| Author | Message | ||
     Sifo |
He didn't shoot the assailant in the legs. In the belly even. He shot to kill. That much is obvious. It is also what will seal police officer Wilson's fate should he be facing the courts for a criminal act. If only you could possibly understand the vast ignorance you have managed to display with so few words. ASTOUNDING! | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
Who here can even believe his BS that in England the cops would just let a thug like this beat down a cop and simply let him walk away. You're right, they wouldn't. But one cop acting alone would not get out of his police vehicle with a gun as officer Wilson did and confront an assailant. There are many ramifications in law that would prevent an armed British police officer from doing so. Not least of all a suspension from duty with immediate effect. These ramifications would be more damning had an armed British police officer acted alone in similar circumstance to officer Wilson, where an assailant were shot dead. Of course, this is America where police are armed and the laws applied to use of a gun different obviously. But there is a question hanging over the head of officer Wilson and his actions. As a British person with an understanding of how the system here works, I can apply some degree of thought to Brown's shooting as if it were under the scrutiny of British law, and I could see how officer Wilson's actions lead to the death of Brown when they may not have needed to. Whether officer Wilson is guilty of a crime or not is a matter for the legal system he works within to decide. In this country I do believe he would likely be on trial for his actions. Of course, I could be wrong. Either way I wouldn't support a law enforcement agency that protected a police officer in similar circumstance had the Brown killing happened here in the U.K. Rocket in England | ||
| Aesquire |
Ah, I see. Thank you . You state there are 2 confrontations. You could even say 3. #1 the officer is assaulted in his car. #2 the officer attempt to arrest a violent attacker as is his duty. Or... #1 the officer tells 2 "youts" to stop jaywalking, a minor infraction. #2 the officer backs up to confront supposedly jaywalking? youts, and is attacked by the large violent man. #3 the officer attempt to arrest a violent attacker as is his duty. Or... #1 the officer is assaulted in his car. #2 the officer attempt to arrest a violent attacker as is his duty. #3 ( as stated better above, thanks ) The kid (Brown) indeed stops and turns toward Wilson and then is summarily executed by Wilson (the race-baiters scenario,) or charges at Wilson and is shot several times until he drops dead. If you were a citizen attacked in your car the wise move would usually ( but not always ) be to remain in your car, attempt to escape, call for police, or some combination. Rules are different for the police. That also means the rules must be enforced, which will be determined by the investigation. 2 cops in a car is a good idea. Not all police depts. can afford that. I'm happy you Brits have the most awesome police in the world and a budget that allows 2 cops per car. I deeply respect the ideals of Robert Peel, the founder of the "first police dept." That an officer of the law should not be in the uniform of the Army, but one that shows the citizens of the realm that he is one of them, a fellow citizen, charged with their protection. Subject to the same laws. NOT an occupying army acting under dictatorial authority. However complaining that the police dept. in a semi suburban poor area does not have the resources you say the local police have where you live is not helpful. I also disagree with your interpretation of Common Law, but while US Common Law is related to English Common Law, ( we stole it ) it's not exactly the same. So, NO the officer did nothing wrong by telling the violent criminal he was under arrest and telling him to surrender. Did such an action take place? Please enlighten me? It may have been a bit cruder than civil society may like, such as the officer yelling "hold it dirtbag" or other euphemism. I don't know what words the officer used to ask the "youts" to vacate the street, and he may have used horrible judgment in that matter. We have the testimony of the Officer and the surviving "yout" So we get to the only point of dispute, since arguments for "should have had 2 cops in the car" or "cop should have run away" while possibly desirable just were not reality and no law was broken by the cop. Was the officer in reasonable fear for his life or the safety of bystanders? That's the law that makes the difference between murder and justifiable homicide. So was he reasonably sure he was in danger? If the assailant surrendered, no. If the assailant attacked again, yes. I don't know the above. The investigation is not over and what the Guardian or New York Time says means nothing. By the way I believe there are extremely rare cases where striking a police officer is justified, for example if he is in the commission of a violent assault. It would be a dangerous thing to do, just as would striking a 21 Stone big guy that just beat on a police officer. I was not calling you a dupshut. I apologize. I meant to call the guy who wrote the analysis you read one. I'm not going to apologize to him since the division of time/action marks so stated is bad logic and a bit dishonest. Something like that happened at the trial for the officers who beat up a very high and aggressive car thief. Rodney King. The lawyer for the police actually went through the video frame by frame and attributed time-chopped-action and legal analysis trying to make each muscle twitch on camera, and between frames! a cause for his clients to not be guilty. ( Bill Whittle has a great editorial on that ) If you just watch the tape, you can see they were beating the daylights out of him. There was a Jury trial, and then a Federal Grand Jury and 2 of the officers went to prison. As should be if an officer violates the law. p.s. "yout" is a term from the Movie "My Cousin Vinnie" for youths as spoken with a certain NYC accent ) | ||
