Progarchives.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: News of the day
  FAQ FAQ  Forum SearchSearch  Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

News of the day

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 396>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
The Doctor View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8352
Post Options Post Options   Quote The Doctor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: News of the day
    Posted: August 19 2014 at 16:59
p...ed off.

As Rushfan indicated, as an officer in the line of duty, there is a presumption that the incident was justified. That presumption is not conclusive and will be modified after a thorough investigation, but it does mean that the officer is given the benefit of the doubt unless and until evidence shows there may have been wrongdoing. And I think this is the correct way to go about it.
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Back to Top
The Doctor View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8352
Post Options Post Options   Quote The Doctor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 19 2014 at 16:55
Oh, I agree with that wholeheartedly, aka. There should most definitely be an open and thorough investigation. And if there isn't, people have the right to be completely po'ed. But the investigation is ongoing. We simply don't have all the facts yet and I think it premature to judge and convict him before all the facts are had.
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Back to Top
akamaisondufromage View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: May 16 2009
Location: Blighty
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6229
Post Options Post Options   Quote akamaisondufromage Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 19 2014 at 16:54
Originally posted by The Doctor

In a case like this, he would have to answer for his actions if he in fact did anything wrong. I personally don't think he should have to rot in jail while that determination is being made. If every time a police officer were put in jail during an investigation into whether or not the shooting was justified, you'd have an awful hard time attracting people into that field. "Gee if I exercise my right to self-defense, I'll end up in prison with people I've put away while they determine that I acted in self-defense. No thanks."

Now, if it is determined that he acted with malice or with wantonness in shooting this guy, and he is not punished, I'll be out there protesting too.


Arresting someone doesn't mean you have to throuw them into prison.  They would probably go out on bail.
Help me I'm falling!
Back to Top
akamaisondufromage View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: May 16 2009
Location: Blighty
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6229
Post Options Post Options   Quote akamaisondufromage Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 19 2014 at 16:51
Originally posted by The Doctor

I don't know. Someone that big charging at me, if I had the opportunity, I'd unload my gun into him. Whether he had a gun or not is irrelevant to self-defense. Number 1, that guy was big enough he could snap my neck easily. But risk of death is not required for self-defense. Only risk of serious bodily injury. If that guy was charging the officer, he posed a risk of at least serious bodily injury to the officer, which brought about the officer's right of self-defense. Here in the states, the method of defense used does not have to exactly be equal to the method the attacker is using. In fact, using your own body against the body of an attacker may be futile if the attacker is bigger than you are. Using a gun to defend yourself against a large attacker or someone armed with a knife is acceptable.

As for the six times, yes, that was overkill. But he probably panicked. In spite of the uniform, dude is still human and can suffer from fear and the overreaction that can cause. Does that mean he should go to prison? I don't think so.


No that doesn't mean he should go to prison.  However, it does mean there should be a thorough and open equiry.  This may be the case that he was attacked and fired and panicked but you can't expect people to just accept that as the truth.
Help me I'm falling!
Back to Top
The Doctor View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8352
Post Options Post Options   Quote The Doctor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 19 2014 at 16:51
In a case like this, he would have to answer for his actions if he in fact did anything wrong. I personally don't think he should have to rot in jail while that determination is being made. If every time a police officer were put in jail during an investigation into whether or not the shooting was justified, you'd have an awful hard time attracting people into that field. "Gee if I exercise my right to self-defense, I'll end up in prison with people I've put away while they determine that I acted in self-defense. No thanks."

Now, if it is determined that he acted with malice or with wantonness in shooting this guy, and he is not punished, I'll be out there protesting too.

Edited by The Doctor - August 19 2014 at 16:53
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Back to Top
The Dark Elf View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2308
Post Options Post Options   Quote The Dark Elf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 19 2014 at 16:50
Meanwhile, in Flint, Michigan, a city about an hour north of me, five black men were shot in separate instances over night. They were all shot by other black men.

No one was there to mourn. No one is there to protest. This type of thing happens every night in Flint and Detroit and Chicago and St. Louis.

