I know that it is a departmental choice, that is all I was saying.
Some still use FMJ's, others use a soft-nose, still others use the hollow-point.
I'm not going to make a statement on the majority, I have spoken with different LEO's across the country over the last twenty years and received various answers.
There is no singular standard across the board.
There was in fact a self-defense case in which the shooter was asked "what sort of round did you use?"
To which he replied, "A .xx caliber Hydroshok."
The attorney then addressed the jury that "only someone who wanted to kill an individual would use such a round."
a LEO of that jurisdiction was called to the stand, and was asked "What sort of round they were equipped with."
To the attorney's delight the LEO replied that they were "in fact issued a FMJ round."
Then to the atty's chagrin he added "But up until two weeks ago we were using Hydroshocks."
Which is what the person had used in his defense...
The defendant was found to have acted in self-defense and not to have acted further than he should have because of the round he chose.
daedalus wrote: He wasn't shot. He STOLE those bullets from the police officer! The fiend!
(this is sarcasm)
seems legit from that police department. A few years earlier they arrested the wrong man, beat him senseless, then arrested him for destruction of government property because he bleed on one of their uniforms while being beaten.
daedalus wrote: He wasn't shot. He STOLE those bullets from the police officer! The fiend!
(this is sarcasm)
seems legit from that police department. A few years earlier they arrested the wrong man, beat him senseless, then arrested him for destruction of government property because he bleed on one of their uniforms while being beaten.
gmaleron wrote: Hate to say it sorry the shooting was justified. With the recent medical releases of both the suspect and the officer it was proven he assaulted the cop. Guess what all you Gov. haters, the facts don't lie. Way to go to the cop for doing his job and defending himself, I would have done the same if I was attacked.
Frazzled wrote: Frazzled is drunk and has as 8.oo PM call toSingapore pray Frazzled doesn't say something stupidn and loses his job...
OK so kets cut the crap. Can we all say
1. Race relations need to get better. My children need to live in a better world than me.
2. Can't we all just fething get alongn for once and let everyone just live their lives.
Oh and as anAggie Dad I finally saw aggieville. Damn thats a big schoool. Is it wrong to be jealous of your own boy for the opportunities he has. I am so happy. he is so much smarter than me. Can we not have the world just fething get a little better for Him, for all the children? Seriously, people just want to llive and be happy. Enough with the death already. Jesus is crying a whats become of his family. We're all savages time tongod damn grow up and love one another.
Disband all LEO agencies
Let the people police up after themselves since we're all mature and educated grown adults
(Looks at Massrs Smith and Wesson and 30 of our best friends.)
Wait we weren't doing that before? Trust no one but family, for no one else will help you.
I don't support the looting, that is a bunch of desperate people taking advantage of the situation and should be dealt with according but in the case the kid being shot after surrender. I believe that is called an execution if you have surrendered and they keep shooting to kill..... No one needs to panic though! The KKK is on the scene!
BunkerBob wrote: I don't support the looting, that is a bunch of desperate people taking advantage of the situation and should be dealt with according but in the case the kid being shot after surrender. I believe that is called an execution if you have surrendered and they keep shooting to kill..... No one needs to panic though! The KKK is on the scene!
BunkerBob wrote: I don't support the looting, that is a bunch of desperate people taking advantage of the situation and should be dealt with according but in the case the kid being shot after surrender. I believe that is called an execution if you have surrendered and they keep shooting to kill..... No one needs to panic though! The KKK is on the scene!
Pages one through three of this thread called. They want their narrative back.
BunkerBob wrote: I don't support the looting, that is a bunch of desperate people taking advantage of the situation and should be dealt with according but in the case the kid being shot after surrender. I believe that is called an execution if you have surrendered and they keep shooting to kill..... No one needs to panic though! The KKK is on the scene!
Pages one through three of this thread called. They want their narrative back.
I've seen a couple articles on Facebook saying there's a video of Officer Wilson walking around after the shooting completely fine without any facial injuries. I haven't found what they're referring to.
I know that it is a departmental choice, that is all I was saying.
Some still use FMJ's, others use a soft-nose, still others use the hollow-point.
I'm not going to make a statement on the majority, I have spoken with different LEO's across the country over the last twenty years and received various answers.
There is no singular standard across the board.
There was in fact a self-defense case in which the shooter was asked "what sort of round did you use?"
To which he replied, "A .xx caliber Hydroshok."
The attorney then addressed the jury that "only someone who wanted to kill an individual would use such a round."
a LEO of that jurisdiction was called to the stand, and was asked "What sort of round they were equipped with."
To the attorney's delight the LEO replied that they were "in fact issued a FMJ round."
Then to the atty's chagrin he added "But up until two weeks ago we were using Hydroshocks."
Which is what the person had used in his defense...
The defendant was found to have acted in self-defense and not to have acted further than he should have because of the round he chose.
The reason for change in ammo? Budget, of course.
It should also be noted that a majority of departments (usually the big ones) will tend to follow what the FBI does.
Also note some departments issue weapons, some allow the officer to bring there own. Some maintain weapons very well, some don't. Some get weapons from DoD through 1033 (I think it is that), which is where they also get their MRAPS... Should be noted that 1033 weapons are generally pieces of crap and half the parts need replacing anyways.
However, law enforcement officials say witnesses and forensic analysis have shown that Officer Wilson did sustain an injury during the struggle in the car.
As Officer Wilson got out of his car, the men were running away. The officer fired his weapon but did not hit anyone, according to law enforcement officials.
Mr. Johnson took cover near a parked car as he saw the officer confronting Mr. Brown, Mr. Bosley said.
A man who lives nearby, Michael T. Brady, said in an interview that he saw the initial altercation in the patrol car, although he struggled to see exactly what was happening.
That first shot may not meet the required threat to justify shooting. That is up to the jury to decide (while applying state law). However, whatever Brown did after that first shot, can still justify deadly force.
This is pretty interesting. Shows the moments before he was shot, pulls something out of his shirt and walks towards the cops. No hands up. Also they report that it was well know that he had some mental issues. Sounds like some new twists.
Is this the same shooting? Its nothing like the descriptions that I am aware of.
This is pretty interesting. Shows the moments before he was shot, pulls something out of his shirt and walks towards the cops. No hands up. Also they report that it was well know that he had some mental issues. Sounds like some new twists.
That video pretty well refutes the initial police claim, and the idea that the victim was not on the sidewalk.
I would remind users that racist comments are rude, inflammatory, unacceptable in civilised company, and violate the rules of DakkaDakka, thus attracting penalties.
This is pretty interesting. Shows the moments before he was shot, pulls something out of his shirt and walks towards the cops. No hands up. Also they report that it was well know that he had some mental issues. Sounds like some new twists.
That video pretty well refutes the initial police claim, and the idea that the victim was not on the sidewalk.
Halfway on the side walk from the black top parking lot. At the 14 sec mark you can tell he has a knife. Also notice his demeaner and posture while walking towards LEO
Already stated those officers did not carry tazers.
Also I heard from Brown friend lawyer that Wilson was walking around alright. Going to say from experience that Wilson more likely all at once was dealing with mental shock, pain, disbelief and adrenaline rush.
mega_bassist wrote: I've seen a couple articles on Facebook saying there's a video of Officer Wilson walking around after the shooting completely fine without any facial injuries. I haven't found what they're referring to.
Being punched in the eye doesn't give you massive swelling and/or discoloration seconds after the hit. Bruises take a little time to form.
Hey Bre....did you catch the whack job that killed four people in Seattle that hit the news today somewhat?
On topic
Thinking Wilson was trying to get collective crap back together afterwards or trying to come to grips he was seeing two different vision from a out of alignment right eye
Halfway on the side walk from the black top parking lot. At the 14 sec mark you can tell he has a knife. Also notice his demeaner and posture while walking towards LEO
That mostly looks like a good shoot - you can hear them screaming at him to drop the knife. On the other hand, there were at least 3 or so shots after he was already down that seemed maybe unnecessary.
Halfway on the side walk from the black top parking lot. At the 14 sec mark you can tell he has a knife. Also notice his demeaner and posture while walking towards LEO
That mostly looks like a good shoot - you can hear them screaming at him to drop the knife. On the other hand, there were at least 3 or so shots after he was already down that seemed maybe unnecessary.
They stop shooting when he hit the ground?
Pretty much trained to keep shooting till the target hits the ground
They kept shooting after he hit the ground, as I said in my post. I don't think it's quite enough to turn a righteous shoot wrong, but it surely shows poor training IMO.
And no, definitely not NYPD style - I didn't see a single bystander get hit, let along dozens of them
This is pretty interesting. Shows the moments before he was shot, pulls something out of his shirt and walks towards the cops. No hands up. Also they report that it was well know that he had some mental issues. Sounds like some new twists.
That video pretty well refutes the initial police claim, and the idea that the victim was not on the sidewalk.
Wrong shooting dogma. This did not happen in Ferguson.
Ok, I compiled a list of every case the Finnish police shooting a person I could find from last twenty years (there are of course more, but these are the ones I could find details on.)
[spoiler]1994. A man threatens a taxi driver with a gun and barricades himself in a house. The police sieges the house for two days, while the shoots wildly from the house, and eventually sets the house on fire. Police shoots the man in the leg, but he still wont surrender. The police kills the man with a shot in the head.
1995. A man suspected from taxi robbery point a gun at the police that come to arrest him. The police shoots him dead. Turns out the man's weapon was a toy.
1997.A man armed with a shot gun shoots wildly and refuses to surrender, the police shoots the man, killing him.
2000. The police try to apprehend a man escaped from a mental hospital. The man is armed with a billhook and charges the police. He is shot once in the leg. When he tries to get up, another police officer shoots him again in the leg. The man is taken to hospital, but later dies. The police officer who shot the second shot is convicted of excessive use of force and negligent homicide.
2006. A man has several guns and starts to shoot wildly in a populated area he threatens to shoot the police and refuses to give up his weapons. The police shoot him in the leg, he survives.
2007. A man randomly attacks another man on a busy street, and stabs him lethally with a knife. The man behaves aggressively and there are plenty of people present. The police shoots the man in the leg, he survives.
2007. A man armed with a billhook behaves aggressively, He refuses to give up his weapon and eventually charges toward the police. The police shoots the man in the leg, he survives.
2007. The police chase a suspect who barricades himself in a house. When the police try to approach, the man threatens them with a gun, The police try to shoot him in the leg, but miss. The man surrenders.
2008. A man holds a woman hostage, threatens to rape her. When the police breaks in the apartment, the man holds a knife on the woman's throat and refuses to surrender. The police shoots the man once in the arm, he survives.
2009. A man has barricaded himself in a house and has shot and seriously injured another person who is with him in the house. He refuses to give up his gun and behaves aggressively. The police kills the man with a single shot.
2010. A drunk driver with truck causes serious danger. The police tries to stop the man with a spike strip, but the man continues to drive even his tires are flat. Eventually a police car that tried to stop the truck ends up being dragged in the front of the truck. The police shoots two shots at the man, one hit and wound him (he survives.) The police officer firing the shots is suspected of excessive use of force (I don't know whether he was eventually convicted.)
2013. A man armed with a gun shoots a woman in a busy harbour, killing her. The police approach the man, but he refuses to surrender. The police shoot him once in the leg. The man shoots himself and dies.
2013. A man armed with a knife and a gun is spotted on a busy street. The police confronts him, but the man refuses to give up his weapons, and starts to approach the police. The police shoots him once in the leg. The man survives.
This of course is not a complete list. There a few cases (1-4) of the police shooting at a person per year, usually non lethally. The police has killed three people on this century (My list has more than that, as it has cases from 90's too.)
So either, the Finnish police are amazingly bad shots (and try to conserve the bullets by usually shooting a single shot) and fail to hit the centre of the mass and accidentally hit a leg instead, or they're trained differently. The American style 'empty a clip in the suspects chest' shootings just do not happen. Now you can question the wisdom of this policy, but to me it perfectly clear which approach I prefer. I think Kajieme Powell and Michael Brown would've preferred that approach as well.[/spoiler]
So you managed to show that people were shot in the leg, but not that it was police policy or training
blaktoof wrote: if someone open carries in a restaurant the best thing you can do is pretend freak out, and yell "they have guns, lets get out of here" or just rush out without saying anything.
Do not go back, do not pay for your food or service. You will not be in trouble and no charges will be brought against you, if asked why you didn't pay, you ask why would you risk your life- doesn't the restaurant care more about the safety of their patrons than the 8.99 burger?
the restaurant will then ban open carry.
So when someone exercises their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms the best response you can think of is to make a scene, cause panic, and essentially steal from the establishment, as well as possibly being the cause for the police being phoned thus diverting resources from actual emergency calls?
Steve steveson wrote: UK police firearms training teaches the use and discharge of firearms to "remove the threat" rather than to kill, but this is normally by shooting the centre of mass. However I believe there is advice about shooting legs or head of a possible suicide bomber, to avoid shooting a possible suicide vest. Also the UK police also do not have an "empty a clip" policy, however due to the very nature of our fire arms officers they are much better shots than the average US office, or officer in any country where guns are carried by all or most officers.
You do realise that by shooting the legs you're not incapacitating the suicide bomber, and still giving them plenty of opportunity to detonate their vest, right?
BunkerBob wrote: I don't support the looting, that is a bunch of desperate people taking advantage of the situation and should be dealt with according but in the case the kid being shot after surrender. I believe that is called an execution if you have surrendered and they keep shooting to kill..... No one needs to panic though! The KKK is on the scene!
Crimson wrote: Whatever. In vast majority of cases a single shot would suffice.
Except that it doesn't. The only time that one shot is almost guaranteed to stop a threat is if it hits the brain stem
Crimson wrote: I am done arguing with Dakka gun brigade why shooting people dead is bad. It is possible to have a different kind of gun culture, it is possible to have different kind of police force. And it saves lives, you just don't seem to want that. Good day and enjoy the blood bath, I guess.
So rather than actually pony up the evidence of your claims as you were asked, and put forward a clear and logical counter you're going to ad hominem and strawman your way out of the thread?
Crimson wrote: Well, this was certainly an unexpected turn of events, but I'm glad for a this strong case for increased gun control presented here!
Welcome back from your (brief) self-imposed exile! That didn't take to long
As apparently people are still interested, here is an article related to the leg shot policy. It is an article relating to the practice in Czech Republic. Now, you may question the wisdom of the practice, but there actually are countries where the police officers are trained to do this.
