Axulus
Veteran Member
It's not illegal to not return to the SUV and call for back up. The law is all that matters as far as the criminal proceedings are concerned.
-
Features
Ferguson Live Feed
- Thread starter NobleSavage
- Start date
It's not illegal to not return to the SUV and call for back up. The law is all that matters as far as the criminal proceedings are concerned.
Derec
Contributor
Are you in agreement with Maria Chappelle-Nadal who said in a radio interview that the claims that Brown robbed a store were "lies"? Do you also think that he isn't guilty of assaulting a police officer? If no on both, what "trumped up charges" do you think would be filed against him?
Derec
Contributor
I think it's the lefties who get hardons for the radiclism of the 60s.
That's not the way the world works. If he had retreated I would be calling for him to be fired.
I think it's the imbeciles who get hard ons for whoever has power using it against those who don't. YUMMY!
Derec
Contributor
It's not about power per se, but illegitimate power. Rioters who torch cars and buildings or loot businesses have illegitimate power over their victims. Ostensibly peaceful protesters who block interstates have illegitimate power over motorists who just want to drive home. Thugs who rob stores have illegitimate power over business owners and customers.
Sabine Grant
Member
NS' point was not that it was "illegal". His point was about Officer Wilson stating "there was no other alternative" during his interview. The reality is that there was an alternative and one he chose to not rely on. He made a choice. The choice led to the death of an individual who could have been spared from being fatally shot.
When cops make choices where they become executioners and alternatives do exist, it is a very serious issue. Yes, the alternative existed for Officer Wilson to remove himself from whichever threat he perceived. He was in no way cornered. In no way he had no escape route. He was dealing with an unarmed individual.The bit about his seeing Brown reaching in his pocket and he feared it could be a gun makes no sense. If Brown had been carrying a firearm, since he was portrayed by Officer Wilson as the aggressor during the struggle in the car, Brown only needed to use his own gun to harm Wilson. Since according to Officer Wilson, he was such a frightening character at the time of the struggle and Wilson feared for his life right then. I guess the supposed/presumed/suspected of possibly reaching for a gun in his pocket Michael Brown was not so threatening after all if he carried a weapon and did not use it then against Officer Wilson in the previous struggle.
Further, Officer Wilson had already called for back up. He only needed to remove himself from the perceived path of Brown who already had been shot several times. Did he confuse him for Rasputin maybe? Or maybe was that a bravado motivated choice on Officer Wilson's part while "doing his job"?
We will never know, will we? But something must change in the way some LEOs will make their choice. More training is necessary. They need to be reminded that the conscious use of lethal force against an unarmed person has to be the ultimate last resort. Officer Wilson had to know that inflicting a shot at the head meant FATAL. Only when all other alternatives have been exhausted, a fatal shot is justified. They need to be reminded that the disproportionate use of force must not be tolerated. When you have one party with a firearm and the other without, the potential for the disproportionate use of force is elevated.
This entire ordeal is heart breaking. Brown could still be alive today and learning the lesson that you never assault a cop. Officer Wilson would have spared a life had he made a different choice. No matter how robotic and composed and focused he came across in his interview, (again, product of the coaching) Officer Wilson knows he terminated a life.
This is an amusing response.
The power to kill people with impunity is illegitimate power. The power to fix an indictment hearing is illegitimate power. The power that police have to hurt, kill, harass, and intimidate citizens with weapons and threats of fucking up your life is backed up by a justice system that leans, illegitimately, in the favor of law enforcement (especially white ones).
You remind me of a man I know who liked to tease the shit out of his 4 year old, and when the child got upset and expressed his frustration with "shut up! stop it!" he got a beating.
If you had witnessed this yourself, you would no doubt support the father. Who did that kid think he was to use his power of voice to say something so rude to his father! He needed to learn that he couldn't just yell out whatever he wanted at people with power, right? So what if the father made some mistakes in his parenting. Not all cops are bad... I mean fathers.
George S
Veteran Member
I get the vibe from the TV interview that our officer is mostly telling the truth. For the sake of argument let us accept this story.
The altercation in the car happened as described. The Giant fled, stopped and turned some distance away, built up a head of steam rushing back at the officer who stopped that rush at the ten yard line.