And you wonder why cops may have to shoot someone? To paraphrase Michael Palin, "Come and see the violence inherent in the system and the culture".
Please pay a visit to my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music reviews, literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.
Back to Top
akamaisondufromage View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: May 16 2009
Location: Blighty
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6229
Post Options Post Options   Quote akamaisondufromage Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 19 2014 at 16:47

It would seem that in The States the only method of self defense is the gun.  So no matter how big the threat the only port of call is to shoot.  Not only that but the police don't appear to have to answer for their actions.
Help me I'm falling!
Back to Top
The Doctor View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8352
Post Options Post Options   Quote The Doctor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 19 2014 at 16:38
I don't know. Someone that big charging at me, if I had the opportunity, I'd unload my gun into him. Whether he had a gun or not is irrelevant to self-defense. Number 1, that guy was big enough he could snap my neck easily. But risk of death is not required for self-defense. Only risk of serious bodily injury. If that guy was charging the officer, he posed a risk of at least serious bodily injury to the officer, which brought about the officer's right of self-defense. Here in the states, the method of defense used does not have to exactly be equal to the method the attacker is using. In fact, using your own body against the body of an attacker may be futile if the attacker is bigger than you are. Using a gun to defend yourself against a large attacker or someone armed with a knife is acceptable.

As for the six times, yes, that was overkill. But he probably panicked. In spite of the uniform, dude is still human and can suffer from fear and the overreaction that can cause. Does that mean he should go to prison? I don't think so.

Edited by The Doctor - August 19 2014 at 16:40
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Back to Top
akamaisondufromage View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: May 16 2009
Location: Blighty
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6229
Post Options Post Options   Quote akamaisondufromage Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 19 2014 at 16:31
Originally posted by The Doctor

Originally posted by Dayvenkirq




Originally posted by akamaisondufromage

 Apparently, Police in St Louis have shot another 23 yr old black guy.  He had a knife so obviously the only way out was to shoot him dead.  Don't they just need to arrest the officer and then have an enquiry and then if there is evidence he goes to court. Simples. 
<span style="line-height: 1.2;">That's something I was also curious about, something I see as a gap in the legal system. How do they decide on whether the officer should be charged or not given the circumstances you've described? Either way, the guy should have been at least charged, and he wasn't. There is such a thing as acquittal of charges that can </span>be used <span style="line-height: 1.2;">later on.</span>
[DIV



Usually the investigation goes first, then if there is enough evidence to pursue charges an arrest is made. Once you arrest someone, the Constitutional rights of the accused kick in (including the right to have their situation adjudicated swiftly). That's why unless the suspect poses a clear and present danger to society or unless the suspect was caught in the act committing a wrong (shooting someone by itself without more - especially in the case of the police - is not automatically considered a wrong). There are many circumstances under which the police may have no choice but to shoot someone (or very limited choices). To arrest them and then decide if there is any evidence they did something wrong, sort of violates the innocent until proven guilty thingy.


Arresting someone doesn't presume any guilt on anyone's part.  And shooting someone 'in the line of duty' may not be automatically considered wrong but the guy wasn't armed (no matter how big he was) and he was shot 6 times! So I would think this would be enough to justify arrest. 
Help me I'm falling!
Back to Top
rushfan4 View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 48809
Post Options Post Options   Quote rushfan4 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 19 2014 at 16:31
Also, I am sure that he has been advised by his attorney and/or union rep to not say anything publicly.
Back to Top
rushfan4 View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 48809
Post Options Post Options   Quote rushfan4 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 19 2014 at 16:29
Originally posted by Dayvenkirq

Originally posted by akamaisondufromage

 
Apparently, Police in St Louis have shot another 23 yr old black guy.  He had a knife so obviously the only way out was to shoot him dead.  

Don't they just need to arrest the officer and then have an enquiry and then if there is evidence he goes to court. Simples. 
That's something I was also curious about, something I see as a gap in the legal system. How do they decide on whether the officer should be charged or not given the circumstances you've described? Either way, the guy should have been at least charged, and he wasn't. There is such a thing as acquittal of charges that can be used later on.

Originally posted by The Doctor

If it was indeed a senseless act or somehow borne out of racism or just general ill-will from the officer, then I agree he should be punished and should certainly not be exempt from punishment. However, if there were justification for the shooting, and there may well have been, he should not be punished simply to "bring down the madness out there". We should never allow our justice system to become a means of placating people who choose to riot. The justice system has just as much duty to exonerate the officer if he did nothing wrong as it does to see him locked away if he did do something wrong.