(I don't think the practice is exactly the same in Finland as in Czech Republic, but there are a lot of similarities.)
This whole tangent reminds me of discussions of healthcare or criminal corrections system with Americans; there are always a lot of people who absolutely refuse to believe that things are done differently in other places, and sometimes it could even work better.
Crimson wrote: As apparently people are still interested, here is an article related to the leg shot policy. It is an article relating to the practice in Czech Republic. Now, you may question the wisdom of the practice, but there actually are countries where the police officers are trained to do this.
(I don't think the practice is exactly the same in Finland as in Czech Republic, but there are a lot of similarities.)
This whole tangent reminds me of discussions of healthcare or criminal corrections system with Americans; there are always a lot of people who absolutely refuse to believe that things are done differently in other places, and sometimes it could even work better.
We'll leave aside the irony of you decrying the US's gun culture because it doesn't match the Finnish experience. I'm still not seeing where it says that's the policy in Finland.
It isn't that people refuse to believe things are done differently elsewhere. But when someone makes a huge unsubstantiated claim expect to have people ask you to provide evidence.
Of for FFS, this place is worse than YMDC, I said earlier 'So either, the Finnish police are amazingly bad shots (and try to conserve the bullets by usually shooting a single shot) and fail to hit the centre of the mass and accidentally hit a leg instead, or they're trained differently.' The former option was actually a joke, it is not a logical conclusion based on the evidence.
Tomi Kataja, use of force teacher in the Finnish Police Academy comments on a certain recent shooting case, where a gun man was shot in the leg by the police, explaining why that was done: "The law does not specify at what part of the body the officer should aim, however a shot in a limb is much less likely to be fatal. If the danger is especially serious, a shot in the torso may be used."
So yes, it is perfectly intentional. Are we finally done?
So the take away is the Czechs do use guns to kill bad guys (the two to the head one to the chest comment) but rather than have their cops use actual non-lethal means as they go up the escalation of force scale, they have them shoot lethal weapons in an attempt to wound. That would not work here, and part three of that series explains why (I've pasted a section below).
"Yeah, the only tool I'm gonna give you is a hammer, but you can use it on these screws if you are really careful".
And I again submit, if non-lethal force is what the situation calls for, a gun was the wrong tool. At least a handgun loaded with regular bullets was the wrong tool.
At 2-3 meters, stun guns, baton, pepper and CS sprays, bean bag rounds from a shotgun, and other tools are much better if the goal is really just to wound/stop.
After Thoughts
The purpose of sharing this experience is not to push an agenda but rather to present an opportunity to think once again about our policing methodologies. By thinking about it again we will either see a need to change, or gain stronger resolve in our current commitment. There are so many things that we have stopped thinking about in police work because we have grown comfortable in our methods and manners. But like everything in history, yesterday’s certainties usually become tomorrow’s superstitions.
The argument has been made that we don’t shoot to kill, because if we did, we would continue firing even after the threat has stopped. Time and again officers empty their magazines into suspects, firing until the weapon runs dry. It’s common where suspects are filled with dozens of bullets when the smoke clears. We are aware that “over-shoot” is a survival instinct bought on by high arousal and extreme stress — it is something that we can explain but also something that invariably casts doubt on our training methods.
America is a strange place. Police officers and their agencies are constantly under the threat of lawsuits and this is different than in most other parts of the world. Adopting more difficult policies raises the level of responsibility and ultimately the officer’s accountability. Where the civil courts allow failed responsibilities to be paid out in monetary premiums, no one is eager to lay down their own minefield. Damned if you do — damned if you don’t as the saying goes.
This is probably why American police are reluctant to adopt policies that suggest that shooting in certain scenarios might be intended only to wound, for fear that a wounding shot might accidentally kill. No, it is better for a killing shot to accidentally wound. American police routinely adopt policies that plan for the worst, and hope for the best.
Center mass shots will likely remain the only target area taught and supported by training in the United States. If we don’t have a justification to kill, then we simply teach to not shoot. We prefer a model where we aren’t forced to account so much for accuracy, rather our mission is to describe the elements of using deadly force. We prefer that our accountability virtually end at the squeeze of the trigger.
If the bullet hits and kills, that’s OK — if it doesn’t kill, perhaps that’s better?
Imagine the nerve of asking someone to back up their position. The gall.
You haven't shown any evidence whatsoever that this alleged practice is common place in Finland, showing that it exists in the Czech Republic does not prove your point. Now you've posted a quote from someone with no context and no verifiable source. One person's alleged, unsubstantiated opinion does not prove that any sort of policy exists. Given your own bias I hope you'll forgive us in being skeptical of your claims, especially when you are unable to substantiate them.
Robert recently posted an article on a question posed to a guest by CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer:
“On Thursday, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer asked guest [lawyer] Jeffrey Toobin why police weren’t instructed to ‘shoot to injure, instead of kill,’ talkingpointsmemo.com reports. “Blitzer’s questions arose during a discussion on the unfurling conflict in Ferguson, Mo. over the fatal police shooting of unarmed teenager Michael Brown. ‘They often shoot to kill,’ Blitzer said of police. ‘Why do they have to shoot to kill? Why can’t they shoot a warning shot in the air, scare someone off if they think they’re in danger. Why can’t they shoot to, injure, shall we say? Why do they have to shoot to kill?’”
Blitzer’s question is, sadly, all too common . . .
Americans are treated to a steady stream of good guys purposely and casually wounding bad guys, usually in the shoulder. On TV and in the movies, such beyond-Olympic-level shooting always disarms and incapacitates the bad guy, and when the good guy is similarly wounded, they are barely inconvenienced and heal with amazing speed.
Not only is this sort of shooting incredibly dangerous to good guys and innocent bystanders, it’s almost always legally disastrous. In addition, any survivable gunshot wound may have life-long health implications. As regular readers may remember from an earlier article, one shoots to stop an attacker, to immediately–to whatever degree that is possible–cause them to cease the hostile actions that made the use of deadly force legally permissible. For the purposes of this article, we’ll assume that all legal burdens have been met. The good guy, under the laws in force when and where he has to shoot, is legally in the right when he pulls the trigger. But how is he going to accomplish his purpose: stopping the bad guy?
There are three primary means of stopping a human being:
Neural damage
Breaking the skeleton
Exsanguination
There are, however, many other considerations.
1) Neural Damage: causing trauma to the brain usually causes immediate cessation of hostile action. In fact, SWAT marksmen try for a brain stem shot whenever possible. They try to hit a hostage-taker exactly where the brain and brain stem meet, at the base of the rear of the skull. If properly placed, a bullet to this spot will cause the potential killer to drop as though a light switch had been thrown. Even if they have their finger on the trigger of a gun, they will not be able to pull it.
Unfortunately, this area is a very small target. In fact, relatively speaking, the human head is also a small target, particularly if it’s moving at all. Notice too that I’m talking about a highly trained marksman making the shot with a scoped, highly accurate rifle, almost always with the benefit of a spotter and from a supported position. Accurately shooting a handgun at the same target, even at close range, is much more demanding.
In addition, the target will seldom present the back of his skull to the shooter and stand still long enough for a perfect shot to be made. Marksmen commonly have to estimate where that tiny spot is while shooting from the front, side, above or below, or various angles of the same.
2) Breaking the skeleton: while breaking a femur or the pelvis, for example, will cause most people to drop to the ground, they may very well still be capable of pulling a trigger. And if so, have merely been rendered less mobile, not stopped. Making such shots with any degree of reliability with a handgun is exceedingly difficult, not only because such targets are small, but also because people move more or less constantly and the precise location of a major, load-bearing bone in a given person’s leg may be difficult, at best, to determine. It’s also particularly difficult because, compared with rifle ammunition, most handgun ammunition lacks the power to reliably break large bones.
3) Exsanguination: someone shot in an artery, or even the heart, may have up to three minutes of useful consciousness if they are truly determined to kill you regardless of the damage they suffer in the attempt. However, once sufficient blood is lost, the resulting drop in blood pressure will inevitably lead to unconsciousness and ultimately death.
Of course, a combination of these three primary effects may be more effective and faster in stopping hostile action.
Fortunately, such matters are not only physical, but psychological. Many people, upon receiving even an easily survivable gunshot wound, immediately drop and cease hostile action due to the “OMG! I’ve been shot!” response. Others–thankfully relatively few–may absorb ridiculous numbers of bullets which might slow, but not stop them, as they try to continue their deadly attacks. This is frequently assisted by drugs present in their system. Such people eventually succumb to one or more of these effects, but “eventually” is not helpful or comforting if they are attacking you.
The best course of action is to aim for “center mass,” or the part of the torso at or around the sternum, and fire enough rounds to force the attacker to stop. It’s the cumulative affect of blood vessel damage, neural shock, and psychological shock that will have the greatest effect, therefore more than one round may be necessary.
Keep in mind that it is always a good idea, even if you cannot avoid or escape a potential deadly force situation, to do your best to avoid shooting. Always remember that when the justification to shoot ends, the shooting immediately ends.
You must never think about “shooting to wound,” let alone try to do it. The law doesn’t require it, and it will be highly likely to backfire for several significant reasons. Obtaining the desired stopping effect with a shot that inflicts only a non-mortal wound is highly unlikely and could conceivably enrage an attacker who will then press an attack he might have otherwise abandoned. The necessary physical damage and psychological effect is simply not there, and making such a shot accurately is highly unlikely.
In fight-or-flight situations, among the first abilities human beings lose–which accompany time distortion, tunneling and hearing loss–is fine muscle control. This makes it very difficult, perhaps even impossible, to formulate the intention to shoot someone effectively in a small portion of the body so as to immediately disable them, to say nothing of actually carrying out that intention. For most people, it’s simply physically impossible. There are many documented incidents of police officers–people supposedly highly trained in marksmanship and the use of deadly force–emptying their handguns at criminals doing the same from ridiculously close range. When the gunsmoke cleared, both weren’t touched; every round missed. Hitting center mass will be more than hard enough, but with proper training and practice, attainable.
An additional concern is that in the heat of battle, many people suffer serious wounds, but are unaware of it until the danger has passed. Despite suffering multiple gunshot wounds that might eventually kill them, they didn’t so much as feel the bullets hit them. Some people may be so high on drugs they’re incapable of feeing anything. Shooting an arm or leg will likely do nothing more than make a dangerous felon who’s intent on killing you somewhat less mobile, but no less deadly. Hitting center mass will maximize the probability of quickly stopping a dangerous attacker—whether they feel it or not.
Also, substantial legal liability may attach. If you were so cool and detached that you could shoot someone in the knee, did you really have sufficient reason to shoot them in the first place? If you really thought that you were in mortal danger, why did you take the time to shoot them someplace that any reasonable person should know wouldn’t reliably stop them?
Yes, stopping them will likely result in their death, but you didn’t intend to cause their death. You intended only to stop them from causing yours. That they subsequently died is regrettable, but they made that choice and forced it upon you. You aren’t the attacker, but an innocent victim who will be affected for the rest of your life by the action they brutally forced on you.
In all cases, if you shoot at all, you shoot to stop, and you accomplish this by delivering a sufficient volume of accurate fire to that part of the body most likely to cause them to stop. When the threat has stopped, you immediately stop.
At this point, you may find yourself experiencing some degree of revulsion. If so, good for you. You have a conscience. I can’t say often enough that no moral, rational human being wants to harm or kill another. Violence is cruel, nasty, hateful and bloody, but the choice is simple and stark: do you prefer to be alive and unharmed, or bleeding, perhaps dying on the ground, at the mercy of someone cruel and inhuman enough to attack you? Which alternative would you prefer for those you love? Which of these outcomes is morally superior?
Deadly force encounters aren’t scripted scenes in movies. They’re as deadly serious as any human interaction can be, and the loser frequently winds up assuming ambient temperature. Leave shooting to wound to the movies. An action hero’s job is to sell popcorn, and they don’t have to aim and shoot under pressure. They can afford the luxury of shooting to wound. You can’t, regardless of what Wolf Blitzer thinks.
I'm sorry, but shooting someone in the leg is not only ineffective at stopping an assailant, but anyone who says it's less dangerous must have far better aim than me. If you're "aiming" for the meat of the leg it would be VERY easy to hit the femoral. Also known as one of the largest arteries in the body. Hit that and the bleed out is pretty quick. Like less than a minute before you pass out quick.
Ok, so. He has a gun pointed at him. rather then get one the ground he walks over a wall, to me that looks stupid. I think he is holding a knife backwards(with the bade facing to his back) But I may be seeing something. If I was an officer, I would think he was trying to flank me or something like that.
cincydooley wrote: I'm sorry, but shooting someone in the leg is not only ineffective at stopping an assailant, but anyone who says it's less dangerous must have far better aim than me. If you're "aiming" for the meat of the leg it would be VERY easy to hit the femoral. Also known as one of the largest arteries in the body. Hit that and the bleed out is pretty quick. Like less than a minute before you pass out quick.
Out of Crimson's own list of 13;
- 4 deaths from officer shootings (30.8%)
- 1 assailant shot in leg, no indication of number of shots fired, attempted to get up, shot in leg by a second officer, assailant later dies, second officer convicted of negligent homicide (7.7%)
- 1 suicide after being shot (7.7%)
- 5 assailants stopped after being shot in limb, but no indication of number of shots fired (38.5%)
- 1 inconclusive example where the officer fired two shots at assailant while being carried along on his vehicle, officer suspected of using unreasonable force (7.7%)
- 1 assailant was shot at, no indication of number of shots fired, no hits, and assailant surrendered (7.7%)
[all % rounded to one decimal place]
So we have as many killed by the police shooting as we do people being incapacitated by shooting at limbs, excluding the suicide.
Reading the synopsis of the negligent homicide and excessive force it seems that the Finnish legal system has extremely strict limits on the application of force, especially as it seems that the assailant in both cases still posed a risk after the first shot.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Imagine the nerve of asking someone to back up their position. The gall.
You haven't shown any evidence whatsoever that this alleged practice is common place in Finland, showing that it exists in the Czech Republic does not prove your point. Now you've posted a quote from someone with no context and no verifiable source. One person's alleged, unsubstantiated opinion does not prove that any sort of policy exists. Given your own bias I hope you'll forgive us in being skeptical of your claims, especially when you are unable to substantiate them.
