???

[CO. Hoosier]

The side show

was both ways. "He was such a good boy" is standard issue for minority kids who end up dead or in jail. How many pictures of Brown in his graduation gown did you see? It is no mystery why the media latched onto Brown's background--all aspects of it. But I didn't hear or read anyone say his background was evidence of Wilson's guilt or innocence.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Some people did argue...

that the actions at the convenience store weighed on Wilson's guilt, including you. We had quite a few disagreements over that.

But that's a legitimate legal argument. I didn't agree with you, but I could see the logic.

His background, as you say, is different, and irrelevant.

I don't recall anyone saying that Wilson was "innocent" because Brown was a gangbanger. But a lot of people thought it was important that everyone know that Brown was scum, and that his death was less sad because of it.

Edit: this post in this very thread illustrates what I'm talking about.

Edit 2: Actually, I can think of at least two posters on this forum who did offer Brown's background as evidence of Wilson's innocence. I don't remember someone going that far in the mass media. It's always more subtle in that context.

goat


This post was edited on 4/8 9:07 PM by TheOriginalHappyGoat

 

[Rockport Zebra]

Good, I hope enjoys the Yard.

But we have a cop culture issue in our country. They all need to be wired. In my day we called them Pigs.
This post was edited on 4/8 10:17 PM by Rockport Zebra

 

[Rockport Zebra]

Maybe running is not a reason to be shot.


On foot or in a car. Tail light out, behind on child support equals a long stretch in jail. Would I run? No. Would I be indignant and talk shit. "You damn right I would". MTOTF is just showing his radical roots.
This post was edited on 4/8 10:30 PM by Rockport Zebra

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

What double standard?

I am having a hard time discovering this double standard you speak of. Care to explain?

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

This kind of stuff has always happened. . .

And it's always been covered up. I've seen it first hand. Cops are always presumed innocent and always defended to the hilt by people who don't know anything about the situation other than it involves a cop. Like it's impossible for a cop to just be an asshole on a power trip. I hate to break it to people, but cops are humans who can have bad days and take it out on people. They have a gun, a badge, and 50 cop friends who say they can. They can be assholes, racists, and sexists just like everyone else. A lot of people think cop = good person who tries to do the right thing.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Sure, and I've never seen any of the liberals complain about Bush. . .

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[NPT]

C'mon goat

You know Wilson and Martin were portrayed as angels by some people. I read that over and over. Of course that doesn't determine if they are guilty of anything but it would lead any normal person to believe they were definitely capable of doing such acts.

 

[Ladoga]

Let me start by saying

in the South Carolina case, from the video and what little we actually know, that cop appears to be as wrong as wrong can be and is appropriately charges with a homicide - whatever degree or level it ends up.

Now - I WAS a cop, long ago, in an inner city. I made 1700 felony arrests in 7 1/2 years. It was a busy time. I never fired my weapon in the line of duty in making those arrest and the 1300 + misdemeanor arrests (traffic not counted and I did VERY little of that).

There are three levels here.

1. State law (sometimes federal if there is extreme circumstances like civil rights violation) determines the circumstance under which the use of deadly force may occur.
2. Department regulations and associated training determine deadly force policy within state law for that agency.
3. Personal conscience and serious advance consideration.

You can train on the law and your department regulations to the tee.

But, if you are going to live the rest of your life with the outcome of your split second decision, you had better consider long and carefully the circumstance within the other limitations when you will NOT use deadly force.

Back then, it was within the law and rules to use deadly force to apprehend a known fleeing felon. I would only have done that if he was, in fleeing from me by any means, attacking or endangering another human or was the perpetrator fleeing a murder scene. I decided that long before I ever encountered the circumstance. Then it was an easy decision not to shoot at people for "fleeing". The only decision to use deadly force I ever "pre-made" was that in a gun battle or to prevent a threat of death to myself or another, I would willingly have used deadly force to prevent the perpetrator(s) from continuing. I never fired the weapon. I was on the scene of 3 police officers killed by gunfire but shortly after the battle. Two of those three perpetrators died at the hands of police officers at the scene.

