So someone attacks an officer of the law and gets shot in self defense, the noble people of the community decide it is a good idea to riot... i mean protest
Only difference I see between here and the London riots are the police are doing a good job, and there hasn't example of serious incompetence like there was in London, they have contained it to one suburb.
They are upholding the law and doing a good job of it.
Although why that scumbag Duggan keeps being mentioned on here like was some sort of martyr is beyond me. And those riots were just an excuse for looting and violence - I bet most of the morons did not even know who Duggan was.
So someone attacks an officer of the law and gets shot in self defense, the noble people of the community decide it is a good idea to riot... i mean protest
Only difference I see between here and the London riots are the police are doing a good job, and there hasn't example of serious incompetence like there was in London, they have contained it to one suburb.
They are upholding the law and doing a good job of it.
You obviously know nothing of the story and have decided to make up facts in your head. The only thing you have displayed though is your ignorance of the case which is pretty hard to do if you would just pick up a newspaper or switch on the news you would see what really happened.
The whole point that people are making is that he did not shoot this person in self defence, he had surrendered and had his hands up so your premise is wrong from the start.
You obviously know nothing of the story and have decided to make up facts in your head. The only thing you have displayed though is your ignorance of the case which is pretty hard to do if you would just pick up a newspaper or switch on the news you would see what really happened.
The whole point that people are making is that he did not shoot this person in self defence, he had surrendered and had his hands up so your premise is wrong from the start.
The scenario Somner describes is what the police have stated happened. The two witnesses contradict this and state what you described is what happened . There is no definitive proof either way as yet.
The whole point that people are making is that he did not shoot this person in self defence, he had surrendered and had his hands up so your premise is wrong from the start.
What makes you think a cop is only entitled to use deadly force in self-defence?
A cop has a duty to protect society and if they believe that their suspect might present a significant threat to any member of society, they're entitled to take whatever measures they think are appropriate to end that threat.
For all the cop knows, the guy who's running away might go on to stick a knife in somebody's chest and steal their car as they flee.
*EDIT*
And, as I said before, throwing up your hands after you've been shot has little in the way of credibility.
The way people are complaining that he was "shot after he surrendered" is right up there with complaining that the police "shot an unarmed man" in the Duggan case in terms of obtuseness.
The scenario Somner describes is what the police have stated happened. The two witnesses contradict this and state what you described is what happened . There is no definitive proof either way as yet.
I wasn't replying to Somner though
I'm not aware that the police have said they shot him in self defence (which is what I was replying to). If they have said this Id be interested to see a link.
What makes you think a cop is only entitled to use deadly force in self-defence?
A cop has a duty to protect society and if they believe that their suspect might present a significant threat to any member of society, they're entitled to take whatever measures they think are appropriate to end that threat.
For all the cop knows, the guy who's running away might go on to stick a knife in somebody's chest and steal their car as they flee.
*EDIT*
And, as I said before, throwing up your hands after you've been shot has little in the way of credibility.
The way people are complaining that he was "shot after he surrendered" is right up there with complaining that the police "shot an unarmed man" in the Duggan case in terms of obtuseness.
I can read Wikipedia as well and that's a very selective interpretation of the use of deadly force that you've come out with!
I can read Wikipedia as well and that's a very selective interpretation of the use of deadly force that you've come out with!
I have no need to refer to wikipedia. I have rational thought.
Does a cop have to wait for the Adam Lanza's of this world to point a gun at them before he opens fire?
Of course not.
It's on the side of the cop-cars. "Protect & Serve".
That often requires that a cop does bad things to a suspect in order to prevent them doing bad things to other people.
Again, I have no idea if this shooting was justified or not.
It appears to be a case of pure, blind, bad luck for a criminal who got detained by a cop just after he'd committed a crime and attempted to flee.
The only point, however, is that if you flee from an armed cop you are asking for bad things to happen to you.
It's all very well bleating that nobody deserves to die for stealing some cigars but, equally, you have to ask why somebody would risk their own life in order to avoid a petty theft charge too.
Nobody forced this guy to flee. He chose to do that for himself and, in doing so, he gambled his own life and lost.
I'm not aware that the police have said they shot him in self defence (which is what I was replying to). If they have said this Id be interested to see a link.
Don't know if it's been posted but the police department in question once charged a man for four counts of "property damage" for bleeding on some of the officers uniforms while resisting arrest.