To be fair, Crimson said it was practice in Finland and then a bunch of us said "this isn't the practice anywhere". Then he showed us where it is the practice. I'm not convinced of his side regarding the value of the practice, but I don't think his evidence regarding the existance of the practice as invalid as some would like it to be. His point is at least half made.
You can't always expect full verification of every government's policy on the internet because it's not always there.
Eilif wrote: To be fair, Crimson said it was practice in Finland and then a bunch of us said "this isn't the practice anywhere". Then he showed us where it is the practice. I'm not convinced of his side regarding the value of the practice, but I don't think his evidence regarding the existance of the practice as invalid as some would like it to be. His point is at least half made.
You can't always expect full verification of every government's policy on the internet because it's not always there.
Many of us voiced skepticism because it seemed to be a practice that flies directly in the face of conventional wisdom, and because it was such a bold claim we asked him to substantiate it. Instead of that we got insults hurled at us, a temporary rage quit from the thread, a list of incidents were there was the same number of deaths as incapacitations, an article about the Czech Republic, unverified comments from an alleged police trainer, and not a single verifiable fact.
To say that his point is half made would be generous in the extreme.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Difference between practice and Standard Operating Procedure. Gave the vibe that Fin LEO are trained to limb a suspect
Maybe it's just me but I'm interested in what the Finnish legal system has to say on this matter. Shooting a suspect in the head who posed a risk was fine, shooting someone a second time after he was shot in the leg and attempted to get up (still posed a threat) was negligent homicide, and firing two shots to wound someone driving along with the officer still on the hood of his vehicle (officer in serious risk of injury/death) was excessive force.
To say that his point is half made would be generous in the extreme.
Police risk assessment and use of force practices are complicated matters. If you expect some clear 'always shoot in the leg' rule, I cannot find one for you as such doesn't exist. You must also understand that Finland is a tiny country no one cares about, so online resources and studies on these matters will be much more limited than those pertaining America. I found couple of studies on the matter, but I am not going to start translating them for you. Couple of points from those though: in training it is stressed that when firing a gun intent should never be to kill, but neutralise the threat (and apparently unlike in America, these are not seen as one and the same thing.) Now in practice sometimes neutralising the threat means killing, and the police has the legal right to do so.
(Please not the at my earlier examples contain more shooting that end in death than the statistics would suggest. those were high profile cases I could find info on, and death of a suspect makes a case automatically big new. Real number for shootings that end up killing the suspect is something like 10%.)
Frankly, while I knew American police operates differently, I was not prepared to level of incredulousness the idea of the police shooting intentionally in a leg would cause. To me it is obvious that it is an option, and I was not aware how ingrained the shoot-to-kill dogma was. Well, at least this thread has been educational on that regard.
Maybe it's just me but I'm interested in what the Finnish legal system has to say on this matter. Shooting a suspect in the head who posed a risk was fine, shooting someone a second time after he was shot in the leg and attempted to get up (still posed a threat) was negligent homicide, and firing two shots to wound someone driving along with the officer still on the hood of his vehicle (officer in serious risk of injury/death) was excessive force.
In the first case the suspect was already hit and down, and it was not seen as a reasonable threat that he would actually get up, and catch the police officers while hopping on one leg. In the second case the police officer was in a patrol vehicle (a big, sturdy van), which was dragged in front of the truck, But I researched that one more, the officer was suspected of excessive use of force, but apparently was never charged (I might have said earlier he was charged, I blame tabloids), so in the end the shooting was deemed legal.
This whole tangent started with the video of Kajieme Powell shooting, as there to me the police use of force seemed absolutely excessive. It seems questionable to me if any shots were needed at all (why the officers didn't have a taser, mace or even a baton?) But if the guy needed to be shot at all, that was exactly the sot of situation where a single leg shot would have likely solved the situation, and with less risk to the bystanders too (it seems really dangerous to me to shoot several shots at the chest level, when there are people standing behind the target.)
To say that his point is half made would be generous in the extreme.
Police risk assessment and use of force practices are complicated matters. If you expect some clear 'always shoot in the leg' rule, I cannot find one for you as such doesn't exist.
You made the claim.
And now you're backtracking and pretending that there is no such policy, contradicting your previous comments.
Perhaps you should stop digging, before you reach China.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: You made the claim.
And now you're backtracking and pretending that there is no such policy, contradicting your previous comments.
I'm not backtracking. It is not any single rule, it is the whole risk assessment and use of force procedure that leads to limb shots taken in certain situations.
To my claim to be false, it would require the Finnish police to be absolutely terrible shots, and failing to kill their intended targets most of the time, and the person who is responsible in training new police officers to lie in a newspaper about the procedure.
Perhaps you should stop digging, before you reach China.
I'm in Finland, I'd reach New Zealand (I hear it is a lovely place.)
You can think it all you want, American Police are not trained to shoot to kill. They are trained to shoot to end the threat. The best way to do that is multiple rounds to center mass (and there is plenty of research showing this is the best and most effective). It just so happens you are fairly likely to die from that.
In the US, an officer willfully taking a shot to wound would probably be charged with excessive force.
I will find the article, but according to the article it said that in less than 1% of cases, arrestees claim that police used force against them with most reporting they escalated in some way.
Actually the article is pretty good and worth reading. Answers 6 questions.
Of course I am sure some of you will just find it bias and blow the whole thing off and just listen to some reporter who doesn't know the first thing about ear plugs.
cincydooley wrote: I'm sorry, but shooting someone in the leg is not only ineffective at stopping an assailant, but anyone who says it's less dangerous must have far better aim than me. If you're "aiming" for the meat of the leg it would be VERY easy to hit the femoral. Also known as one of the largest arteries in the body. Hit that and the bleed out is pretty quick. Like less than a minute before you pass out quick.
The President can't send reps to every funeral, and folks (especially his critics) are always going to say "why that , but not this" but this death has caused such national uproar and become the focus of so many issues even beyond the shooting, that he has to send someone.
This whole tangent started with the video of Kajieme Powell shooting, as there to me the police use of force seemed absolutely excessive. It seems questionable to me if any shots were needed at all (why the officers didn't have a taser, mace or even a baton?) But if the guy needed to be shot at all, that was exactly the sot of situation where a single leg shot would have likely solved the situation, and with less risk to the bystanders too (it seems really dangerous to me to shoot several shots at the chest level, when there are people standing behind the target.)
I've made this point before in another thread - you don't muck around with knives.
In Scotland we only carry incapacitant spray and extendable batons. If we encounter someone with a knife - or even a substantial blunt weapon like a baseball bat - I would be looking to back off and contain the threat and wait for better-equipped officers to deal with him (firearms/public order/dogs). Spray and batons are not reliable enough and require you to be too close to the threat. Similar issue with Taser - if even one prong misses or they fail to penetrate clothing then the Taser won't discharge and you are left with a threat at very close range.
Don't be blaise about the threat posed by a person with a knife. Edged weapons were the weapon of choice for humanity for centuries and at point blank range a knife has several advantages over even a semi-automatic pistol - a knife cannot jam (well, it could jam inside the targets body I suppose but that's not particularly desirable), it doesn't need to reload, and you can cut and stab with it.
I think folks also have to realise that beat or response officers are not SFO/SWAT officers - they don't spend most of their time training and putting thousands of rounds downrange a year as practise. The standard is to aim for the centre mass because that's not only where rounds that hit will have good effect, it's also because it's the biggest and least mobile part of the human body. Limbs and the head are not only smaller targets but they also jerk around a fair bit.
It's also worth bearing in mind the debilitating effects of adrenaline on marksmanship. I've read a few comments here and on various other forums about the 'shockingly poor' accuracy of police officers in the US.
Shooting at a cardboard target on a firing range is not even remotely similar to engaging a hostile, moving, human target who you believe is a threat to your life and to the lives of others.
For those who have not been in a violent and possibly life-threatening situation - especially one that is spontaneous - here are some of the effects of adrenalin (from my experience at least):
- you get a really strange numb and cold feeling throughout your body, particularly your extremities;
- you tend to become quite clumsy, to the point where doing simple things like taking off a seat-belt or drawing a weapon can be difficult;
- you get tunnel-vision, and in my case tunnel-hearing (can't hear anything on the radio even with an ear-piece in);
- you tend to find yourself reacting out of instinct/training whilst your brain chugs along a few seconds behind it as a kind of detached observer('Oh I should really draw my baton now and rack it - oh look I've already done that and I can't even remember doing it');
- everything seems to happen really really quickly and really really slowly at the same time
Once the adrenalin wears off, the fun doesn't end! You'll probably find that:
- your hands will shake quite badly;
- you think the incident has been going on for minutes when in reality it's only been seconds;
- you get quite out-of-breath;
- you'll generally feel tired;
- when you get home/finish your shift you generally feel completely wrung out and exhausted but at the same time your mind will be replaying everything that's happened and under no circumstances will it want you to go to sleep
Now unless you have a significant amount of training and/or experience which allows you to still be able to function calmly under the effects of adrenaline or you have a sufficiently good 'auto-pilot' - it's going to be a lot harder for you to engage a target with a firearm, especially if it involves targeting a limb.
Remember also that you have to stop your target and you have to stop him right now - I've read of far too many incidents where individuals are shot and fatally wounded, and yet keep on going. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout is the classic example.
I sometimes think that policing and society in the west has become too successful in a way - we have sufficiently shielded the majority of the population from having direct experience of violence, however now folks have a very distorted idea of violence, how it is carried out, how it feels when you get involved in a violent situation, and how to deal with it. For anyone who is interested there is a very good book called 'Into the Kill Zone' by a guy called David Klinger which has many different accounts of incidents where police officers shoot someone, where they could have shot and didn't, where they themselves were injured - goes into the thought processes of it and it's absolutely fascinating.
The President can't send reps to every funeral, and folks (especially his critics) are always going to say "why that , but not this" but this death has caused such national uproar and become the focus of so many issues even beyond the shooting, that he has to send someone.
But the case that just happened in Salt Lake involved a Black Cop shooting an unarmed teen. Surely the media and the president should have the same amount of outrage.
The President can't send reps to every funeral, and folks (especially his critics) are always going to say "why that , but not this" but this death has caused such national uproar and become the focus of so many issues even beyond the shooting, that he has to send someone.
So the solution is to cause more of an uproar when it happens.
OK, I'm off to loot burn & down my local Old Navy.
The President can't send reps to every funeral, and folks (especially his critics) are always going to say "why that , but not this" but this death has caused such national uproar and become the focus of so many issues even beyond the shooting, that he has to send someone.
So the solution is to cause more of an uproar when it happens.
OK, I'm off to loot burn & down my local Old Navy.
The only reason I heard about the shooting in Salt Lake is because I live nearby. It wasn't even a blip in the major news carriers articles for the day.
The President can't send reps to every funeral, and folks (especially his critics) are always going to say "why that , but not this" but this death has caused such national uproar and become the focus of so many issues even beyond the shooting, that he has to send someone.
So the solution is to cause more of an uproar when it happens.
OK, I'm off to loot burn & down my local Old Navy.
The only reason I heard about the shooting in Salt Lake is because I live nearby. It wasn't even a blip in the major news carriers articles for the day.
If no representatives had been sent, the very same people on this forum would ask why the Obama administration is ignoring the biggest domestic riots since 1992.
He sends reps? It's meaningless political pandering.
Yeah, Whembly, there's a fething narrative, alright.
Ouze wrote: If no representatives had been sent, the very same people on this forum would ask why the Obama administration is ignoring the biggest domestic riots since 1992.
He sends reps? It's meaningless political pandering.
Yeah, Whembly, there's a fething narrative, alright.
I think what Whembly was refering to, though, was the fact the media is ignoring the shooting in Salt Lake even though circumstances were similar in that an unarmed teen was shot. The big difference is that the cop was black(though, like Wilson, possibly within his rights to shoot), and the teen was of a different color.
Ouze wrote: If no representatives had been sent, the very same people on this forum would ask why the Obama administration is ignoring the biggest domestic riots since 1992.
Were I to ask such a question, it would be complete sarcasm. And, yes, in future local incidents you may very well see some of us asking when the President will send Eric Holder out to investigate even though there is absolutely no need. The President made himself a target for sarcasm and derision by pandering in the first place and I will not apologize for my participation.
I think what Whembly was refering to, though, was the fact the media is ignoring the shooting in Salt Lake even though circumstances were similar in that an unarmed teen was shot. The big difference is that the cop was black(though, like Wilson, possibly within his rights to shoot), and the teen was of a different color.
Ouze wrote: If no representatives had been sent, the very same people on this forum would ask why the Obama administration is ignoring the biggest domestic riots since 1992.
He sends reps? It's meaningless political pandering.
Actually... wouldn't faze me if he didn't send anyone. As crass as it sounds, he's the President and can't afford to show up/send delegate for these things... otherwise, things wouldn't get done.
...wait... things wouldn't get done?
Well, gak, he should be attending to EVERY funeral then!
That should fill up his calendar!
Yeah, Whembly, there's a fething narrative, alright.
I think what Whembly was refering to, though, was the fact the media is ignoring the shooting in Salt Lake even though circumstances were similar in that an unarmed teen was shot. The big difference is that the cop was black(though, like Wilson, possibly within his rights to shoot), and the teen was of a different color.
Were there massive riots in SLC?
Also, Dillon Taylor was 20.
Point taken on the age, my bad. The fact remains, however that the media would be all over the story if it was a white cop shooting an unarmed black man, stirring the pot and convicting the officer in the public's opinion since this seems to be the standard of operation.
Relapse wrote: The fact remains, however that the media would be all over the story if it was a white cop shooting an unarmed black man, stirring the pot and convicting the officer in the public's opinion since this seems to be the standard of operation.
My contention is that the media furor surrounding the Ferguson incident is primarily related to the the riots, not the race of the cop and the victim.
Are we still pretending this is all about a single isolated case of "somebody shot somebody and they weren't the same color" and was not influenced by anything else?
d-usa wrote: Are we still pretending this is all about a single isolated case of "somebody shot somebody and they weren't the same color" and was not influenced by anything else?
No... but, if you wanted "justice" for Brown... then the riots / media blitzkrieg is NOT what you want.
Relapse wrote: The fact remains, however that the media would be all over the story if it was a white cop shooting an unarmed black man, stirring the pot and convicting the officer in the public's opinion since this seems to be the standard of operation.