As a last comment, I think the use of the term "unarmed" may be inappropriate in this case. This dude was massive and IF he was charging at the police officer when the officer shot, this kid was using his body as a weapon (a potentially lethal one at that). Of course, that is only if he was charging the officer. If he was not, or in any other way assaulting the officer, then yes, he was unarmed.
Ah ... false reasoning on my part. My bad. Embarrassed However, I won't leave without saying this: I'm surprised that guy Darren Wilson didn't come out and say anything in his own defense. Something doesn't smell right ... or is it just my oven?
It is a process.  The incident occurred while in the line of duty, which is why the officer has not been arrested at this point.  They are investigating the incident and if the prosecutor finds that there is enough evidence to go forward they will bring the evidence to a Grand Jury.  The Grand Jury will then decide whether or not the evidence is sufficient to proceed with charges.  At this point though, the process has not been completed. 

If Joe Public is arrested for murdering somebody he probably would be booked and thrown in prison and the rest of this process would be completed with him sitting in prison (or with a bond). 
Back to Top
The Doctor View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8352
Post Options Post Options   Quote The Doctor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 19 2014 at 16:24
Originally posted by Dayvenkirq




Originally posted by akamaisondufromage

 Apparently, Police in St Louis have shot another 23 yr old black guy.  He had a knife so obviously the only way out was to shoot him dead.  Don't they just need to arrest the officer and then have an enquiry and then if there is evidence he goes to court. Simples. 
<span style="line-height: 1.2;">That's something I was also curious about, something I see as a gap in the legal system. How do they decide on whether the officer should be charged or not given the circumstances you've described? Either way, the guy should have been at least charged, and he wasn't. There is such a thing as acquittal of charges that can </span>be used <span style="line-height: 1.2;">later on.</span>
[DIV



Usually the investigation goes first, then if there is enough evidence to pursue charges an arrest is made. Once you arrest someone, the Constitutional rights of the accused kick in (including the right to have their situation adjudicated swiftly). That's why unless the suspect poses a clear and present danger to society or unless the suspect was caught in the act committing a wrong (shooting someone by itself without more - especially in the case of the police - is not automatically considered a wrong). There are many circumstances under which the police may have no choice but to shoot someone (or very limited choices). To arrest them and then decide if there is any evidence they did something wrong, sort of violates the innocent until proven guilty thingy.
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Back to Top
Dayvenkirq View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Reno, NV, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 9500
Post Options Post Options   Quote Dayvenkirq Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 19 2014 at 16:15
Originally posted by akamaisondufromage

 
Apparently, Police in St Louis have shot another 23 yr old black guy.  He had a knife so obviously the only way out was to shoot him dead.  

Don't they just need to arrest the officer and then have an enquiry and then if there is evidence he goes to court. Simples. 
That's something I was also curious about, something I see as a gap in the legal system. How do they decide on whether the officer should be charged or not given the circumstances you've described? Either way, the guy should have been at least charged, and he wasn't. There is such a thing as acquittal of charges that can be used later on.

Originally posted by The Doctor

If it was indeed a senseless act or somehow borne out of racism or just general ill-will from the officer, then I agree he should be punished and should certainly not be exempt from punishment. However, if there were justification for the shooting, and there may well have been, he should not be punished simply to "bring down the madness out there". We should never allow our justice system to become a means of placating people who choose to riot. The justice system has just as much duty to exonerate the officer if he did nothing wrong as it does to see him locked away if he did do something wrong.

As a last comment, I think the use of the term "unarmed" may be inappropriate in this case. This dude was massive and IF he was charging at the police officer when the officer shot, this kid was using his body as a weapon (a potentially lethal one at that). Of course, that is only if he was charging the officer. If he was not, or in any other way assaulting the officer, then yes, he was unarmed.
Ah ... false reasoning on my part. My bad. Embarrassed However, I won't leave without saying this: I'm surprised that guy Darren Wilson didn't come out and say anything in his own defense. Something doesn't smell right ... or is it just my oven?


Edited by Dayvenkirq - August 19 2014 at 16:18
"People tell you life is short. ... No, it's not. Life is long. Especially if you make the wrong decisions." - Chris Rock
Back to Top
akamaisondufromage View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: May 16 2009
Location: Blighty
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6229
Post Options Post Options   Quote akamaisondufromage Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 19 2014 at 16:05

Apparently, Police in St Louis have shot another 23 yr old black guy.  He had a knife so obviously the only way out was to shoot him dead. 