| Fb1 |
I spent 25 years, 8 months and 20 days (but who's counting) as a police officer... Daddio, thanks for your service. Rocket: I'm speechless. | ||
| Aesquire |
Either way I wouldn't support a law enforcement agency that protected a police officer in similar circumstance had the Brown killing happened here in the U.K. Let me please correct that statement. "that protected a police officer if the shooting was not justified here in the UK" That would be a statement I can agree with you on whole heartedly. Cops are not above the law. Nor are Politicians, or Football stars, or the cast of a TV show. But especially Cops Must obey the law or the system is broken. your original makes the assumption that it's a bad shoot. Unjustified by any real investigation. You Assume the officer Is Guilty. If it's a bad shoot the cop should go to jail. If it's a good shoot, he needs psychiatric help, and our sympathy and prayers. There are in fact rational justifiable reasons to kill someone. Self defense, the defense of an innocent. You may know another reason, but I can't think of one offhand. I will defer arguments about a larger scale in times of war. | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
Big young guy 7 ft tall weighing a quarter of a ton - but he is without gun (or any weapon but himself). If this big young guy (likely not versed in lifes experiences the wisdom of years gives us) had just smacked the shit out of your face busting your chops and your eye socket, would you as a police officer go after him (no matter how soon or what little distance away he'd got) and tell him he's under arrest? Assuming you did, what pray tell do you imagine this immature of years big young guy would do next? Hold his wrists out? Lay face down on the floor? Run away? Come back to beat the shit out of you again? What is the common denominator for any of the above happening? Could it be, the officer of the law has a gun? I think so. Especially as only a gun is going to make the big young guy do any of the above. If I were that cop doing that duty I would like to think I'd be smart enough to know a big young guy of little maturity and wisdom (common amongst young men) is likely to do anything but comply with the law since he'd fractured it massively along with the officers eye socket. The result was likely only ever going to go one way once a gun was involved. Officer Wilson took it upon himself to make a judgement call on how to proceed post beating. His actions do not strike me as sensible unless at least some part of his rationale determined he might end up shooting his assailant. If officer Wilson had nothing more than an inkling this might happen his actions are at least in some small part premeditated. I believe a good cop would have more than an inkling as to what would happen next. This would mean officer Wilson has to accept the responsibility of what he did. That would be to provoke in some way the further actions of his assailant which ended up with his assailant being shot dead because of these further actions of officer Wilson - whether duty bound or not. The only problem in this topic is the consensus of opinion is it's ok to shoot a scumbag dead. I happen to believe it's not ok to shoot even a scumbag dead if they're not engaged in an act which would constitute a legal shooting. Brown wasn't. He'd finished such an act thus resuming his right to life. My argument remains, he was further provoked into giving up his right to life. Rocket in England | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
My argument remains, he was further provoked into giving up his right to life. Kids, don't do drugs} (Message edited by ferris_von_bueller on September 21, 2014) | ||
| Aesquire |
The result was likely only ever going to go one way once a gun was involved. true, a man who could have been beaten to death was not. We are just going to have to disagree that the smart thing for an officer of the law to do is allow the perpetrator of a violent assault go beat other people up. I happen to believe it's not ok to shoot even a scumbag dead if they're not engaged in an act which would constitute a legal shooting. Absolutely agree. Brown wasn't. That is an assumption. Based on what? If he was not,engaged in an act which would constitute a legal shooting then the shoot is bad, if he was the shoot is good. He'd finished such an act thus resuming his right to life. Balderdash. He always has a right to life. The question is did he at that moment threaten another's equally valid right to life. My argument remains, he was further provoked into giving up his right to life. again, Hogwarts wash. he never gives up his right to life. The concept of "provoked to do violent assault" is also dead flat wrong. The officer and the citizen have the same rules on this. Are you defending your life or the life of another? If I interrupt a rape in progress, and have a physical conflict with the rapist over my attempting to stop his assault on another, I did not Provoke him by any rational measure. Sure a psychopath would insist I provoked him by denying him his will to harm another person. He's INSANE! You may argue he provoked me by offering me the moral choice of walking away or stopping a horrible crime. I wouldn't see it that way. That language is the language of liars and lawyers. ( if that's not too redundant ) You can call me a overbearing prick all day long but that is not provocation for me to beat you with a bar stool. It may, if I choose to behave like a teenage school girl ( and obviously sometimes I do ) "provoke" me into calling you something unkind and untrue. When I can think of such an insult I'll write it down to use it later.  | ||