My contention is that the media furor surrounding the Ferguson incident is primarily related to the the riots, not the race of the cop and the victim.
Oh, and also that the police story is nonsense.
My view is that the media threw the officer under the bus, stirring things up past where they would be. In the Salt Lake story, race isn't mentioned. I know about the race of the officer because of a blurb that was in another local carrier. With the Ferguson shooting, that was the big angle being played on as well as the anger that Brown was revealed as a bully and thief.
d-usa wrote: Are we still pretending this is all about a single isolated case of "somebody shot somebody and they weren't the same color" and was not influenced by anything else?
No... but, if you wanted "justice" for Brown...
So you are pretending this is about one isolated case without any relationship to anything else.
Relapse wrote: In the Salt Lake story, race isn't mentioned. I know about the race of the officer because of a blurb that was in another local carrier. With the Ferguson shooting, that was the big angle being played on as well as the anger that Brown was revealed as a bully and thief.
I've read several blogs in which race is mentioned, and you're mentioning it now. The reason SLC is not being carried at a national level is the absence of massive riots.
Relapse wrote: In the Salt Lake story, race isn't mentioned. I know about the race of the officer because of a blurb that was in another local carrier. With the Ferguson shooting, that was the big angle being played on as well as the anger that Brown was revealed as a bully and thief.
I've read several blogs in which race is mentioned, and you're mentioning it now. The reason SLC is not being carried at a national level is the absence of massive riots.
I don't see how this is hard to understand.
I'm talking about major news carriers handling it in the way it was handled in Ferguson, though. There were no riots happening at the time the shooting happened, yet it was all over that a white cop shot an unarmed black teen, complete with pictures of Brown as a 13 year old.
I'm talking about major news carriers handling it in the way it was handled in Ferguson, though. There were no riots happening at the time the shooting happened, yet it was all over that a white cop shot an unarmed black teen, complete with pictures of Brown as a 13 year old.
It didn't become a major story until the riots began.
I'm talking about major news carriers handling it in the way it was handled in Ferguson, though. There were no riots happening at the time the shooting happened, yet it was all over that a white cop shot an unarmed black teen, complete with pictures of Brown as a 13 year old.
It didn't become a major story until the riots began.
Actually it was all over the news that a white cop shot an unarmed black teen. Then the riots began.
It didn't become a major story until the riots began.
Uh...yeah it was. It was cop kills unarmed black kid. It was instant Trayvon Martin comparisons.
I had to find out from the friggin Blaze, of all places, that the Dillon Taylor shooting even happened. I mean Christ, go to the MSNBC website. There are three FEATURED stories about Ferguson. If you search Michael Brown on their site there are 600+ returns. If you search Dillon Taylor there are 0. Salt Lake City Shooting Yields, again, 0 results. Ferguson Shooting? 231.
It's a little bit ridiculous, TBH. I knew there was a disparity, but I have to admit I didn't think it would be THAT egregious on MSNBC.
It didn't become a major story until the riots began.
Uh...yeah it was. It was cop kills unarmed black kid. It was instant Trayvon Martin comparisons.
I had to find out from the friggin Blaze, of all places, that the Dillon Taylor shooting even happened. I mean Christ, go to the MSNBC website. There are three FEATURED stories about Ferguson. If you search Michael Brown on their site there are 600+ returns. If you search Dillon Taylor there are 0. Salt Lake City Shooting Yields, again, 0 results. Ferguson Shooting? 231.
It's a little bit ridiculous, TBH. I knew there was a disparity, but I have to admit I didn't think it would be THAT egregious on MSNBC.
Every time they do a story about Obama it's just a plot to get the white people all worked up with the "black president does stuff that affect white people" media narrative.
It's despicable...
Edit: I hope the sarcasm is clear, as is the inted to point out that narrowing everything down to "every story about "person x did something to person Y and nothing at all has any relationship to what happened or why people responded a certain way" is a pretty obvious attempt to ignore what is actually happening.
(CNN) -- Protests in Missouri around the death of an unarmed teen turned violent late Sunday.
A gas station was looted, and police called for additional units to back up officers already on the street, said Brian Schellman, spokesman with the St. Louis County Police Department.
etc etc etc
I tried to find the obvious race baiting of "white cop" and/or "black teen" but it didn't jump out at me.
Oh,and there were 19 articles pre-riot AND Eric Holder had already commented on the shooting, PRE RIOT.
CNN doesn't show any mention about Holder saying anything pre-riot other than the Justice Department saying "Holder is aware" when directly asked by the police. Which was done AFTER the riot.
CNN doesn't show any mention about Holder saying anything pre-riot other than the Justice Department saying "Holder is aware" when directly asked by the police. Which was done AFTER the riot.
Nope, you're right. I misread the opening quote in the article I was reading.
But that shouldn't equal ZERO on the Salt Lake shooting.
That sentence makes no sense.
It really does... a NEWS site should be reporting on the news. Whether the SLC shooting is as big on the news as it could be is a whole other thing... When I was driving through SLC, they broke news of a bat gak crazy lady who, it was discovered, had been killing infants, and "storing" them in the garage... Next night, I was "home" (at my parents) in Oregon, and there was NOTHING on the national news about it.
I guess what I'm saying is, right or wrong, some things just don't make the national news headlines for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it's race, sometimes it's location, sometimes it could be something else entirely.
But that shouldn't equal ZERO on the Salt Lake shooting.
That sentence makes no sense.
It really does... a NEWS site should be reporting on the news. Whether the SLC shooting is as big on the news as it could be is a whole other thing... When I was driving through SLC, they broke news of a bat gak crazy lady who, it was discovered, had been killing infants, and "storing" them in the garage... Next night, I was "home" (at my parents) in Oregon, and there was NOTHING on the national news about it.
I guess what I'm saying is, right or wrong, some things just don't make the national news headlines for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it's race, sometimes it's location, sometimes it could be something else entirely.
Well, in this case it appears that NEITHER shooting made any national news.
The protests after the shooting made the news.
And somehow the non-existing news prior to the protests racebaited the protests into existance.
I guess what I'm saying is, right or wrong, some things just don't make the national news headlines for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it's race, sometimes it's location, sometimes it could be something else entirely.
Obviously, that is the crux of the present dispute.
The President can't send reps to every funeral, and folks (especially his critics) are always going to say "why that , but not this" but this death has caused such national uproar and become the focus of so many issues even beyond the shooting, that he has to send someone.
So the solution is to cause more of an uproar when it happens.
OK, I'm off to loot burn & down my local Old Navy.
I've got my eyes on a Brooks Brothers. Daddy need some new suits. Time to protest me some injustice!
Is it just me or does it feel like the more one watches 24 news the less infomred one becomes. CNN had all Ferguson all the time ! Then reporters showing a convenience store messed up with the earthquake and more Fetguson. Fox was all ISIS then the same liquor store apparently. MSNBC, well they're just ranting in a closet.
Not having the BBC means I find I actually watch AL Jazeera the most to try to find actual you know NEWS. Again, I seem to be the only one.
So what this proves...is that white people don't riot and loot at the drop of a hat because a black officer killed an unarmed white kid?
Oh, what a delightfully racist comment!
There have been a (disturbingly) large number of black people killed by white police officers, with no riots happening. There are several examples of that just in the last month.
Ferguson police has a history of racial profiling, misconducts and coverups, and it seems that the town's black community had pretty completely lost their trust in them. The shooting was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, thus the riots.
So what this proves...is that white people don't riot and loot at the drop of a hat because a black officer killed an unarmed white kid?
Oh, what a delightfully racist comment!
pfftt. People throw around accusations of racism on the internet so much it loses almost all meaning. My comment was little more than a statement of fact.
Peaceful protests are entirely justified.
Rioting and looting, targeting innocent business owners who had nothing to do with the shooting?
There have been a (disturbingly) large number of black people killed by white police officers, with no riots happening. There are several examples of that just in the last month.
Except that in this case it appears that the victim in question had just carried out a robbery and allegedly attacked the Officer who shot him.
If the black community is going to riot and loot businesses to protest over a shooting...then it appears they picked the wrong shooting to riot over.
Ferguson police has a history of racial profiling, misconducts and coverups, and it seems that the town's black community had pretty completely lost their trust in them. The shooting was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, thus the riots.
They picked the wrong straw it seems.
The officer was reported to have suffered injuries right? Has this been confirmed?
I think it's a testament to how inflated racial issues are in the US that two cases like Martin and Brown are the only things people can get so upset over. Like Zimmerman, I anticipate the Officer in this case will be exonerated or found not guilty if even brought to trial.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: I think it's a testament to how inflated racial issues are in the US that two cases like Martin and Brown are the only things people can get so upset over. Like Zimmerman, I anticipate the Officer in this case will be exonerated or found not guilty if even brought to trial.
Even if the cop is found guilty and given a life sentence, and the Ferguson PD is forced to implement all kinds of fixes to address everybody's issues, what are the odds that the looters, to celebrate their vindication, pay the small business owners for the stolen property and damages?
d-usa wrote: This whole "race baiting" thing is just a sad excuse to actually ignore why stuff happens....
While I agree, the disparity in the coverage is both appalling and shocking.
Like I said, I knew there'd be a pretty large gap. I couldn't believe MSNBC didn't have a single story.....
I can't speak to the TV network because I don't actually watch news on TV and haven't since I was like 13, but as far as the website goes, MSNBC had a site revamp a while back. It's no longer really a "news" site, and it's now a collection of opinion pieces more akin to Huffington Post than, say, CNN. I stopped reading it when they did that, but I wouldn't expect them to cover any single specific news story at all anymore and would not lump them in with CNN and Foxnews as I used to. They're simply no longer a news website.
Eilif wrote: "Use least force possible" has no relation to "Shoot in the leg".
I'm calling Bull crap. No police force I have ever heard of trains for leg shots and has a policy that when an officer decides he/she must pull a trigger they should aim for the leg.
Germany
Do you have any source for this whatsoever? Because as far as I know this is not true.
German Policy is you get one warning shot then shoot to wound unless you are in immediate danger, more immediate than a guy with a knife slowly walking towards you at least
d-usa wrote: Are we still pretending this is all about a single isolated case of "somebody shot somebody and they weren't the same color" and was not influenced by anything else?
No... but, if you wanted "justice" for Brown...
So you are pretending this is about one isolated case without any relationship to anything else.
So, are you saying you've already made up your mind without hearing all the facts?
Jihadin wrote: Thought the LEO agency in Ferguson did not release the race of the officer that did the shooting but mention they only have three black officers....
gak. His name, age, race, address, and recent personal history has all been released.
None of that was released when it started. It help instigated it. Even the threat by a Hacker organization to release the pertinent info on the officer (even though they screwed the pooch on that) they still did not release the info
Yeah, I mean, stupid is as stupid does and all, but I have to think that a cop is substantially more likely to only use force when there is no other choice if he knows it's being videotaped.
cincydooley wrote: Riots that seem to stem from a racial element of the shooting, of which the SLC shooting also has.......
No, it doesn't. That's a forced comparison made by people that don't understand how "race" works.
So what this proves...is that white people don't riot and loot at the drop of a hat because a black officer killed an unarmed white kid?
Maybe because there is a greater chance of the black officer being punished?
Whereas the white officers will walk away scot free and nothing will change. Gee, I wonder why the communities who this affects the most are angry....
Do you think either one deserves punishment if they were shown to be in the right? Will you turn around and congratulate them on this thread for being willing to make a tough choice at that point?
Ouze wrote: Yeah, I mean, stupid is as stupid does and all, but I have to think that a cop is substantially more likely to only use force when there is no other choice if he knows it's being videotaped.
If this were true, there would be a LOT more incidents with deadly force being used by police. The trouble I have with your statement is that it appears to imply that cops are essentially loose cannons ready to blast at any moment for any reason with only the thread of disciplinary action holding them back. Most police are just hard working people who would honestly love to be that cop who goes his entire career without ever having to draw his weapon. They want to protect people from the worst of society, not gun down anyone in a hoodie like they're playing CoD2 or whatever.
Ouze wrote: Yeah, I mean, stupid is as stupid does and all, but I have to think that a cop is substantially more likely to only use force when there is no other choice if he knows it's being videotaped.
If this were true, there would be a LOT more incidents with deadly force being used by police. The trouble I have with your statement is that it appears to imply that cops are essentially loose cannons ready to blast at any moment for any reason with only the thread of disciplinary action holding them back. Most police are just hard working people who would honestly love to be that cop who goes his entire career without ever having to draw his weapon. They want to protect people from the worst of society, not gun down anyone in a hoodie like they're playing CoD2 or whatever.
It's not like we have evidence that use-of-force has declined in departments that have issued body cameras...
I do believe that we covered the evidence a number of times in this thread already...
But to summarize it one more time:
Departments that have issued body cameras have seen use-of-force decrease as well as complaints about use-of-force. This could be for two main reasons:
1) police officers know that they are being recorded and that evidence against them will be readily available. So they are less likely to use excessive force because of it.
2) people interacting with the police know that they are being recorded and that evidence against them will be readily available. So they are less likely to act stupid and the police will be less likely to require use-of-force (which would be warranted). People will be less likely to provoke the police if they know that they won't have a case to sue them over due to evidence.
They keep people on both sides of the camera transparent and use-of-force drops.
d-usa wrote: I do believe that we covered the evidence a number of times in this thread already...
But to summarize it one more time:
Departments that have issued body cameras have seen use-of-force decrease as well as complaints about use-of-force. This could be for two main reasons:
1) police officers know that they are being recorded and that evidence against them will be readily available. So they are less likely to use excessive force because of it. 2) people interacting with the police know that they are being recorded and that evidence against them will be readily available. So they are less likely to act stupid and the police will be less likely to require use-of-force (which would be warranted). People will be less likely to provoke the police if they know that they won't have a case to sue them over due to evidence.
They keep people on both sides of the camera transparent and use-of-force drops.
So aren't you denying your own position then and we do have evidence cameras reduces incidents. I'm not getting what you're trying to argue. Are you saying cameras are bad or good?
Clearly they are good. I want cameras on them. I want dash cams. I want drones delivering me pizza...hourly. Wait how did the pizza comment get in there?
I replied "it's not like we have evidence..." sarcastically.
I've been pretty consistent regarding cameras. Both for holding cops accountable and protecting them from wrongful accusations.