While you shouldn't never resist arrest. That is LOW and paints quite the picture. Never mind the fact that it wasn't the person they were looking for!
Apparently the police have adopted a more softly softly app approach to the demonstrations and things have calmed down significantly.
Yes and no. It's not the same police changing tactics, it's new police. What happened is that the governor sent in the state police and took control from the locals. It seems like the local police in that area are pretty rotten.
The local police were trying to intimidate people and suppress peaceful protest. They were circling the wagons to protect their guy rather than making any effort to investigate whether it was legitimate. Nobody trusts them after how they've been dealing with this, so the state police and FBI are investigating. Unlike the locals, the state police are not trying to interfere with peaceful protests, and that calmed the situation right down.
I have no need to refer to wikipedia. I have rational thought.
Does a cop have to wait for the Adam Lanza's of this world to point a gun at them before he opens fire?
Of course not.
It's on the side of the cop-cars. "Protect & Serve".
That often requires that a cop does bad things to a suspect in order to prevent them doing bad things to other people.
Again, I have no idea if this shooting was justified or not.
It appears to be a case of pure, blind, bad luck for a criminal who got detained by a cop just after he'd committed a crime and attempted to flee.
The only point, however, is that if you flee from an armed cop you are asking for bad things to happen to you.
It's all very well bleating that nobody deserves to die for stealing some cigars but, equally, you have to ask why somebody would risk their own life in order to avoid a petty theft charge too.
Nobody forced this guy to flee. He chose to do that for himself and, in doing so, he gambled his own life and lost.
So you appear to be saying the police have the right to murder anyone if they suspect they might be a threat in the future. If you are, you're talking s***.
Even if you aren't saying that, the police do not have the right to forgo the criminal justice system and execute a man just because he is fleeing.
So you appear to be saying the police have the right to murder anyone if they suspect they might be a threat in the future. If you are, you're talking s***.
Even if you aren't saying that, the police do not have the right to forgo the criminal justice system and execute a man just because he is fleeing.
What's "S star star star"? If you intend to say that I'm talking shit, have the courage to use the word shit.
Of course I don't think that the police should have the right to murder anyone but the whole idea of "only if the suspect presents an immediate threat to other people" sounds good in theory but, in reality, it's just an extra layer of bullshit which can usually accommodated, especially if the suspect is too dead to offer their own side of the story.
My opinions on this matter only really extend as far as that it seems ridiculous that an innocent person would attempt to tussle with an armed policeman and that a thief who attempts to tussle with an armed policeman is making the choice to risk their life for the value of whatever they've stolen. In this case, some cigars, apparently.
The scenario Somner describes is what the police have stated happened. The two witnesses contradict this and state what you described is what happened . There is no definitive proof either way as yet.
You're right there is no definitive proof either way. The witness statements don't just contradict the police account, they contradict each other, too.
Yes this is not just a few black people rioting and looting. It's progressed to peaceful protests taking place nationally around the States with all races taking part.
I think the riot we had in the UK was just an excuse by chavs to go nuts and steal things. The protest in the States is much more than this.
The protest is more organised and peaceful but the cause is the same.
And one of the reasons why such protest doesn't work in the UK is because nobody believes the courts, judiciary or police would honestly investigate anyway. In order for people to protest fir a trial or inquest they have to believe that that wouldn't be fixed and that the fever resulted in the police being held responsible. When has that ever happened in the UK?
US turns into a military dictatorship when shit hits the fan, Black parents having to teach their kids not to confront authority figures for fear of them being shot/injured or killed.
It's a worrying story, both the shooting incident and the riots now.
I have no idea what happened and I don't think at this stage most of us do, but it's clearly a very muddy area.
The problem is, the 'protests' are just creating a more difficult situation with less information to go on because the police are too scared to release some info and the info they are releasing is just causing more anger.
Comments
Only difference I see between here and the London riots are the police are doing a good job, and there hasn't example of serious incompetence like there was in London, they have contained it to one suburb.
They are upholding the law and doing a good job of it.
Although why that scumbag Duggan keeps being mentioned on here like was some sort of martyr is beyond me. And those riots were just an excuse for looting and violence - I bet most of the morons did not even know who Duggan was.
You obviously know nothing of the story and have decided to make up facts in your head. The only thing you have displayed though is your ignorance of the case which is pretty hard to do if you would just pick up a newspaper or switch on the news you would see what really happened.
The whole point that people are making is that he did not shoot this person in self defence, he had surrendered and had his hands up so your premise is wrong from the start.
