TheGuvnor Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 yep cause a grand jury decided not to press charges against the officer I dont know what you people think here but I would do the same. There was a video where you could clearly see that the guy did rob a store and assault the clerk and as far as the report goes he also attacked the police because one of them was busted up. I actually hate these things same as I did read about the notorious gangster Tookie Williams who was the founder of Crips? Why would people riot not to sentence guy like that to death? He could blooded killed 3 people. Guys like him should be executed right on the spot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 I don't see how any of that is relevant, unless you're willing to admit that the police do not exist to enforce the law or justice, they exist to deliver retribution and vengeance. Even if he committed a robbery and assaulted both the clerk and a police officer, the law does not allow the Police to shoot a fleeing suspect in the back, especially unarmed. This is murder, it isn't self defense or collaring the crook, it is straight out intent to kill another person who is not presenting an immediate threat to the officer. Whether or not he can be deemed as a threat to the public, to be put down like a rabid dog, is another question but one I am not sure was the topic of debate in this instance? @TheGuvnor - The reason you don't just execute 'guy like that' right on the spot is multifaceted: a) How do you define 'that guy' How do you ensure they have done something wrong? c) What happens if you get the wrong guy? d) What happens if you hit innocent bystanders? e) What level of crime becomes executable? The list goes on. I am a sucker for due process in the justice system because, as PBR mentioned, the system is inherently biased and corrupt against the poor and the poorly represented. I won't say minorities, because the super rich are a minority and they're hardly prejudiced against by the system. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuvnor Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 I dont know much about this case if he did run away or did not but I cant fee sorry for a criminal. If you ask me you have to be prepared for the worse if you try to rob a store in the end of the day its his own fault. I have seen few others videos this month where for example the cops show unarmed homeless guy and I feel sorry form him and these cops should be put in jail but in this case you can clearly see that the guy was far from been innocent.If you talk about Tookie Williams there is nothing to argue about there was evidence he is guilty and I was even wrong he did murder four people and that is just on the record we know about guys like him you can probably triple that or more. I just dont understand why some one would support a person like that. And of course you dont execute them right on the spot thats just a term I used to describe that these people should have zero tolerance policy and by that of course I mean that it doesnt matter what you have done after you have killed four people you still should be put to death for doing the crime. I cant stand people sitting there telling he is going around the jails helping kids and crap like that. The guy is cold blooded killer who killed whole family the only reason he is doing it is just to stay alive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBR Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 I don't see how any of that is relevant, unless you're willing to admit that the police do not exist to enforce the law or justice, they exist to deliver retribution and vengeance. Even if he committed a robbery and assaulted both the clerk and a police officer, the law does not allow the Police to shoot a fleeing suspect in the back, especially unarmed. This is murder, it isn't self defense or collaring the crook, it is straight out intent to kill another person who is not presenting an immediate threat to the officer. Whether or not he can be deemed as a threat to the public, to be put down like a rabid dog, is another question but one I am not sure was the topic of debate in this instance? @TheGuvnor - The reason you don't just execute 'guy like that' right on the spot is multifaceted: a) How do you define 'that guy' How do you ensure they have done something wrong? c) What happens if you get the wrong guy? d) What happens if you hit innocent bystanders? e) What level of crime becomes executable? The list goes on. I am a sucker for due process in the justice system because, as PBR mentioned, the system is inherently biased and corrupt against the poor and the poorly represented. I won't say minorities, because the super rich are a minority and they're hardly prejudiced against by the system. well he never was fleeing or shot in the back -- those were false reports by witness's -- autopsy proved that no shots were to the back -- the actual report and everything is coming out now that the grand jury is over -- he attacked the officer inside the car through the drivers door window -- and the first shot was fired there inside the car -- the officer felt his life was in danger after being punch a few times in the face inside the car and the guy trying to reach for his gun -- this is shown to be truthful as can be cause brown's dna and blood was found on the inside of the drivers door and on upper left thigh of officers pants -- he then turned to run but after the officer got out of the car he turned and ran back towards the officer who at that time started shooting again -- in officers own words he felt if he was hit anymore that he might go out and with brown being much bigger and stronger he felt in danger -- now many will say still isnt a right to kill or shoot to kill and many will feel it does justify killing -- myself i dont know cause i wasnt in that situation at that moment -- many can say what they would do or what the officer should of done but until your put into that situation you truly dont know -- i have seen a few killings and was sort of involved in two of them and still torn between what could of been done but at the moment it happened felt i would of done same thing -- like the saying goes "we get months to tear them apart for what happens in split seconds" -- and at the end of the day every officer just wants to go home at the end of their shift edited: also just about every witness that was on tv or interviewed in media recanted their version (from what they said on tv or media) of what they seen once in front of the grand jury -- many admitted to not even seeing anything just going with what they heard or admitted to wanting the officer to get in trouble Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 I wasn't aware they'd released new evidence on the back/front shooting aspect, but there was never doubt that the first shot occurred during a struggle between the Officer and the dead kid, and that's fair enough - that is self defense. Have they published the autopsy reports and the various witness testimonies and stuff? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBR Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 I wasn't aware they'd released new evidence on the back/front shooting aspect, but there was never doubt that the first shot occurred during a struggle between the Officer and the dead kid, and that's fair enough - that is self defense. Have they published the autopsy reports and the various witness testimonies and stuff? dont think have published everything online yet -- but said during the statement of why no charges would be billed that 3 autopsy's concluded all shots were to front and that gun powder residue was on browns hand and front side showing it was a very close shot -- which was opposite of what many of the witness's were saying (witness's that lied) saying the officer shot out the door window while brown was running, that brown was never close to the door or officer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 Sure, but he was shot at whilst grappling with the police officer in the first instance inside the window of the car, this would obviously result in residue, especially if grappling for the weapon. Anyway, I am just speculating at this point. I look forward to reading everything once it is published. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBR Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 Sure, but he was shot at whilst grappling with the police officer in the first instance inside the window of the car, this would obviously result in residue, especially if grappling for the weapon. Anyway, I am just speculating at this point. I look forward to reading everything once it is published. yea i was just stating cause many so called witness's and media outlets made it seem / sound like there never was a struggle inside the car -- in which many still believe their never was and that the officer just out right shot him while he was running -- but the 3 different autospy's show different -- one was done by city coroner, one by federal coroner brought in and last by independent coroner bought in by brown's family -- all came to same conclusions that he was never shot in back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBR Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 Sure, but he was shot at whilst grappling with the police officer in the first instance inside the window of the car, this would obviously result in residue, especially if grappling for the weapon. Anyway, I am just speculating at this point. I look forward to reading everything once it is published. http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/11/us/ferguson-grand-jury-docs/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 -- documents that the ferguson grand jury viewed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanis Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 Attack a badge: expect to die . that is not the battle to fight with physical force. * I.M.O.* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 You're right that this is an outcome to be expected by a perpetrator, but it doesn't mean it is an outcome we shouldn't scrutinise on each occurrence. I don't trust 'the Man' anymore than anyone else, but transparent, due process helps in this. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanis Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 I agree, it should be studied,.....I wish there was an easy way to seperate those that *Represent the badge* from those are *hideing behind it*, before this kind of thing happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 I think that kind of analysis will always be posthoc. The only way to try to ensure some sort of integrity and quality in candidates and representatives of the law/the system, is rigorous training and induction and strong public accountability and transparency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBR Posted November 26, 2014 Report Share Posted November 26, 2014 all your hearing is how brown's parents are calling for peaceful protests and everything -- well that is a lie here is his mother and step-dad after the verdict was read and he starts calling for them to "burn this bitch down" screaming and chanting it -- now will say that brown's real dad does seem level headed and wanting the best -- honestly they should arrest the step dad to me http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3c5_1416953474 shortly after this they burn down at least 12 business's / buildings and a bunch of cars including several police cars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2014 Report Share Posted November 26, 2014 There would be a definite case for inciting riot/disturbing the peace, however this would be counter-productive as it would be seen as further punishment of the victims and would just result in further rioting and civil unrest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowman Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 People burn down their town's after sports games, some people suck. These events represent a general unrest in the country with the way the police are handling themselves. People are emotional, and it is often that historical events involve anecdotal stories they may not, in themselves represent the whole problem. But there is a general consensus that police have begun to operate in a way that doesn't make many members of society feel safer. We ask for some introspection, to make sure we are still the land of the free, and it is not just the media distracting us with race, but all the people on here who keep saying it's all about race. And all a grand jury has to do is decide if there are ANY less than certain elements that would render an indictment necessary. You think both of these cases were clear enough to say that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 Might be a good time to re-evaluate the whole illusion that you are, or ever have been, 'the land of the free'. From a judicial perspective, despite being a nation with a Civil Law, you inherited a certain amount of Common Law precedent from England, thus it still plays an important part in the judicial process. A result of this is that the judiciary needs to consider precedent and policy considerations when making their judgment: i.e. will this upset the entire apple cart for the future and/or past cases. I expect this has a larger part to play than anything else. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowman Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 Might be a good time to re-evaluate the whole illusion that you are, or ever have been, 'the land of the free'. America has progressed, right along with the rest of the world. We are no more oppressed than any other country. No reason to start flinging craziness around. No government, as far as I can tell offers a truly fair opportunity to it's citizens. It's always been about the have's and have-not's, no matter what. At least some countries make the effort to give some modicum of freedom. And personally, I think America would be far better off if people stopped watching our news outlets, they give you a really warped sense of what American life is like. If it helps KRad, I usually feel like I am in another country when I watch anything on TV. I watch Cosmos, there is some solid American television, and is a much better representative of my country as far as my little bubble is concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 Seems to me we're saying the same thing. You're saying you're "no more oppressed than any other country" and I am saying that the "land of the free" is bullshit for the very same reason that your freedoms are more-or-less on par with any other first world country. In some areas less, in others more. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duphus Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 Seems to me we're saying the same thing. You're saying you're "no more oppressed than any other country" and I am saying that the "land of the free" is bullshit for the very same reason that your freedoms are more-or-less on par with any other first world country. In some areas less, in others more. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16K6m3Ua2nw 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowman Posted December 17, 2014 Report Share Posted December 17, 2014 Seems to me we're saying the same thing. You're saying you're "no more oppressed than any other country" and I am saying that the "land of the free" is bullshit for the very same reason that your freedoms are more-or-less on par with any other first world country. In some areas less, in others more. We are saying the same thing. I was basically agreeing, for a country that makes the claim of being the land of the free, you would think we would try a little harder is all. And to Duphus, everyone has seen that clip, only an extreme right-winger doesn't already know all of this stuff. I'm not delusional about America, but I do think we have a lot of potential. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 17, 2014 Report Share Posted December 17, 2014 Problem with patriotism is that is substitutes the knowledge that the ideal is a dream or a goal worth pursuing, but not currently obtained, for the false belief that there are no improvements left to make and that the particular country is the pinnacle. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madness Posted December 20, 2014 Report Share Posted December 20, 2014 http://afterfat.com/sites/afterfat.com/files/styles/original/public/redneck-6-pack.jpg?itok=GhvKWXRm America, F@ck Yeah! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBR Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bsAMSQ13bY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimeTravel0 Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 It's Americas attitudes towards guns that seperates them from other armed countries, shoot first ask questions later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.