Now for actual Ferguson news.
Looks like the PD finally released the report, and it's almost completely blank? Is that an actual thing or are stupid websites trying to post crap again?
And an apparent audio recording of the shooting has two sets of shots, six followed by four.
It's how they work, and it's not a new complaint. People have had a problem with it for a long time because:
1) The only person that gets to decide what to present to them is the prosecutor.
2) It's super secret, so you don't know what the prosecutor presented (unless you live in Austin)
3) They pretty much always do what the prosecutor wants.
So the main complaint is that the prosecutor gets to charge, or not charge, and do something that is unpopular while at the same time pretending he didn't actually do it.
"I didn't choose not to charge him. I just presented all the evidence to the grand jury and they made the decision not to charge him. I pinkie swear that I made the best case I totally could."
That's the main beef people have with it.
I do think that MO also has the option of presenting all the evidence and do this whole thing in front of a judge, so there would be transparency doing it that way.
Frazzled wrote: There's a meme? Does it involve wiener dogs or bacon?
Sorta...
It all started with the outcry that the DA of St. Louis County is the son of a police officer killed in the line of duty and that whole ordeal. Which was nothing more than an intra-party squabble.
Then, there was accusations that the officials already have a good idea that Officer Wilson won't be charged, that they're stretching the "Grand Jury" deliberation as long as they can (till October) in order to defuse the Ferguson situation. Thus, folks were clamoring for more transparency of the current Grand Jury deliberations.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: It's how they work, and it's not a new complaint. People have had a problem with it for a long time because:
1) The only person that gets to decide what to present to them is the prosecutor.
2) It's super secret, so you don't know what the prosecutor presented (unless you live in Austin)
3) They pretty much always do what the prosecutor wants.
So the main complaint is that the prosecutor gets to charge, or not charge, and do something that is unpopular while at the same time pretending he didn't actually do it.
"I didn't choose not to charge him. I just presented all the evidence to the grand jury and they made the decision not to charge him. I pinkie swear that I made the best case I totally could."
That's the main beef people have with it.
Oh... okay.
*shrug*
Let the judicial system work.
I do think that MO also has the option of presenting all the evidence and do this whole thing in front of a judge, so there would be transparency doing it that way.
It's the fact that some Grand Jury may not agree to indict, but the Prosecutor can still attempt to indict w/o the Grand Jury's support. The only difference is that the Prosecutor must then convince the Judge the there's enough evidence to proceed with the trial.
Yep, so many issues and so much money could be saved if they just put camera's on every cop. Everyone (cops and civilians) would be better behaved. We have the technology. I say use it. Less tanks and swat gear for small towns and more cameras on the officers.
I'm not a huge O'Reilly fan at all, because he does so often ignore statistics like the ones Kelly brings to the table. This is a pretty good representation of why I do like Kelly a fair amount, though.
I'm not a huge O'Reilly fan at all, because he does so often ignore statistics like the ones Kelly brings to the table. This is a pretty good representation of why I do like Kelly a fair amount, though.
<--- No. Not enough beer in the world.
----> Maybe. She might just be a ball breaker, though.
I'm not a huge O'Reilly fan at all, because he does so often ignore statistics like the ones Kelly brings to the table. This is a pretty good representation of why I do like Kelly a fair amount, though.
I'm not a huge O'Reilly fan at all, because he does so often ignore statistics like the ones Kelly brings to the table. This is a pretty good representation of why I do like Kelly a fair amount, though.
I'm not a huge O'Reilly fan at all, because he does so often ignore statistics like the ones Kelly brings to the table. This is a pretty good representation of why I do like Kelly a fair amount, though.
Wow, the comments on that page are, well, insane.
And your surprised?
I always get a kick out of the ones that make me wonder if I'm not in the south during the early 19th century and I'm not just hallucinating all this technology. And by a kick, I mean sheer horror.
Thanks for sharing. This part really resonated with me...
“It all has to do with economics,” she said. “Who wants to go out and get a job and make $7.50 an hour?”
The civil unrest will only get worse until something changes across the country about this. I recall talking to a women who just had a baby. She was looking at her job opportunities vs. the cost of daycare. It turned out getting a job would be a net loser of income and instead staying home and collecting Government subsidies would make her more money. As a rational actor what do you think she chose to do?
Is the problem that wages are too low or are subsidies too high? Well, keep in mind wages have stagnated or dropped since 1977. Never in my lifetime have I seen "peak" wages in inflation adjusted dollars. IN the meantime, benefits for social programs have actually gone down. So I think it is pretty clear what the answer is. Wages need to move and it is in everyone's best intersts for that to happen otherwise we can expect more civil unrest.
It's like the Guilded Age II- Social Darwinism Harder!
I'm not a huge O'Reilly fan at all, because he does so often ignore statistics like the ones Kelly brings to the table. This is a pretty good representation of why I do like Kelly a fair amount, though.
Wow, the comments on that page are, well, insane.
And your surprised?
I always get a kick out of the ones that make me wonder if I'm not in the south during the early 19th century and I'm not just hallucinating all this technology. And by a kick, I mean sheer horror.
I can see that, I saw a few days ago, the comments on how video games cause violence and I looked down in sheer disappointment at the comments made. Saying yeah my child might become violent offender thanks to video games.
Sometimes I wonder where the world would be if idiots didn't make their voice heard.
Thanks for sharing. This part really resonated with me...
“It all has to do with economics,” she said. “Who wants to go out and get a job and make $7.50 an hour?”
The civil unrest will only get worse until something changes across the country about this. I recall talking to a women who just had a baby. She was looking at her job opportunities vs. the cost of daycare. It turned out getting a job would be a net loser of income and instead staying home and collecting Government subsidies would make her more money. As a rational actor what do you think she chose to do?
Is the problem that wages are too low or are subsidies too high? Well, keep in mind wages have stagnated or dropped since 1977. Never in my lifetime have I seen "peak" wages in inflation adjusted dollars. IN the meantime, benefits for social programs have actually gone down. So I think it is pretty clear what the answer is. Wages need to move and it is in everyone's best intersts for that to happen otherwise we can expect more civil unrest.
It's like the Guilded Age II- Social Darwinism Harder!
A) I don't think the subsidies are too high... just a question of delivery method.
B) $15.00/hr to flip burgers is too high imo...but, I do think min wage need an increase. The question is by how much and is it all at once? or phased in?
B) $15.00/hr to flip burgers is too high imo...but, I do think min wage need an increase. The question is by how much and is it all at once? or phased in?
Agreed... Of course, I, like many people here are still waiting to see these millions of "shovel ready jobs" that a certain someone promised America
B) $15.00/hr to flip burgers is too high imo...but, I do think min wage need an increase. The question is by how much and is it all at once? or phased in?
Agreed... Of course, I, like many people here are still waiting to see these millions of "shovel ready jobs" that a certain someone promised America
Great. So we are agreed in principle that minium wage needs to be increased. That is a huge start. Therefore, I suggest we all contact our Reps and Senators and ask them to raise minimum wage. Politicans need to know that their voters actual want that. We can argue abotu the proper amounts ad timing once they all know that an increase is needed.
Oh, and a sa follow-up to Whembly's article her eis a intersting conversation with an Iowa Professorwho specializes in the demographics of St. Louis about how the area s structured.
Thanks for sharing. This part really resonated with me...
“It all has to do with economics,” she said. “Who wants to go out and get a job and make $7.50 an hour?”
The Answer, No one wants to. But sometimes you have to.
But thi is something that has been knoccking around my head. The idea the class, not race, has a culture in and of itself. It perpetuates the class itself. Middle of the road income students will end up usually the same as will those in poverty.
Now you are starting to understand. Race Wars are just a distraction from the true war; the Class War. I think some guy we aren't allowd to think had any good ideas said that once.
a Poor person of any ethnicity has more in common than a person of a certain ethnicity that's poor and a person of that same ethnicity that is wealthy in america.
The race thing is simply a way to distract people from that, that's why the media perpetuates the "race" war, like in this case with unconnected facts - "Police in ferguson arrest more more african americans than white people" this is implied racism, but the truth is the population in furguson is 67% african american according to the 2010 census, which means the arrest rates are actually equal. Which the media leaves out because that doesn't incite "Race" war media nonsense.
or that the police force is predominantly non african american. This is a pointless fact, you have to compare the people hired versus the people applying to get a fact that is useful. According to the mayor of the city they have a very very hard time finding african american applicants to the police force and take them any chance they get.
The whole trayvon martin thing, the shooter was hispanic, and Identified as such along with his whole family but the media portrayed him as white, because racial tension = distraction from real issues.
problem isn't race, problem is the class system. In this case the problem is also police brutality.
if you are poor you live from paycheck to paycheck if you are lucky with no savings, eventually you will have a problem. Medical, car accident, tree falls on your home, house fire, whatever. Now you are in debt. The rest of your life you will struggle with debt and never be able to break out of a cycle of paying your debt/not making enough money to get buy/borrowing to go into more debt. Making you live your life as a wage slave, always stuck at the bottom. Your debt will accrue interest generating more money than you possibly originally owed, which will be bought and sold as commodities by banks and other financial institutions along with other poor wage slave debts. You will never have time to educate yourself to break out of the cycle because if you fail to show up to your wage slave job, or attempt to exit the cycle you will have to contend with not being able to qualify for an education due to credit and financial aid problems along with your looming debt waiting to default on you and destroy your pathetic financial existence ruining your ability to get anything for yourself or family in your future. Should you actually make it into college/university at this point you cannot afford it and will go further in debt with student loans most likely, although you might qualify for some grants depending on your ethnicity,gender, other traits and what state you are in. This of course assumes you break out of the poor culture you grew up in, along with all the emotional issues that come with it.
blaktoof wrote: Of course class has a culture all of its own.
a Poor person of any ethnicity has more in common than a person of a certain ethnicity that's poor and a person of that same ethnicity that is wealthy in america.
The race thing is simply a way to distract people from that, that's why the media perpetuates the "race" war, like in this case with unconnected facts - "Police in ferguson arrest more more african americans than white people" this is implied racism, but the truth is the population in furguson is 67% african american according to the 2010 census, which means the arrest rates are actually equal. Which the media leaves out because that doesn't incite "Race" war media nonsense.
or that the police force is predominantly non african american. This is a pointless fact, you have to compare the people hired versus the people applying to get a fact that is useful. According to the mayor of the city they have a very very hard time finding african american applicants to the police force and take them any chance they get.
The whole trayvon martin thing, the shooter was hispanic, and Identified as such along with his whole family but the media portrayed him as white, because racial tension = distraction from real issues.
problem isn't race, problem is the class system. In this case the problem is also police brutality.
When you adjust for the population density of blacks in Ferguson, the numbers are still disproportionate. The stops are 37% higher for blacks than whites when the number are correctly adjusted.
And you can't just ignore race when talking about poverty. St. Louis housing and urban policies have been crafted since the end of slavery to segregate blacks and keep them poor. By restricting who can purchase home you put a big stop on wealth accumulation for those affected. And if there where no racial component, then upward mobility for whites and blacks would be the same, which it is not. It's something like a 20% percent difference.
You had pretty much all African Americans starting with zero wealth in the 1860s and then 100 years of racist social policies preventing them from acquiring any substantial wealth. The reason so many black people are poor, is directly because of racism.
blaktoof wrote: Of course class has a culture all of its own.
a Poor person of any ethnicity has more in common than a person of a certain ethnicity that's poor and a person of that same ethnicity that is wealthy in america.
The race thing is simply a way to distract people from that, that's why the media perpetuates the "race" war, like in this case with unconnected facts - "Police in ferguson arrest more more african americans than white people" this is implied racism, but the truth is the population in furguson is 67% african american according to the 2010 census, which means the arrest rates are actually equal. Which the media leaves out because that doesn't incite "Race" war media nonsense.
or that the police force is predominantly non african american. This is a pointless fact, you have to compare the people hired versus the people applying to get a fact that is useful. According to the mayor of the city they have a very very hard time finding african american applicants to the police force and take them any chance they get.
The whole trayvon martin thing, the shooter was hispanic, and Identified as such along with his whole family but the media portrayed him as white, because racial tension = distraction from real issues.
problem isn't race, problem is the class system. In this case the problem is also police brutality.
When you adjust for the population density of blacks in Ferguson, the numbers are still disproportionate. The stops are 37% higher for blacks than whites when the number are correctly adjusted.
And you can't just ignore race when talking about poverty. St. Louis housing and urban policies have been crafted since the end of slavery to segregate blacks and keep them poor. By restricting who can purchase home you put a big stop on wealth accumulation for those affected. And if there where no racial component, then upward mobility for whites and blacks would be the same, which it is not. It's something like a 20% percent difference.
You had pretty much all African Americans starting with zero wealth in the 1860s and then 100 years of racist social policies preventing them from acquiring any substantial wealth. The reason so many black people are poor, is directly because of racism.
Can you please elaborate these two points?
By restricting who can purchase home you put a big stop on wealth accumulation for those affected.
The reason so many black people are poor, is directly because of racism.
Can you please elaborate these two points?
By restricting who can purchase home you put a big stop on wealth accumulation for those affected.
The reason so many black people are poor, is directly because of racism.
Equity from home ownership is one of the best ways to accumulate wealth for the middle class. You don't usually have the money to risk on investing, or start your own business. Everyone has to have a place to live, and when you are forced to rent you just throw that money away in the long run compared to owning a home. If the market is right you can sell your home to get a better one. You can also use the equity for loans to cover unplanned expenses. Thirdly, when you die you can pass that home on to your heirs, keeping the wealth for the next generation.
St. Louis used racial covenants and zoning that favored expensive large plot homes to keep blacks out of white neighborhoods. It wasn't the only city to do this, but they were one of the most prolific at it. And whenever a urban development project was started, it was usually a black neighborhood that got bulldozed to do it. Forcing families into government housing like the notorious Pruitt Igoe projects. Even after these policies nominally ended during the civil rights era, it was (and to an extent still is) much more difficult for black families to secure home loans.
So even if a white family and a black family were making the same wage, the white family gets to invest that money into their mortgage while the equivalent black family looses it in rent.
Can you please elaborate these two points?
By restricting who can purchase home you put a big stop on wealth accumulation for those affected.
The reason so many black people are poor, is directly because of racism.