I don’t yet quite see — ten yards — a man who is shot — even a large fearsome man — known to be unarmed — (did I mention he was already shot?) — can’t be avoided non-fatally? Even when fearing for one’s life if he completes the charge. Could he keep his cool enough to keep saying “Stop or I’ll Shoot!” until he gets two yards away? Should we expect that from a police officer? Apparently not, according to this Grand Jury.
The altercation in the car happened as described. The Giant fled, stopped and turned some distance away, built up a head of steam rushing back at the officer who stopped that rush at the ten yard line.
I don’t yet quite see — ten yards — a man who is shot — even a large fearsome man — known to be unarmed — (did I mention he was already shot?) — can’t be avoided non-fatally? Even when fearing for one’s life if he completes the charge. Could he keep his cool enough to keep saying “Stop or I’ll Shoot!” until he gets two yards away? Should we expect that from a police officer? Apparently not, according to this Grand Jury.
George S
Veteran Member
I keep trying to imagine the days when the police were unarmed except for billy clubs. Perhaps Officer Friendly could have pretended his pistol was a billy club and subdued our massive miscreant. Would that be too much to expect?
Could he dance away out of arm's reach, all the time saying stuff like, "Down on the ground," and similar cop-talk? Would that be too much to expect?
Could he dance away out of arm's reach, all the time saying stuff like, "Down on the ground," and similar cop-talk? Would that be too much to expect?
laughing dog
Contributor
Because Brown would most likely still be alive? Wow.
barbos
Contributor
I think this is what usually happens, we just don't hear about that. In rare cases shit happens and we all hear about it.
Irony is, Brown may have been expecting (from his own and probably extensive experience) that ordinary cop-talk, little fight, few days in prison and then release.
Sabine Grant
Member
IMO the issue is when illegitimate power is institutionalized. When there is a system who supports it and benefits of immunity. Those who are subjected to such institution have no choice but rebel against it. Throughout the history of mankind, such systems grant themselves immunity from accountability.
But I agree with you that the violence which results from the rebellion will produce innocent victims. Further it cannot be conducive for those victims to support the parties who rebel against the said institutionalized illegitimate power.
The perception at this point is that the police force benefits of immunity from accountability. Whether it is a consciously organized immunity is still in question. But the party who can and should scrutinize whether there is such self granted immunity plaguing its structures and in order to earn back the trust of the people is the higher hierarchy in the police force.
The lack of transparency and the inconsistencies in the Chief of Police's statements to the media ,following the shooting, could only aggravate the pre existing sense that this police department was susceptible to protect Officer Wilson from accountability. Then of course the Governor's refusal to appoint a different Prosecutor to the case despite of the very vocal expression of distrust from the local community. All the symptoms of distrust were present.
George S
Veteran Member
No armed uniformed police at all these days? Only plainclothesmen possibly armed?
What is the parallel minority group policed by traditional Old Bill? Same problems? Prosecution in bed with the defense because, after all, Law and Order are a team?
George S
Veteran Member
And betrayal of trust is the deepest social sin.
Derec
Contributor
I'm here to fuckin' amuse you?
Not necessarily. Police officers are authorized to use lethal force "with impunity" under certain circumstances.
Presenting all the evidence is not "fixing" a hearing.
There are real examples of police injustice. Plenty of them. Police officer killing a thug who attacked him is not one of them.
Are you saying Ferguson protesters/rioters collectively have the mental age of a four year old or are you saying Brown had?
Derec
Contributor
And I do not see that happening here. Surely there must be better causes than a guy who robs a store and attacks a cop.
Police has no immunity from accountability. There was an investigation. Evidence was collected, witnesses questioned. Evidence was presented to a grand jury and no true bill was returned.
Just because the mob didn't like the outcome doesn't mean that it was illegitimately arrived at.
There is no immunity for police. However, since police are authorized to use deadly force as part of their job the standards used are different than for a civilian. A civilian is not expected to pursue and confront a suspect, but police officers are. In fact, it would be dereliction of duty not to. Yet people have criticized Wilson for not disengaging from the suspect.
Given that following the conclusion of the grand jury process all the evidence including witness statements was released to the public I fail to see how charges of "lack of transparency" hold water.
Nope. I'm saying they are human beings. Systematic bullying will end up in people fighting back. To then punish and abuse them for fighting back is pure, imbecilic sadism that requires a lack of awareness and us vs. them compartmentalization. That's the mentality running through law enforcement all over the country. People will continue to fight back, and bullies will continue to injure, kill, and blame the victims.