true will you.

The Perp was on his Feet and Charging the Police Officer with his Head down much as one would be contorted in a Scrum. The final Round entered the TOP of his Head and exited from his Chin then entered his Chest.....that in English indicates a Vertical Path through the Head from TOP to BOTTOM.

He was not on his Knees.

He was mobile, and engaged in very aggressive behavior when the Killing Shot was fired.

Deal with it Dude....it was a Justifiable Shooting.

Do try to grasp the concept of what our Second Amendment , Laws, and Supreme Court has to say about Gun Ownership, Possession, and Use before you try to tell us about our misconceived notions re those topics.

We don't give a fig what you think about it.

It is our Country, Our Laws, and that is just how it is.

You don't have to like it, and you don't have to come to this Country.

If you do....you shall abide by our Laws just as we do (except for maybe our current President and Attorney General maybe).

Perhaps you might do a bit of research before you go telling us how we should think.

Gun Violence rates are down, Gun Attacks on Police are down, gun ownership is up, Murder rates are down, Gun ownership rates are up. Concealed Weapon Permits are up.....Crime rates are down.

Yes far too many people die from Gun violence....but then with no Guns the UK has about 730 gun deaths if you adjust the numbers for population size. (Assuming the other number quoted is accurate). How do you explain that if your Gun Laws are effective? Are not too many people being killed in the UK due to Gun Violence too?

Krystal n chips
28th Nov 2014, 03:43
" but then with no guns the UK has around 730 gun deaths "

Really ?.....

Maths for beginners...... in a nice, simple to read, tabulated format.


Murders in the UK (http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/murders-fatal-violence-uk.html)

West Coast
28th Nov 2014, 03:52
KnC

It says deaths not murders. Have you figured in suicides before you posted?

Krystal n chips
28th Nov 2014, 04:29
West Coast,

It was remiss of me not to include other data

I made the error of assuming the data the link provided would dispute the seemingly random figure of 730.

I also forgot that semantics and splitting hairs to defend an indefensible argument would invariably feature in any response.

This may help...

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom

Feel free to use cumulative totals which may result in the alleged 730 being proven to be correct.

West Coast
28th Nov 2014, 04:42
A little touchy. Just trying to figure out the difference in numbers.

PTT
28th Nov 2014, 04:56
Gun Violence rates are down, Gun Attacks on Police are down, gun ownership is up, Murder rates are down, Gun ownership rates are up. Concealed Weapon Permits are up.....Crime rates are down. Correlation is not causation. And that's without even mentioning the non-validity of snapshotted statistics as an analytical technique.
Yes far too many people die from Gun violence....but then with no Guns the UK has about 730 gun deaths if you adjust the numbers for population size.I'm not sure where you're getting 730 from. 2011 (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom) saw 146 gun deaths in the UK and 32,163 gun deaths in the US (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states). That's 0.23 per 100,000 people in the UK and 10.3 per 100,000 people in the US.
I guess you could be rounding up the UK population (~64m) to the same size as that of the US (~320m), which is an unusual method of normalisation, but even if that is the case the 730 number is just 2.2% of the 32,163 in the US.

It's not particularly useful, though, since death rates by other means in the UK are higher. The overall murder rate in the UK is still only about 20% of that in the US, but that simply means that a higher proportion of murders takes place with other means. Suicide rates in our two countries are about the same, meaning our population uses means other than guns to take their own lives. Gun deaths/killings migrate to other means in many cases.

My suspicion is that the murder rate is higher in the US at least partly due to the ready availability of guns. The ability to kill someone very quickly which a gun bestows is something which puts lives at the mercy of tempers. When only slower methods of killing are more readily available then tempers have time to cool again before the point of no return is reached. I have no evidence for this: it is merely a hypothesis.How do you explain that if your Gun Laws are effective?How do I explain why our gun death rate is almost a 50th of yours if our gun laws are so effective? Is that your question?
Are not too many people being killed in the UK due to Gun Violence too?Yes, they are. I'd say too many die by violence in general. Much like with (warning: aviation related!) flight safety accident rates the aim is to reach zero but it will never happen in practice. All you can do is try to get the number as low as possible within the context, that context being the rates of other comparable countries (e.g. OECD). The UK does pretty well in that respect. Now we have to work on lowering the murder rate in general.

I've said it before, but the US is a very different place to the UK, perhaps to the rest of the OECD. There is a huge cultural divide: there is more racial tension, more intergenerational poverty in ghettos and in some rural areas, more a culture of mistrusting government, more a culture of violence than in the other OECD countries. Comparing the US with other countries doesn't pain the US favourably in terms of violent deaths, but it's not a particularly useful comparison either.