Equity from home ownership is one of the best ways to accumulate wealth for the middle class. You don't usually have the money to risk on investing, or start your own business. Everyone has to have a place to live, and when you are forced to rent you just throw that money away in the long run compared to owning a home. If the market is right you can sell your home to get a better one. You can also use the equity for loans to cover unplanned expenses. Thirdly, when you die you can pass that home on to your heirs, keeping the wealth for the next generation.
St. Louis used racial covenants and zoning that favored expensive large plot homes to keep blacks out of white neighborhoods. It wasn't the only city to do this, but they were one of the most prolific at it. And whenever a urban development project was started, it was usually a black neighborhood that got bulldozed to do it. Forcing families into government housing like the notorious Pruitt Igoe projects. Even after these policies nominally ended during the civil rights era, it was (and to an extent still is) much more difficult for black families to secure home loans.
So even if a white family and a black family were making the same wage, the white family gets to invest that money into their mortgage while the equivalent black family looses it in rent.
I understand the whole "home ownership = wealth" argument...
What I was driving at is this: What are these policies now that could be considered some form of racism?
Keep in mind that in these past few decades, lending policies were liberalized to encouragedminorities/poors to purchase homes.
Oh... those large urban projects? Take a look at the STL airport expansion.
But wealth accumulation is a long game. So what the policies where like in the 40-60s, still plays into the current dynamics. Current policies are better, but the housing bubble hurt first time home owning black families pretty hard. Erasing much of the progress of the last 30 years. And if you look directly at St.Louis(grew up in St. Peters myself), you see a city where modern progressive federal housing policies hasn't done much to crack entrenched segregation.
I happen to think we live in a much less racist America than we used to. But the effects of racism in the past are going to play into social, political, and economic problems for some time still.
cincydooley wrote: One could make a reasonable argument that a big factor in the 2008 housing bubble was that "liberalization" of lending policies.....
Not important in the discussion...
I believe he's local (lives in St. Louis) and I'm curious if anyone believes that current policies today is some form of racism.
What happened in the past is done, move forward with your eyes in the future. (Al Sharpton actually said that in one of his speeches here )
cincydooley wrote: One could make a reasonable argument that a big factor in the 2008 housing bubble was that "liberalization" of lending policies.....
shhhh, we dont want facts to get in the way of the whole "whitety and the man be bringing everyone down, because of racism and stuff."
Someone should go let spain know that they are not at fault for their economic situation, they should blame the moors who invaded, enslaved their population, and raped their citizens to the point where the genetic landscape was forever changed. Because history matters, no matter how distant.
(tougne in cheek a bit, which should be obvious, though I fully expect it not to be taken as such)
It hurt people that were too ignorant to take loans they could actually afford or people that CHOSE to be house poor. And again, those loans were encouraged by the CRA
What happened in the past is done, move forward with your eyes in the future. (Al Sharpton actually said that in one of his speeches here )
sharpton says a lot of things... that being one of the few sensible/true ones.
seriously, at some point we need to stop blaming everything on what happened in the past and own up/move on/go forward.
what cincy said is pertinant though, changes were made to make things more available to people who were otherwise being rejected as they honestly could not afford the homes they wanted to buy, then Gak hit the fan when they could pay, and now they are actually worse of then before.
cincydooley wrote: One could make a reasonable argument that a big factor in the 2008 housing bubble was that "liberalization" of lending policies.....
That "liberalization" of policies was to correct past discrimination. Historically blacks have been denied home loans they should have received.
And from experience I can tell you that banks went after blacks in a very predatory fashion. My MIL is black, and you would not believe the crazy messed up mortgage she was pressured into by her broker. He had her in the bank after hours with no one around signing forms. And she was left with a set of multiple loans I still can't even sort out. When no one in your family has ever had a mortgage before, it's hard to figure out when you are being screwed. They even tried to sue my wife for the balance of a foreclosed property illegally. Luckily I was able to find a lawyer to get the whole thing thrown out.
unfortunately ethnicity really doesn't matter much when you go to purchase a home, often the buyer and seller never meet and its solely through a middle real estate agent.
The main determining factor is $.
yes there is zoning in america, and yes they do not zone poor homes next to rich homes because the people developing the homes want to sell rich homes, because $. If you put a poor home next to a rich home the rich home is worth less money because a wealthy person is likely to move there, a wealthy person is likely to move there because the resale value is more likely to be lower if the homes around it are of lower value. This is also the reason for gated communities, home owners associations, etc.
I do not believe the current real estate, zoning, etc are racist in any regards in America.
They are simply classist.
Unfortunately there is a historical relevance to certain ethnic groups being impoverished and unable to afford to purchase a home in general. This leads to renting, which is usually an eventual net loss of monetary assets compared to owning where the money you spend becomes value you can use later in life. This is not just an issue with ethnic peoples, there are many "white" people who are stuck in this general debt cycle as well.
Also regarding ethnics, or minorities, banks do not care about your ethnicity, they care about your money. The will offer you a loan if they think you can pay any of it off, knowing if you do not they can always repossess your home using a lien if need be.
the whole recent housing market thing was not a racist endeavor, but was an $ endeavor, a large percent of the small percent made a lot of money at the expense of the many off that crash.
cincydooley wrote: One could make a reasonable argument that a big factor in the 2008 housing bubble was that "liberalization" of lending policies.....
Not important in the discussion...
I believe he's local (lives in St. Louis) and I'm curious if anyone believes that current policies today is some form of racism.
What happened in the past is done, move forward with your eyes in the future. (Al Sharpton actually said that in one of his speeches here )
I grew up there, I live in Indianapolis now. I don't think there are active policies that are overtly racist. Mostly a situation that is coasting on past racist policies. And probably needs to be corrected in some fashion. Probably by incorporating most of the county into fewer municipalities. Mostly to even out the tax base and move away from 100 small towns with urban problems that have to supplement their budgets with ridiculous levels of traffic policing.
CaulynDarr wrote: But wealth accumulation is a long game. So what the policies where like in the 40-60s, still plays into the current dynamics. Current policies are better, but the housing bubble hurt first time home owning black families pretty hard. Erasing much of the progress of the last 30 years. And if you look directly at St.Louis(grew up in St. Peters myself), you see a city where modern progressive federal housing policies hasn't done much to crack entrenched segregation.
I happen to think we live in a much less racist America than we used to. But the effects of racism in the past are going to play into social, political, and economic problems for some time still.
Honestly... I believe we're way past the effects of institutional racism. This is not just me blindly burying my head in the sand. I went to High School at St. Louis Public Schools (Magnet program) and participated in that reverse de-segreation program, where a cab fetched me every day. I grew up in North County and played sports in StL city/county.
Don't get me wrong, racism of all stripes will always exists because people are donkey-caves.
But, to say that the effects of racism of the past is having major impacts now is a bit of a stretch.
What's more prevalent these days, are economicclass issues. It remains hard to break out of the cycle from poor -to- middle -to- wealthy class.
Instead of trying to find reasons in the past to justify some systemic "racial issues". Let's talk about how do we move forward?
As a country, we're pouring billions of dollars into various welfare, educational, house systems. The money is there... if it's not working, let's engage the civic/political process to adjust these programs, so that the poor can successfully break that cycle.
Let's have an honest conversation of not only white vs black relations, but also black-on-black issues.
There is no silver bullet here. Society does need to listen and make goodfaith efforts to address any grievances.
IMO, things are being taken out of context ITT because it's largely a media-driven event.
cincydooley wrote: One could make a reasonable argument that a big factor in the 2008 housing bubble was that "liberalization" of lending policies.....
That "liberalization" of policies was to correct past discrimination. Historically blacks have been denied home loans they should have received.
And from experience I can tell you that banks went after blacks in a very predatory fashion. My MIL is black, and you would not believe the crazy messed up mortgage she was pressured into by her broker. He had her in the bank after hours with no one around signing forms. And she was left with a set of multiple loans I still can't even sort out. When no one in your family has ever had a mortgage before, it's hard to figure out when you are being screwed. They even tried to sue my wife for the balance of a foreclosed property illegally. Luckily I was able to find a lawyer to get the whole thing thrown out.
they did, and do, the exact thing to white/hispanic/ect people in the exact same proportions.
Race has NO bearing on the banks actions, the only colour that matters is green.
cincydooley wrote: One could make a reasonable argument that a big factor in the 2008 housing bubble was that "liberalization" of lending policies.....
That "liberalization" of policies was to correct past discrimination. Historically blacks have been denied home loans they should have received.
And from experience I can tell you that banks went after blacks in a very predatory fashion. My MIL is black, and you would not believe the crazy messed up mortgage she was pressured into by her broker. He had her in the bank after hours with no one around signing forms. And she was left with a set of multiple loans I still can't even sort out. When no one in your family has ever had a mortgage before, it's hard to figure out when you are being screwed. They even tried to sue my wife for the balance of a foreclosed property illegally. Luckily I was able to find a lawyer to get the whole thing thrown out.
It had nothing to do with them being black. It had everything to do with them being uncreditworthy. feth, I make well over the national average and I have trouble getting loans for anything because my student loans and my DTI.
The CRA and some of the addendums of the 90s encouraged (and in some
Cases rewarded) banks for participating in more subprime lending.
People are categorized as subprime because of a combination of credit history, DTI, and a few other categories. Not based on their race.
cincydooley wrote: One could make a reasonable argument that a big factor in the 2008 housing bubble was that "liberalization" of lending policies.....
Not important in the discussion...
I believe he's local (lives in St. Louis) and I'm curious if anyone believes that current policies today is some form of racism.
What happened in the past is done, move forward with your eyes in the future. (Al Sharpton actually said that in one of his speeches here )
I grew up there, I live in Indianapolis now. I don't think there are active policies that are overtly racist. Mostly a situation that is coasting on past racist policies. And probably needs to be corrected in some fashion. Probably by incorporating most of the county into fewer municipalities. Mostly to even out the tax base and move away from 100 small towns with urban problems that have to supplement their budgets with ridiculous levels of traffic policing.
Now THAT I agree with you 100%
For those reading this thread, St. Louis city/township/county is weird.
The green/red area... that's St. Louis County.
To the east of that (uncolored) to the Mississippi River is St. Louis City.
Two very different jurisdiction, leadership, etc....
A typical city would have the county/township under the City.
There's always rumors that the City and County will merge, but it never seems to hit the ballot.
This is also the reason why St. Louis City (sometimes East St. Louis is thrown in, but that's Illinois) is near the top ten murder rates in the US. But, as every St. Louisan knows... it's not that bad because unless there's a sporting / conference event ongoing, this city is dead at night. If you add in the rates/people from the county into the City statistic... then the St. Louis region is fairly middle of the pack if I remember correctly.
blaktoof wrote: unfortunately ethnicity really doesn't matter much when you go to purchase a home, often the buyer and seller never meet and its solely through a middle real estate agent.
Depends on the area, and a bunch of factors. I have a cousin who was sent to the Salt Lake City area by his company as a promotion. Thinking he was going to be there for a good while and decided he would buy a house. He found one that he liked, but was near the top of his budget (as in, legitimately near the top of his budget, not the DIY shows "ohh, well this house is ONLY 25,000 over your budget" type deal), and so he made an offer on the house. Well, at some point during the house viewing process, the realtor asked about what stake he'd be joining, and he informed the agent that he was catholic, so had no idea what they were talking about. Anyhow... a couple days later, the real estate agent came back with the response from the buyer. Not only had they declined his offer, which was the original list value to begin with, they had raised the price on the home by about another 100-150k, placing it well out of his reach.
I say all that to say, housing discrimination is real, and is based on all kinds of things, depending on the location of where the person is looking.
cincydooley wrote:Sounds like that has nothing to do with the lender and everything to do with the private seller.
While true, I believe (I may be wrong here) that the Real Estate Agent could still be on the hook, as it were, because he/she "tipped off" the seller that a potential buyer was someone they may not wish to sell to.
Hordini wrote:What did the realtor mean by what stake he was joining?
It's a distinctly Mormon thing... As opposed to saying you belong to X church on "Main Street" the Stake is actually the church building and surrounding neighborhood. I guess one decent (not perfect) way of describing it would be like saying you're from Flatbush in Brooklyn.. or my being from the Pearl District in Portland, OR (I'm not btw)
Which still has nothing to do with the lender. The real estate agents are in business to connect buyer and seller; they're not the ones making the loans.
cincydooley wrote: Which still has nothing to do with the lender. The real estate agents are in business to connect buyer and seller; they're not the ones making the loans.
True, but they are bound by a nearly as strict anti-discrimination "code of conduct" or "ethics" as banks (seriously, a buddy of mine is in RE and has told me some of the ridiculous things that could get his license pulled permanently).
So, I guess to make all parties happy here... there is still discrimination of all types in the Housing Market at nearly all steps of the process
Could a newly released audio provide more clues on what led up to Michael Brown’s shooting death?
The FBI has questioned a man who says he recorded audio of gunfire at the time Brown was shot by Ferguson police on August 9, the man’s attorney told CNN.
In the recording, a quick series of shots can be heard, followed by a pause and then another quick succession of shots.
Forensic audio expert Paul Ginsberg analyzed the recording and said he detected at least 10 gunshots — a cluster of six, followed by four.
“I was very concerned about that pause … because it’s not just the number of gunshots, it’s how they’re fired,” the man’s attorney, Lopa Blumenthal, told CNN’s Don Lemon. “And that has a huge relevance on how this case might finally end up.”
The man, who asked that his identity not be revealed, lives near the site of the shooting and was close enough to have heard the gunshots, his attorney said.
He was speaking to a friend on a video chat service and happened to be recording the conversation at the same time Brown was shot, Blumenthal said.
The attorney said she learned of the man’s recording late last week from a mutual friend.
“I had to get his consent before I could reach out to the FBI,” Blumenthal said.
CNN cannot independently verify the authenticity of the tape and has asked the FBI for confirmation of their interview with the man who made the recording.
The meaning of the pause
It’s difficult to prove from the audio why the pause took place or whose narrative it supports.
Attorney Chris Chestnut said he was surprised by the gap in shots.
“It’s the pause that gives most concern in a police shooting, especially with an unarmed victim, because at this point Mr. Brown is defenseless — he has no weapon,” said Chestnut, who represented the family of Jonathan Ferrell.
Like Brown, Ferrell was an unarmed African-American man who was shot and killed by a white police officer.