Don't they just need to arrest the officer and then have an enquiry and then if there is evidence he goes to court.  Simples.


Edited by akamaisondufromage - August 19 2014 at 16:05
Help me I'm falling!
Back to Top
The Doctor View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8352
Post Options Post Options   Quote The Doctor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 19 2014 at 16:01
If it was indeed a senseless act or somehow borne out of racism or just general ill-will from the officer, then I agree he should be punished and should certainly not be exempt from punishment. However, if there were justification for the shooting, and there may well have been, he should not be punished simply to "bring down the madness out there". We should never allow our justice system to become a means of placating people who choose to riot. The justice system has just as much duty to exonerate the officer if he did nothing wrong as it does to see him locked away if he did do something wrong. As a last comment, I think the use of the term "unarmed" may be inappropriate in this case. This dude was massive and IF he was charging at the police officer when the officer shot, this kid was using his body as a weapon (a potentially lethal one at that). Of course, that is only if he was charging the officer. If he was not, or in any other way assaulting the officer, then yes, he was unarmed.
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Back to Top
Dayvenkirq View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Reno, NV, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 9500
Post Options Post Options   Quote Dayvenkirq Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 19 2014 at 15:50
I still can't find an answer to whether a law enforcement officer can be arrested or even charged for shooting to kill an amped-up, though unarmed, teenager on duty in the state of Missouri. However, given what we know about the shooting, some punitive measures should be taken to bring down the madness out there. Police officers should never be exempt from any sort of punishment for senseless acts.
"People tell you life is short. ... No, it's not. Life is long. Especially if you make the wrong decisions." - Chris Rock
Back to Top
rushfan4 View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 48809
Post Options Post Options   Quote rushfan4 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 19 2014 at 11:05
I am once again torn in regards to what to believe in a shooting death. I can once again see both sides of the story being the truth.  I am naive enough to respect police officers and believe that they are doing their job for the general good of the public.  I tend to err on the side of the law and believe that the police officer did shoot Michael Brown in self-defense as he claims.  As more news comes out, that the man had a felony record; that he had just robbed a liquor/party store; that he had marijuana in his system (although story is that is supposed to make you more mellow instead of violent); it leads me to believe that the officer's side of the story is the truth.  That being said, I am also left to wonder if the officer overreacted and if he let his ego lead him to be a bully authority that caused the situation to escalate out of control the way that it did.  Was Michael Brown really charging him when he shot him, or was he just pissed off because Michael Brown had sassed him, disrespected him, and possibly punched him in the face before fleeing?  As the original news broke of the shooting, it didn't really make sense to me that a police officer would shoot and kill an unarmed man who offered to surrender.  As more items come to light, the officer's story does seem more credible to me, however, I suspect that he may have made some poor split second decisions during the altercation.  It seems as though a more nonlethal approach should have been taken.  A shot to the leg to the leg maybe?  I believe that officers are trained to shoot for the center area though as it would be a more stationary target than moving legs.  I will be curious to see how this unfolds.  It is a shame that two lives will be forever ruined as a result of the apparent bad decisions made by Michael Brown.  He certainly didn't deserve to die for the crimes that he allegedly committed but if he did attack the officer and was charging the officer than he certainly isn't blameless in his death.
Back to Top
Dayvenkirq View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Reno, NV, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 9500
Post Options Post Options   Quote Dayvenkirq Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 18 2014 at 22:51
Didn't know there's a difference between an activist group and a protest group in the case of Ferguson, MO (at least that's how Yahoo!News put it).


Edited by Dayvenkirq - August 18 2014 at 22:53
"People tell you life is short. ... No, it's not. Life is long. Especially if you make the wrong decisions." - Chris Rock
Back to Top
Dayvenkirq View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Reno, NV, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 9500
Post Options Post Options   Quote Dayvenkirq Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 18 2014 at 16:56
"People tell you life is short. ... No, it's not. Life is long. Especially if you make the wrong decisions." - Chris Rock
Back to Top
King of Loss View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: April 21 2005
Location: Watching You
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 14537
Post Options Post Options   Quote King of Loss Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 14 2014 at 17:01
Originally posted by The Doctor

Apparently, King Crimson has a new 12,000 CD Starless and Bible Black box set coming out soon. Will probably only cost approximately the GDP of a small third world country. Should be exciting.   

CoolCool



Zizou 1988-2006
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 396>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.69
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.375 seconds.