| Aesquire |
Here's a hypothetical... ( although it is alleged to have happened in at least one case I know of ) You are in a public area. A group of men come and attempt to rob you. They tell you in this action that they will kill you. Are you then justified in killing some or all of them, to save your own life? Ok, next variation. They at some point in this action tell you that they will kill you and that they will find where you live and kill your family. Are you then justified in killing all of them to save the lives of others? (Message edited by aesquire on September 21, 2014) | ||
| Torquehd |
Are you then justified in killing some or all of them, to save your own life? It depends. Are they black, and are you white? Are you mexican, and are they black? What if they're muslims, and you're a conservative Christian? What if they just attended a gay rights rally, and you just got done eating at chickfila? Morality is no longer morality. It's a dog and pony show put on by the evil powers who deceive men into believing that there is no such thing as Satan. The end is near. And I mean that. | ||
| Aesquire |
Just out of curiosity..... What if 1 person is a gay hispanic wiccan, and the other is a white muslim transexual? Who wins the privilege bingo then?  And don't tell me Santa isn't real. ( I may be dyslexic ) | ||
| Torquehd |
What if 1 person is a gay hispanic wiccan, and the other is a white muslim transexual? As with all ridiculous battles, Chuck Norris. | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
I'd be careful there Patrick. Your 9.48pm post does a very good job of you understanding the point I raised, and you being in agreement with these points. true, a man who could have been beaten to death was not. Nor would a man be shot dead by officer Wilson had officer Wilson remained in his vehicle. We are just going to have to disagree that the smart thing for an officer of the law to do is allow the perpetrator of a violent assault go beat other people up. Beat other people when. Minutes later? Next week? Next year? That's an assumption. That is an assumption. Based on what? Brown had committed the assault on the officer. He was leaving until the officer again engaged Brown. If he was not, engaged in an act which would constitute a legal shooting then the shoot is bad, if he was the shoot is good. Brown wasn't. He'd engaged (assaulted) and disengaged (left), so you agree, the shoot was bad. Balderdash. He always has a right to life. Does he? Under U.S. law? The question is did he at that moment threaten another's equally valid right to life. Not until officer Wilson engaged with Brown for a second time. Even then all we appear to know is Brown had previously assaulted the officer, now confronted further he was allegedly moving back towards the officer (unarmed). What is to say the officer was a black belt seventeen dan karate kid mofo, now out of his car and despite his injuries officer Wilson would be well able to put this big young kid on his arse and cuff him. Does officer Wilson still have the right to shoot an unarmed yout dead? (yes I saw the film thanks  ) If I interrupt a rape in progress, and have a physical conflict with the rapist over my attempting to stop his assault on another, I did not Provoke him by any rational measure. No. You're defending the rights of another and are within your rights to do defend yourself if engaged with a rapist now attacking you because you tried to stop them raping someone. I'm not sure how it would be seen if you'd have shot the rapist dead after shouting "stop doing that you naughty man" and he ignored you. I reckon you'd be on dodgy ground had they just told you to f*ck off and they carried on raping. How would you actually know it was rape? If on the other hand they stopped raping, then turned their attention toward you I don't believe you have the right to shoot them just because they're coming towards you telling you what a c**t you are for spoiling their fun. Sure a psychopath would insist I provoked him by denying him his will to harm another person. He's INSANE! Which is why it would be unlawful to shoot ANYONE so YOU don't have to make THAT choice. You may argue he provoked me by offering me the moral choice of walking away or stopping a horrible crime. I wouldn't see it that way. That language is the language of liars and lawyers. I would argue you were within your rights to try prevent a rape or stop someone already in the act, raping. What happens next does not give you the right to shoot them. What happened if the rapist said ok I'm stopping, and did, but you dislike the fact they're a rapist and shot them dead anyway? How does the law define you didn't just murder a rapist? Not dissimilar to Brown, some might thank you but you'd be a murderer, as would anyone be, including a cop However, if a cop had been ignored by the rapist caught in the act, then I should assume the cop could shoot and kill the rapist, as a cop is versed in law to make the judgement in their opinion the rapist could have been intent on continued harm or even taking the life of the person he was raping. I don't see how a civilian could make that call, save for further harm, legally unless they saw the rapist holding a weapon or their hands around the victims neck perhaps. You can call me a overbearing prick all day long but that is not provocation for me to beat you with a bar stool. I think in law it would be accepted I'd have provoked, though it would be against the law for you to have acted upon the provocation also, with a barstool assault. Rocket in England | ||