These are hard decisions. I always was concerned that in smaller jurisdictions, officers didn't encounter the day to day activity that kept them skillful enough to have the confidence to be patient. I also thought, and think about the South Carolina incident, that some officers never face confrontational circumstances and thus, don't have experience acting in fear. Courage is NOT the absence of fear. It is doing your duty in spite of the fear.

I'm worried that the South Carolina officer didn't understand how to handle that and was overcome by fear - however inappropriate that may have been.

If a police officer tells you he isn't afraid or is never afraid, he's stacking on the BS or crazy as a bed bug.

Its a nasty world out there. Unfortunately, not everyone who wants to be an officer is suited to become a good one - though nearly all are. Just not every single one. The ones who do harm along with the officers who give their lives are the only ones we read about.
This post was edited on 4/9 8:43 AM by Ladoga

 

[Ladoga]

There is a basic

that should be followed by law enforcement personnel

NEVER fire a weapon at someone if you don't have a valid reason to kill them.

Any weapon which could - under the most extreme circumstance cause death.

It ain't Hollywood out there, folks.

Its real.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

No It Wasn't

People here said his background was a reason not to protest him as a martyr, and to maybe wait until the facts were all in before deeming all things cop a lie and all things Michael Brown the truth, but I don't recall a single post (that I read) saying "he was a thug and therefore deserved to be shot." That's a stretch and a half.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Is it training that needs improved, culture, or what?

Shooting someone running away in the back cannot be acceptable unless there is a clear and present danger. I get the officer had an adrenaline rush, but that is what training should help in.

Plus the officer was allowed back to the body to drop something. The first thing responding officers should have done was remove him. Set up some perimeter he could not enter. If it is SOP to allow the police officer access, that needs changed.

There was a shooting in SC last year where the guy told the cop his license and insurance card were in the car. The cop told him to get them, when he did the cop shot him. Now, the guy moved normally, he did not painstakingly slowly turn and reach in. But he was complying with what he was told and I am sure has never trained for this scenario. The officer I am sure had, or should have.

The problem is we are creating too many contact points. So much of policing has become the idea of stopping for any reason and see what you find. The recent case was a broken taillight. Andy Griffith would have pulled up next to him and spoke out the window asking him if he knew it was out and to replace it ASAP.

Of course in a lot of communities, fines have become a major revenue stream. That also needs corrected.

Police have a tough job, but I believe we have made it tougher. If we are going to have these small infractions (seatbelts,taillights for two examples), let's just start with a friendly "hey, you need to be in compliance". I am sure the DB can indicate a taillight was reported out two weeks ago, then a stop becomes better imo.

Maybe training needs improved. Processes certainly do, that officer waa allowed back to the body. A case exists in Columbus where a guy supposedly committed suicide. His wife and children were home when he allegedly shot himself. One of the detectives who handled the crime scene is related to the wife. Maybe nothing nefarious happened, I just know many friends in Columbus have been up in arms over this. Why an officer would not immediately recuse himself is amazing. And if other officers knew, why they didn't insist is inexcusable.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

It Seems To Me That Chasing a Guy In a Car Is MORE Likely

to end up in injury to the public, but that is not my point.

I'm asking why "a police officer killing a criminal who is fleeing in a car" "seems" to be less controversial than "a police officer killing a criminal running away on foot."

This case shows the "power" of a video shwoing a police officer shooting a guy running away.
But if all we do is have the guy hop in a car, start to flee, and have the cop fire those shots at the car, but still kill the guy, it "seems" like that would be less contoversial.

Maybe its the idea that shooting at a car is less "personal" than shooting at a person's body?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I will take the midpoint

I don't think anyone was happy, but I think there was a some of "well, he was a thug so it isn't a big deal". A few lines down, mjvcaj takes that position on this incident. I think others did in the Brown case.

 

[Collett_Park]

LOL. Nicely done. *

*

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I don't understand your point.

When someone is killed by the cops, what kind of a person he was is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. It doesn't matter if Mike Brown was in a gang. It doesn't matter if Walter Scott owed child support. Cops don't get to murder people. When people feel the need to bring up the bad things victims have done, it can only be for one reason: to imply that perhaps the victim deserved death.

And it was a major part of the Brown/Wilson conversation, certain posters' selective memory notwithstanding.

goat