But if the gunfire heard on the audio is indeed from the Brown incident, the pause doesn’t automatically suggest wrongful intent by the officer.
“To be fair, there could be other explanations for that pause,” said attorney Van Jones, co-host of CNN’s Crossfire. “Maybe the officer will say, ‘Well I fired, and he kept advancing, so I fired again.'”
Witnesses and a friend of Officer Darren Wilson have given conflicting accounts of what led up to Brown’s death.
Dorian Johnson, a friend of Brown’s who was walking with him at the time of the shooting, said the officer shot Brown once by the police car and again as he ran away.
According to Johnson, Brown was struck in the back and then turned around and put his arms up as the officer kept shooting.
But a friend of Wilson said Brown mocked the officer and charged at him before the shooting began.
An autopsy showed that all the entry wounds were in the front of Brown’s body.
Key witness speaks out
Ferguson police said Brown allegedly robbed a convenience store shortly before the shooting.
And reports that his friend Johnson had a criminal record that including lying to police has put Johnson’s credibility in question.
In 2011, Johnson was arrested and accused of theft and lying to police about his first name, age and address.
Johnson said Monday night he doesn’t understand why some are questioning his credibility.
“I see they bring up my past, my history, but it’s not like it’s a long rap sheet,” Johnson told Lemon/ “This one incident shouldn’t make me a bad person.”
cincydooley wrote: Naw. First six is to stop the target initially. Pause to reasses. Target does not stop. Final four.
It would be more troubling if it was a single "execution" shot. But it was a cluster of 4.
On top of this... it's an audio with no associated eye witness, or visual account. There's literally nothing to be gained other than the pattern of shot/pause/shot
Johnson said Monday night he doesn’t understand why some are questioning his credibility.
“I see they bring up my past, my history, but it’s not like it’s a long rap sheet,” Johnson told Lemon/ “This one incident shouldn’t make me a bad person.”
Johnson said Monday night he doesn’t understand why some are questioning his credibility.
“I see they bring up my past, my history, but it’s not like it’s a long rap sheet,” Johnson told Lemon/ “This one incident shouldn’t make me a bad person.”
d-usa wrote: The pause could be significant, if anybody would actually mention how long that pause lasts.
Shots, pause long enough to lower your gun just a bit to see if he is still advancing, more shots? Most likely no issue.
Shots, long pause, more shots? Now you have more questions.
Just knowing "pause"? Nothing we can really make of that either way.
That's my feeling on the mater too. We're getting things drip fed but lacking context to properly evaluate them. Terrible for members of the public trying to determine what actually happened. Great for ratings
I'm not that concerned about the shooting. Cops shoot people all the time. Sometimes they even shoot people that are there to film them for a TV show. If we didn't want cops shooting people we would replace their guns with Tazers and billy clubs and start calling them all Bobby.
What does interest me is which US city is going to explode into civil unrest next based on inequality? Should we start a Dakka Riot Pool?
Sadly, I can see it happening in my hometown of Cincinnati. The race relations have gotten better since our last riot (2003), but there's been significant gentrification that has displaced citizens in the Over the Rhine district, and I fear those restaurants, with their close proximity to the area and the fact that non-hipsters in the neighborhood never utilize them, are prime targets for looting and vandalizing.
sparkywtf wrote: MN is totally next. St Paul killed an "unarmed" hispanic this morning.
Hispanic people don't have time to riot, they all have jobs.
ZING!
Story is also pretty clear and the witnesses support what the cops say.
Guy was throwing rocks at cars, officers told him to stop, he punched one cop then charged the other (he may have been holding a rock at this point). That is a great way to get yourself shot.
sparkywtf wrote: MN is totally next. St Paul killed an "unarmed" hispanic this morning.
Hispanic people don't have time to riot, they all have jobs.
ZING!
Story is also pretty clear and the witnesses support what the cops say.
Guy was throwing rocks at cars, officers told him to stop, he punched one cop then charged the other (he may have been holding a rock at this point). That is a great way to get yourself shot.
Okay I have no sympathy for that guy. He was just sort of... Asking for it.
Listening to local CBS affiliate radio on the way home, apparently a non-disclosed journalist has hired an attorney firm to force the state to release via FOIA Brown's juvenile records.
First, let me add: In Missouri, if the juvenile has passed away, it becomes public record.
My opinion? When there's a grand jury investigation on-going, I wouldn't allow this to be made public as it has a chance to "poison the well" of prospective jurors.
Evidently, the big news is this: -Brown is a known Crips gang member with a record -Brown was charged with 2nd degree murder (outcome, unknown but we can infer that he wasn't convicted)
Listening to local CBS affiliate radio on the way home, apparently a non-disclosed journalist has hired an attorney firm to force the state to release via FOIA Brown's juvenile records.
First, let me add: In Missouri, if the juvenile has passed away, it becomes public record.
My opinion? When there's a grand jury investigation on-going, I wouldn't allow this to be made public as it has a chance to "poison the well" of prospective jurors.
Evidently, the big news is this:
-Brown is a known Crips gang member with a record
-Brown was charged with 2nd degree murder (outcome, unknown but we can infer that he wasn't convicted)
I don't see anything online yet...
*shrug*
Point being, nothing official yet.
It is definitely not something you should do, but anything for the sake of page-views, eh? I wonder if he was a reformed person (used to break the law but stopped) or not.
]
It is definitely not something you should do, but anything for the sake of page-views, eh? I wonder if he was a reformed person (used to break the law but stopped) or not.
Yes. The robbery he performed prior to being shot would certainly indicate reform, wouldn't it!
Listening to local CBS affiliate radio on the way home, apparently a non-disclosed journalist has hired an attorney firm to force the state to release via FOIA Brown's juvenile records.
First, let me add: In Missouri, if the juvenile has passed away, it becomes public record.
My opinion? When there's a grand jury investigation on-going, I wouldn't allow this to be made public as it has a chance to "poison the well" of prospective jurors.
Evidently, the big news is this:
-Brown is a known Crips gang member with a record
-Brown was charged with 2nd degree murder (outcome, unknown but we can infer that he wasn't convicted)
I don't see anything online yet...
*shrug*
Point being, nothing official yet.
Is this from the same reliable source that told us about the officer's orbital fractures?
]
It is definitely not something you should do, but anything for the sake of page-views, eh? I wonder if he was a reformed person (used to break the law but stopped) or not.
Yes. The robbery he performed prior to being shot would certainly indicate reform, wouldn't it!
I thought it wasn't a robbery. Wasn't there a report that the owner(s?) of the store never reported a robbery because there wasn't one, just a shove? I'll have to go look.
sparkywtf wrote: MN is totally next. St Paul killed an "unarmed" hispanic this morning.
I swear.if I hear White Hispanic come up I am going to get pissed. Everytime I need to fill out a form in the future and I have to mark which race I am I'm going to write in -Other- "White Asian"
sparkywtf wrote: MN is totally next. St Paul killed an "unarmed" hispanic this morning.
I swear.if I hear White Hispanic come up I am going to get pissed. Everytime I need to fill out a form in the future and I have to mark which race I am I'm going to write in -Other- "White Asian"
Go with -other- Homosapien.
Or point out there is no classification for race.
It goes:
Kingdom- Animalia
Phylum- Chordata
Class- Mammalia
Order- Primates
Family- Hominidae
Genus- Homo
Species- Sapiens
sparkywtf wrote: MN is totally next. St Paul killed an "unarmed" hispanic this morning.
I swear.if I hear White Hispanic come up I am going to get pissed. Everytime I need to fill out a form in the future and I have to mark which race I am I'm going to write in -Other- "White Asian"
Go with -other- Homosapien.
Or point out there is no classification for race.
It goes:
Kingdom- Animalia
Phylum- Chordata
Class- Mammalia
Order- Primates
Family- Hominidae
Genus- Homo
Species- Sapiens
Good point Brother but I get what your saying, we get what your saying, and you get what your saying. Its the uninform that does not get what a lot of us on here do get....
Listening to local CBS affiliate radio on the way home, apparently a non-disclosed journalist has hired an attorney firm to force the state to release via FOIA Brown's juvenile records.
First, let me add: In Missouri, if the juvenile has passed away, it becomes public record.
My opinion? When there's a grand jury investigation on-going, I wouldn't allow this to be made public as it has a chance to "poison the well" of prospective jurors.
Evidently, the big news is this:
-Brown is a known Crips gang member with a record
-Brown was charged with 2nd degree murder (outcome, unknown but we can infer that he wasn't convicted)
I don't see anything online yet...
*shrug*
Point being, nothing official yet.
Is this from the same reliable source that told us about the officer's orbital fractures?
No... from a local CBS radio station on my way home. I'll scour around on the 'net a bit.
The key word is it's alledgedly... and also my complaint that this shouldn't be released during the grand jury investigation because, imo, it's irrelevant.
A conservative blogger who claims he was told by law enforcement that Michael Brown had a juvenile arrest history has filed a lawsuit seeking to obtain the alleged records.
Brown was fatally shot by police officer Darren Wilson on Aug. 9 in an incident that sparked weeks of civil unrest in Ferguson, Missouri. Though it’s been confirmed that the black 18-year-old was unarmed, many questions surrounding the shooting remain unanswered.
Charles C. Johnson, a blogger and journalist who recently launched a website called GotNews.com, filed a lawsuit last week seeking Brown’s records from the office of Paul Fox, director of judicial administration for the Circuit Court of St. Louis County. In the lawsuit, Johnson claims he had previously sought the records under Missouri’s 41-year-old “Sunshine Law,” which gives the public the right to request information from the government and says requests for information must be responded to within three business days. Johnson says his request was denied by Fox’s office.
Brown, who turned 18 shortly before he was killed, had no adult criminal record. Juvenile records are strictly guarded under Missouri law, but Johnson argues that the circumstances surrounding Brown’s death have become an object of overwhelming public interest. In a blog post on his website, Johnson wrote that knowing the truth about Brown’s past “will help us gauge the credibility of his parents and family, who have called him a ‘gentle giant.’” He also claimed that he was told by two different St. Louis law-enforcement sources that Brown had a juvenile arrest record, and cited rumors that Brown was the member of a gang.
I had two law enforcement contacts who told me #MichaelBrown had juvenile criminal record. I will be suing to get the answer. #Ferguson
— Charles C. Johnson (@ChuckCJohnson) August 20, 2014
In an interview with CBS St. Louis Wednesday, attorney Johnathon Burns, who filed the case, said because Brown is deceased, his juvenile documents should revert back into the public sphere. “Missouri common law applies, and under Missouri common law, court records and virtually all other documents are open to the public,” he said.
Since the story of Brown’s death first broke, media depictions of his character have been contentious. On Monday, a New York Times profile describing Brown as “no angel” sparked outrage among readers and prompted criticism from the paper’s public editor, Margaret Sullivan.
Johnson, who recently raised more than $11,000 on GoFundMe for “investigative journalism research,” is not averse to ruffling feathers. He has appeared on Fox News and written for right-leaning sites like the Daily Caller, but he has objected in Twitter posts to being labeled either a “conservative” or a “blogger.” Last month, the Washington Post’s Wonkette blog published a roundup of tweets in which Johnson referred to himself as an “award-winning journalist.”
How is it not racist to believe he cannot be unbiased because his father was killed by a black man? Seeing all people of a certain color in a specific light is racism, surely the DA is aware that all Blacks are different?
sparkywtf wrote: MN is totally next. St Paul killed an "unarmed" hispanic this morning.
I swear.if I hear White Hispanic come up I am going to get pissed. Everytime I need to fill out a form in the future and I have to mark which race I am I'm going to write in -Other- "White Asian"
Because, Officially, Hispanics are not considered a race but an ethnicity by the census. They have a shared language background. Which is why you can have white hispanics, they are from spain.
Some language, one of the officers was the guy yelling "go feth yourself" while telling protesters that he will kill them
Good.
My own state senator is saying stupid gak:
Let's just cut to the chase and have someone get a rope, eh? No need for any of that new fangled trial stuff doodad.
In seriousness, if he is found guilty, then indeed he should be punished for murder. If he isn't, though, the damage is done by all of the politicians weighing in against him before the clear facts are all out there.
Of course, the white house sending three reps to Brown' funeral, giving him the semblance of a hero's sendoff while ignoring the funeral of a general that served the country 30 years before being KIA seems to be a sign of the times and government attitudes towards those who serve their community and country.
In a thread about racial conflict you chose to drop a remark about getting a rope. That you don't understand why this is problematic is problematic in itself.
In a thread about racial conflict you chose to drop a remark about getting a rope. That you don't understand why this is problematic is problematic in itself.
A comment you chose to take out of context. I'm thinking in terms of old west justice, not racial lynching.
Then again, you were all for the father of the two boys killed by a drunk driver being convicted even though, after all the tests,there was no evidence but motive linking him to the driver's murder.
In a thread about racial conflict you chose to drop a remark about getting a rope. That you don't understand why this is problematic is problematic in itself.
A comment you chose to take out of context. I'm thinking in terms of old west justice, not racial lynching.
They're basically the same thing. Just the latter was "old west justice" against black people long after it had stopped happening to whites.
In a thread about racial conflict you chose to drop a remark about getting a rope. That you don't understand why this is problematic is problematic in itself.
A comment you chose to take out of context. I'm thinking in terms of old west justice, not racial lynching.
They're basically the same thing. Just the latter was "old west justice" against black people long after it had stopped happening to whites.
Old west justice happened to anyone. There was even a salsa ad out here where a cook brought in some salsa made in New York City to a cattle drive. One of the cowboys finished the ad by saying, "Someone get a rope".
Then again, you were all for the father of the two boys killed by a drunk driver being convicted even though, after all the tests,there was no evidence but motive linking him to the driver's murder.
That is an obvious lie and, given that this is a message board, any curious individual can freely determine whether or not I am speaking the truth.
In a thread about racial conflict you chose to drop a remark about getting a rope. That you don't understand why this is problematic is problematic in itself.
It's not problematic to me, because when you take the rest of his comment, it really lines up with what this state senator basically said... In that, she sort of "threatened" renewed riots/protests if they don't indict the police officer. That's basically saying, screw finding all the facts and bringing things to a fair trial, as per the constitution that she's sworn to uphold (at least, I think state senators/politicians in general take an oath) and bring out the lynch mob... public justice and all that.