| Sifo |
Rocket, I'm just curious. What cocktail of drugs has brought you to this mental state? How many years of drug use did it take. Was it binge drug use, or was it a steady diet? | ||
| Fb1 |
FB, I think we can surmise a bit more than that. There are no reports I've seen disputing that Wilson was pushed into his vehicle and viciously attacked there by Brown. Bottom line is that no matter how/where he was attacked, Wilson acting alone put himself in a position that allowed his attacker to gain advantage over him. He obviously wasn't prepared for a vicious violent reaction from Brown. That was a mistake. Wilson may have indeed made a tactical mistake in how he handled the stop, but so far we've yet to hear his side of how the incident went down, so I'm content to reserve judgment on this issue. Further, we can "surmise" all we want (and I think it's healthy and productive to do so), but keep in mind the source/s of what little information we have to go on (for an example, I assign Dorian Johnson zero credibility), and the knowledge that the mainstream "news" media has an agenda. On that vein, I'd like to ask: What is/are the usual source/s of your news? Thanks. | ||
| Blake |
FB, The shooting appears justified, regardless. It seems you keep missing that comment of mine, so instead of leaving it to the end, I've stated it in the beginning. But sure, the case isn't adjudicated by web forum or public opinion. That's Al Sharpton's vile modus operandi. Cops can't hardly win. When they treat people with deference, they risk violent assault; when they treat people with due diligence, they are bad-mouthed for being mean jerks. This case illustrates perfectly why they sometimes need to be jerks. To say that "we don't know exactly what happened" is less than informative. We do know quite a lot about what happened. We have video of people including an eyewitness discussing the incident very soon after the shooting; we have the reports of multiple witnesses; we have the hospital report on Wilson's injuries; we have the video images of Brown assaulting and robbing minutes before his encounter with Wilson; we have Wilson's spotless record; we have a coroner's report and testimony; we have the criminal record of Brown's accomplice. All the witness accounts I've seen, indicate that Wilson was pushed backwards into his vehicle and violently assaulted by Brown. If that's accurate, then though Wilson broke no law and the shooting was justified self-defense, he probably could have left more space between himself and the thugs as he exited his vehicle and thus avoided the assault. | ||
| Fb1 |
Roger that, thanks. Wasn't trying to be argumentative, just trying to have a conversation.  | ||
| Blake |
What's the difference? On news sources: No TV here, so only internet. I'll read any headline link on Drudge or link posted here that appears informative, also check the Fox News app, so it literally runs the gamut including NRA News on YouTube, the Huffington Post, Ann Coulter's column, the NY Times, Washington Times, others including news outlets local to the particular event, and articles by the Patriot Post. Wherever one might get one's news the vitally important thing is to be able to separate objective reporting from mere conjecture and half truths. Never ever trust the popular media. Dan Rather and all his Progressive Democrat (liars) cohorts disagree. They want America according to their ideology no matter what it takes. We're under assault. I have no doubt. Illegals for Democrat votes. Running guns to Mexican criminals to demonize the 2nd amendment. Targeting groups with "patriot" in their name for special IRS scrutiny to suppress political opposition. Declaring islamist mass murder as "workplace violence" to divert from the truth of the islamist threat. "The police acted stupidly", and "if I had a son, he would look like Treyvon", race-baiting attempt to incite riots and civil unrest. Advertising how to get food stamps (gift cards) inside Mexico. Lying repeatedly to sell Obamacare with cover provided by he nonFox media. When truth is secondary to ideology, tyranny is at hand. Electronic voting machines. America as the land of the free is gone. We've left God, and he 's willing to let us suffer the consequences. Lies and deceit, the ongoing holocaust and its cover-up continue; 55,000,000 burned and dismembered. The consequence due such a nation will surely come. Repentance is what we need. | ||
| Fb1 |
Amen to your entire post, especially this: "Never ever trust the popular media." | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
just trying to have a conversation I've tried that so I'm content to reserve judgment on this issue. Except you lean on the side of defending officer Wilson's case, yet extend not even so much as a devils advocate perspective for Brown. Me too. Not trying to argue. Just pointing out how one sided some conversations can be. Rocket in England | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
On that vein, I'd like to ask: What is/are the usual source/s of your news? Which kind of dismisses applying a common sense opinion when looking at it from Brown's perspective. Surely Brown has the right not to be shot dead for assaulting a police officer? Playing devils advocate what sentence would the courts have passed on to Brown should he have been put in front of a judge. It wouldn't be death would it. And whilst we're playing at sticking to the facts. There's no evidence to support Brown attacking officer Wilson when he approached Brown with his gun. All we can say, which is not yet proven either, is Brown might have been advancing towards officer Wilson. Of course, this is likely reason enough after the initial assault for officer Wilson to shoot. I don't know U.S. law enough. Rocket in England | ||
