News of the day

Dayvenkirq wrote: akamaisondufromage wrote:  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.

Also, I am sure that he has been advised by his attorney and/or union rep to not say anything publicly.

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

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".

The Doctor wrote: 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.

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.

Of course, the real conversation is that this is a police state (as in ruled-by-the-police) and that a large percentage of cops are psychopaths and power abusers, and that we are arming them like an army. 

rushfan4 wrote: An unarmed 20-year old white man gets shot and killed by black police officer in Utah....and there are no riots and also no national news attention.  http://www.inquisitr.com/1430653/dillon-taylor-shooting-proof-ferguson-protesters-are-having-the-wrong-conversation/

Really? This author tries to demonize Michael Brown by drawing doubt to information completely immaterial to his shooting (full toxicology report), puts in writing his support for the unnecessary police militarization which has turned Ferguson into a war zone complete with the human rights violations, and uses another example of gross police misconduct (assuming it's true. I'll admit I didn't do any research into Taylor's shooting) to reduce the severity of what has occurred in Ferguson into a "black people are overreacting and everyone is too PC to call them out on it except for me!!!".

Okay.

Cops unjustifiably shoot people everyday. One of these cases turning into a media sensation is the exception not the norm. There's no reason to expect it to be a national story.