If that's the case, I guess we should be impressed by his instincts for spotting a criminal at large.
The scenario Somner describes is what the police have stated happened. The two witnesses contradict this and state what you described is what happened . There is no definitive proof either way as yet.
What makes you think a cop is only entitled to use deadly force in self-defence?
A cop has a duty to protect society and if they believe that their suspect might present a significant threat to any member of society, they're entitled to take whatever measures they think are appropriate to end that threat.
For all the cop knows, the guy who's running away might go on to stick a knife in somebody's chest and steal their car as they flee.
*EDIT*
And, as I said before, throwing up your hands after you've been shot has little in the way of credibility.
The way people are complaining that he was "shot after he surrendered" is right up there with complaining that the police "shot an unarmed man" in the Duggan case in terms of obtuseness.
I wasn't replying to Somner though
I'm not aware that the police have said they shot him in self defence (which is what I was replying to). If they have said this Id be interested to see a link.
I can read Wikipedia as well and that's a very selective interpretation of the use of deadly force that you've come out with!
I have no need to refer to wikipedia. I have rational thought.
Does a cop have to wait for the Adam Lanza's of this world to point a gun at them before he opens fire?
Of course not.
It's on the side of the cop-cars. "Protect & Serve".
That often requires that a cop does bad things to a suspect in order to prevent them doing bad things to other people.
Again, I have no idea if this shooting was justified or not.
It appears to be a case of pure, blind, bad luck for a criminal who got detained by a cop just after he'd committed a crime and attempted to flee.
The only point, however, is that if you flee from an armed cop you are asking for bad things to happen to you.
It's all very well bleating that nobody deserves to die for stealing some cigars but, equally, you have to ask why somebody would risk their own life in order to avoid a petty theft charge too.
Nobody forced this guy to flee. He chose to do that for himself and, in doing so, he gambled his own life and lost.
I think it's the first link in the thread.
While you shouldn't never resist arrest. That is LOW and paints quite the picture. Never mind the fact that it wasn't the person they were looking for!
http://www.9news.com.au/world/2014/08/16/08/15/ferguson-police-beat-man-charged-for-bleeding-on-them
Yes and no. It's not the same police changing tactics, it's new police. What happened is that the governor sent in the state police and took control from the locals. It seems like the local police in that area are pretty rotten.
The local police were trying to intimidate people and suppress peaceful protest. They were circling the wagons to protect their guy rather than making any effort to investigate whether it was legitimate. Nobody trusts them after how they've been dealing with this, so the state police and FBI are investigating. Unlike the locals, the state police are not trying to interfere with peaceful protests, and that calmed the situation right down.
So you appear to be saying the police have the right to murder anyone if they suspect they might be a threat in the future. If you are, you're talking s***.
Even if you aren't saying that, the police do not have the right to forgo the criminal justice system and execute a man just because he is fleeing.
It's a tradition in black neighbourhoods, in remembrance to a fallen brother criminal they all help themselves to electrical goods and sportswear.
It's what he would have wanted.
What's "S star star star"? If you intend to say that I'm talking shit, have the courage to use the word shit.
Of course I don't think that the police should have the right to murder anyone but the whole idea of "only if the suspect presents an immediate threat to other people" sounds good in theory but, in reality, it's just an extra layer of bullshit which can usually accommodated, especially if the suspect is too dead to offer their own side of the story.
My opinions on this matter only really extend as far as that it seems ridiculous that an innocent person would attempt to tussle with an armed policeman and that a thief who attempts to tussle with an armed policeman is making the choice to risk their life for the value of whatever they've stolen. In this case, some cigars, apparently.
My understanding is that responding to the robbery is precisely what he was doing although I could have misread.
You're right there is no definitive proof either way. The witness statements don't just contradict the police account, they contradict each other, too.
And one of the reasons why such protest doesn't work in the UK is because nobody believes the courts, judiciary or police would honestly investigate anyway. In order for people to protest fir a trial or inquest they have to believe that that wouldn't be fixed and that the fever resulted in the police being held responsible. When has that ever happened in the UK?
But it seems you can
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/15/living/parenting-black-sons-ferguson-missouri/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
I have no idea what happened and I don't think at this stage most of us do, but it's clearly a very muddy area.
The problem is, the 'protests' are just creating a more difficult situation with less information to go on because the police are too scared to release some info and the info they are releasing is just causing more anger.