| Hootowl |
"Surely Brown has the right not to be shot dead for assaulting a police officer?" I'd agree with that statement. But that's not why Mr. Brown is dead. He's dead because the officer in question feared for his life during said assault. That, by law, allowed him to exercise deadly force. It's really that simple. | ||
| Fb1 |
"just trying to have a conversation" I've tried that I find it personally frustrating to try to converse with you. It was this way in the past, and hasn't changed in the present. "so I'm content to reserve judgment on this issue." Except you lean on the side of defending officer Wilson's case, yet extend not even so much as a devils advocate perspective for Brown. Brown had just moments before committed a felony robbery and assault, so I have a difficult time extending him the benefit of any doubt. Do you know what a "blunt" is? Out of all the things in the store that Brown could have stolen, why did he steal packages of little cigars? The answer to this may explain his behavior, not only in the store, but also several minutes later with Wilson. | ||
| Fb1 |
Surely Brown has the right not to be shot dead for assaulting a police officer? Here's that frustration thing for me again. Your question above seems obtuse. Is it deliberate? | ||
| Fb1 |
This video was posted-up on BWB at some time in the recent past; I don't remember the thread (nor does it matter). It is NOT graphic. http://youtu.be/6RYiknkz764 Open question: Did the officer have the right to use deadly force against the motorist? After all, as the motorist drove away the officer was in no further danger. Right? What gave the officer the right to shoot the motorist? | ||
| Sifo |
Rocket's ignorance of law seems to transcend nations. He has point out, ad nauseam, how this could not happen in the UK, but if it did, how the cop would be convicted of murder. Pretty much total BS, at least back in 2011. There's some striking similarities to the Ferguson case. Of course one thing missing is an attack on an officer. Did having multiple officers keep the shooting from happening? No. Was the decision to shoot made by a collective decision of the officers? No. A single officer pulled the trigger of his gun. Mark Duggan's death: two shots fired and two conflicting stories All of this has me wondering about the claims that UK police are always in pairs. I really don't know, but I know it adds greatly to the cost. No doubt all police departments would like to do that, but most fall short of that. Are ALL police in the UK really in pairs? REALLY? Pardon me if I'm just slightly dubious of Rocket's claims on this. | ||
| Reepicheep |
The UK, London at least, has turned into a surveillance nation. I rarely saw any actual cops out and about, but I expect my every public step from Heathrow to Piccadilly Circus was tracked and monitored by an army of watchers in basements. Who likely dispatch cops in pairs where needed. It's not my country, and it works OK from a logistic standpoint, so I won't criticize. But I'm not eager to turn the US into a "camera on every corner and facial recognition software tracking for every step" state either. I'm willing to give up some safety in the short term to protect freedom in the long term. | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
He's dead because the officer in question feared for his life during said assault. I understand it to have been an assault where officer Wilson had been left in his car injured with Brown leaving the scene. Officer Wilson soon after exiting the safety of his car, with his gun for protection, then confronting Brown. If this series of events is closer to any truth then officer Wilson had no reason to fear for his life, thus he did not need to use deadly force to protect himself, Brown in the process of leaving the scene of the assault at least until further engaged by officer Wilson. It's not difficult to comprehend how one event leads to another in the case of either person. It should also not be a matter of personal opinion as to how anyone would like the events to look. It seems fairly clear from what evidence appears to be factual, officer Wilson was assaulted, left injured in the relative safety of his vehicle, once Brown appeared to be leaving the scene, with officer Wilson choosing to pursue his assailant soon after. This action of officer Wilson's leading to the shooting dead of Brown, and not the initial assault on officer Wilson as you suggest. Rocket in England | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
I find it personally frustrating to try to converse with you. It was this way in the past, and hasn't changed in the present. Frankly Jerry I find this comment a little below the belt. Back in the day I argued strongly with Erik about what a crap little bike the Blast was. Not that it was a crap bike - but it just was not a bike that Buell should have been associated with from a marketing perspective at the very least - thus I branded it nothing but a cash cow - which it was. Yes I criticised the 1125 for its ugly pods, and again Erik and I did not see eye to eye. Aside from these arguments which lead to my presence on BadWeB suspended for four years I find it difficult to understand where you and I might have clashed ever before on BadWeB, and over what. So please do remind me because I'm having a hard time thinking you're not the chilled out hard riding fella I use to know. WTF is wrong with you man? Why are you turning this personal? Rocket in England | ||
| Sifo |
Rocket, do you do drugs daily? |