It's this idea that we "need" to sacrifice someone to appease the beast (by beast, I mean society as a whole, not a single group here) is ludicrous to say the least.
Then again, you were all for the father of the two boys killed by a drunk driver being convicted even though, after all the tests,there was no evidence but motive linking him to the driver's murder.
That is an obvious lie and, given that this is a message board, any curious individual can freely determine whether or not I am speaking the truth.
Not really. Shall I copy over our conversation about it where you said the jury was bad for letting him go, even though he and his house went through forensics testing and investigation that came back negative?
It's this idea that we "need" to sacrifice someone to appease the beast (by beast, I mean society as a whole, not a single group here) is ludicrous to say the least.
That seems like a huge stretch, and even if it is true the nature of this thread makes it inappropriate.
It's this idea that we "need" to sacrifice someone to appease the beast (by beast, I mean society as a whole, not a single group here) is ludicrous to say the least.
That seems like a huge stretch, and even if it is true the nature of this thread makes it inappropriate.
I'm surprised you use the word "stretch" in this thread.
Not really. Shall I copy over our conversation about it where you said the jury was bad for letting him go, even though he and his house went through forensics testing and investigation that came back negative?
Not really. Shall I copy over our conversation about it where you said the jury was bad for letting him go, even though he and his house went through forensics testing and investigation that came back negative?
Sure, because that's not something I said.
The conversation is easily found on pages 9 and 10 of the Chiago crime rate dropping thread, here are your veiws on the jury:
"Brought together initially by an irresponsible drunk."
You:
"That is not in any way relevant.
Basically, the guy got away with murder as I have seen plenty of people convicted on less evidence."
Me:
"To tell the truth, I think the jury wanted to give him a medal."
Your final comment:
"So it was a bad jury?"
My reply, which you seemed to have ignored, unless I missed it:
"I don't know, since according to the article, tests and investigations to prove the father was the shooter were coming back negative. Is the jury supposed to convict on that?"
I put this here since your attitude seems to reflect the senator and some of the people in Ferguson. Punish the suspect before the trial or at best run him into one with a predetermined outcome.
In a thread about racial conflict you chose to drop a remark about getting a rope. That you don't understand why this is problematic is problematic in itself.
It's not problematic to me, because when you take the rest of his comment, it really lines up with what this state senator basically said... In that, she sort of "threatened" renewed riots/protests if they don't indict the police officer. That's basically saying, screw finding all the facts and bringing things to a fair trial, as per the constitution that she's sworn to uphold (at least, I think state senators/politicians in general take an oath) and bring out the lynch mob... public justice and all that.
It's this idea that we "need" to sacrifice someone to appease the beast (by beast, I mean society as a whole, not a single group here) is ludicrous to say the least.
1. Indict means to formally charge, not declare guilty.
2. Anyone remember LA after the Rodney king trial?
the senator speaks truth.
If people are already resigning and being fired, odds are they can probably think of charges to bring him up on and let a court decide his fate.
In a thread about racial conflict you chose to drop a remark about getting a rope. That you don't understand why this is problematic is problematic in itself.
It's not problematic to me, because when you take the rest of his comment, it really lines up with what this state senator basically said... In that, she sort of "threatened" renewed riots/protests if they don't indict the police officer. That's basically saying, screw finding all the facts and bringing things to a fair trial, as per the constitution that she's sworn to uphold (at least, I think state senators/politicians in general take an oath) and bring out the lynch mob... public justice and all that.
It's this idea that we "need" to sacrifice someone to appease the beast (by beast, I mean society as a whole, not a single group here) is ludicrous to say the least.
1. Indict means to formally charge, not declare guilty.
2. Anyone remember LA after the Rodney king trial?
the senator speaks truth.
If people are already resigning and being fired, odds are they can probably think of charges to bring him up on and let a court decide his fate.
If there turns out no reason to indicte, what then? The senator's remarks are only stirring up more prejudice against the officer and giving the mob permission to riot some more if a decision comes back they don't like.
There is no reason not to indict either. indict him, let things cool down while all the evidence is gathered, then if evidence is found take him to court. If not, they have all sorts of other options they can use. Anything between leave him where he is, or transfer him somewhere else.
and in the mean time, stop executing people and use some of their non-lethal devices.
Defuse the situation now instead of letting it drag on and get worse.
sirlynchmob wrote: There is no reason not to indict either. indict him, let things cool down while all the evidence is gathered, then if evidence is found take him to court. If not, they have all sorts of other options they can use. Anything between leave him where he is, or transfer him somewhere else.
and in the mean time, stop executing people and use some of their non-lethal devices.
Defuse the situation now instead of letting it drag on and get worse.
With all the grandstanding comments from politicians damning the police and the involved officer, how are they defusing the situation? How is treating Brown like a hero instead of what he really was defusing the situation?
Why is no politician trying to comfort the store owner he bullied and robbed, or making speeches supporting the store owners whose businesses were looted and destroyed?
If it has been said or done the news carriers haven't covered it very well since they are too busy lionizing Brown.
sirlynchmob wrote: There is no reason not to indict either. indict him, let things cool down while all the evidence is gathered, then if evidence is found take him to court. If not, they have all sorts of other options they can use. Anything between leave him where he is, or transfer him somewhere else.
and in the mean time, stop executing people and use some of their non-lethal devices.
Defuse the situation now instead of letting it drag on and get worse.
With all the grandstanding comments from politicians damning the police and the involved officer, how are they defusing the situation? How is treating Brown like a hero instead of what he really was defusing the situation?
Why is no politician trying to comfort the store owner he bullied and robbed, or making speeches supporting the store owners whose businesses were looted and destroyed?
If it has been said or done the news carriers haven't covered it very well since they are too busy lionizing Brown.
The police are at fault. They failed to serve and protect Brown, they failed to serve and protect the community.
so in your country, the idea is for cops to execute someone first, than try to find a reason to justify it. I forget was the cops name 'Judge Dread? Public execution for a petty crime, That's pretty harsh.
Brown's being treated like a hero? really? That's why he was tested for drugs, and accused of a crime he may not even have committed. Hero? No. Unarmed victim? yes
sirlynchmob wrote: There is no reason not to indict either. indict him, let things cool down while all the evidence is gathered, then if evidence is found take him to court. If not, they have all sorts of other options they can use. Anything between leave him where he is, or transfer him somewhere else.
and in the mean time, stop executing people and use some of their non-lethal devices.
Defuse the situation now instead of letting it drag on and get worse.
With all the grandstanding comments from politicians damning the police and the involved officer, how are they defusing the situation? How is treating Brown like a hero instead of what he really was defusing the situation?
Why is no politician trying to comfort the store owner he bullied and robbed, or making speeches supporting the store owners whose businesses were looted and destroyed?
If it has been said or done the news carriers haven't covered it very well since they are too busy lionizing Brown.
The police are at fault. They failed to serve and protect Brown, they failed to serve and protect the community.
sirlynchmob wrote: There is no reason not to indict either. indict him, let things cool down while all the evidence is gathered, then if evidence is found take him to court. If not, they have all sorts of other options they can use. Anything between leave him where he is, or transfer him somewhere else.
and in the mean time, stop executing people and use some of their non-lethal devices.
Defuse the situation now instead of letting it drag on and get worse.
With all the grandstanding comments from politicians damning the police and the involved officer, how are they defusing the situation? How is treating Brown like a hero instead of what he really was defusing the situation?
Why is no politician trying to comfort the store owner he bullied and robbed, or making speeches supporting the store owners whose businesses were looted and destroyed?
If it has been said or done the news carriers haven't covered it very well since they are too busy lionizing Brown.
The police are at fault. They failed to serve and protect Brown, they failed to serve and protect the community.
Way to be judgemental...
No one knows that yet.
Well a resignation and a firing are a good indication of it. I'd be willing to bet the guy who resigned knows they are at fault.
sirlynchmob wrote: There is no reason not to indict either. indict him, let things cool down while all the evidence is gathered, then if evidence is found take him to court. If not, they have all sorts of other options they can use. Anything between leave him where he is, or transfer him somewhere else.
and in the mean time, stop executing people and use some of their non-lethal devices.
Defuse the situation now instead of letting it drag on and get worse.
With all the grandstanding comments from politicians damning the police and the involved officer, how are they defusing the situation? How is treating Brown like a hero instead of what he really was defusing the situation?
Why is no politician trying to comfort the store owner he bullied and robbed, or making speeches supporting the store owners whose businesses were looted and destroyed?
If it has been said or done the news carriers haven't covered it very well since they are too busy lionizing Brown.
The police are at fault. They failed to serve and protect Brown, they failed to serve and protect the community.
Way to be judgemental...
No one knows that yet.
Well a resignation and a firing are a good indication of it. I'd be willing to bet the guy who resigned knows they are at fault.
So... you're damning the whole force by some idiot's actions?
sirlynchmob wrote: There is no reason not to indict either. indict him, let things cool down while all the evidence is gathered, then if evidence is found take him to court. If not, they have all sorts of other options they can use. Anything between leave him where he is, or transfer him somewhere else.
and in the mean time, stop executing people and use some of their non-lethal devices.
Defuse the situation now instead of letting it drag on and get worse.
With all the grandstanding comments from politicians damning the police and the involved officer, how are they defusing the situation? How is treating Brown like a hero instead of what he really was defusing the situation?
Why is no politician trying to comfort the store owner he bullied and robbed, or making speeches supporting the store owners whose businesses were looted and destroyed?
If it has been said or done the news carriers haven't covered it very well since they are too busy lionizing Brown.
The police are at fault. They failed to serve and protect Brown, they failed to serve and protect the community.
Way to be judgemental...
No one knows that yet.
Well a resignation and a firing are a good indication of it. I'd be willing to bet the guy who resigned knows they are at fault.
So... you're damning the whole force by some idiot's actions?
And the idiots that arrested a innocent man, beat him while he was restrained, then arrested him for bleeding on their uniforms. Which the cops then committed purgery on at court.
sirlynchmob wrote: There is no reason not to indict either. indict him, let things cool down while all the evidence is gathered, then if evidence is found take him to court. If not, they have all sorts of other options they can use. Anything between leave him where he is, or transfer him somewhere else.
and in the mean time, stop executing people and use some of their non-lethal devices.
Defuse the situation now instead of letting it drag on and get worse.
With all the grandstanding comments from politicians damning the police and the involved officer, how are they defusing the situation? How is treating Brown like a hero instead of what he really was defusing the situation?
Why is no politician trying to comfort the store owner he bullied and robbed, or making speeches supporting the store owners whose businesses were looted and destroyed?
If it has been said or done the news carriers haven't covered it very well since they are too busy lionizing Brown.
The police are at fault. They failed to serve and protect Brown, they failed to serve and protect the community.
so in your country, the idea is for cops to execute someone first, than try to find a reason to justify it. I forget was the cops name 'Judge Dread? Public execution for a petty crime, That's pretty harsh.
Brown's being treated like a hero? really? That's why he was tested for drugs, and accused of a crime he may not even have committed. Hero? No. Unarmed victim? yes
The white house sending three reps to his funeral while it ignores the funeral of a general, a 30 year veteran killed in the line of duty, other politicians speaking about what a prince Brown was and how it was too bad he got nipped in the bloom of youth and people angry about the video showing him shoving around an old man less then half his size as he is caught in the act of theft. Yeah, I think he's being treated as a hero. I believe it's standard procedure for someone killed by police to be checked for drugs use, but someone on these boards who works with law enforcement can tell us for sure.
I'm glad for that shop owner that the looters were so restrained at his location because they burned down at least one business that I know of and really had a good time damaging and stripping others out.
I think that the one good thing to come out of this is the fact that the protestors, not to be confused with looters, are trying to help the store owners. We aren't hearing anything for the store owners from the politicians that I've read about, though, no condolances, nothing, unless it's buried somewhere.
What General was that? That's just seems wrong, unless the family asked for them not to come.
But not being ferguson we're never going to get the whole story, they local government could be doing stuff to help those businesses that were looted, but it just wouldn't make the national news.
I put this here since your attitude seems to reflect the senator and some of the people in Ferguson. Punish the suspect before the trial or at best run him into one with a predetermined outcome.
You'll note I never said the jury was bad for letting the relevant person go, and that we were talking about a situation entirely distinct from the one in Ferguson; which is further irrelevant to my criticism of your comment.
I put this here since your attitude seems to reflect the senator and some of the people in Ferguson. Punish the suspect before the trial or at best run him into one with a predetermined outcome.
You'll note I never said the jury was bad for letting the relevant person go, and that we were talking about a situation entirely distinct from the one in Ferguson; which is further irrelevant to my criticism of your comment.
Yes, actually you did. You just appeared to be gunning for an argument in the Feguson thread. I'll tell you straight up, I look at you as an extremely intelligent person, but sometimes the way you split hairs, which I suspect is your stategy of debate, leaves me shaking my head.
Yes, actually you did. You just appeared to be gunning for an argument in the Feguson thread. I'll tell you straight up, I look at you as an extremely intelligent person, but sometimes the way you split hairs, which I suspect is your stategy of debate, leaves me shaking my head.
It isn't so much a strategy as compulsive emphasis on precision.
Anyway, I said that the jury was bad in response to your comment that it wanted to give the guy a medal. But again, this is not relevant to my initial criticism of your post, or anything else in this thread.
You called them irresponsible to start with. Taken in context with that, your other remarks point to the conclusion you think they should have convicted him.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: The guy who was fired was the "I'm going to KILL YOU!!!!" guy right?
Completely separate from the actual shooting investigation. You're jumping to conclusions, Lynchy.
No jumping, it's part of the reason I state they failed to protect and serve the community.
And he was the one that resigned.
It is becoming apparent that this police force needs to be examined, either because of ill trained and disciplined officers inhabiting it, or less stable mental types.
Relapse wrote: You called them irresponsible to start with. Taken in context with that, your other remarks point to the conclusion you think they should have convicted him.
I think the article painted the jury as less than impartial. Whether or not the guy should have been convicted, I'm not sure; as I don't have enough information. I do think the guy was guilty of manslaughter, but whether or not he could be charged with that and murder is a jurisdictional matter which I am not familiar with.
But anyway, this is way OT, as I have repeatedly stated.
Relapse wrote: You called them irresponsible to start with. Taken in context with that, your other remarks point to the conclusion you think they should have convicted him.
I think the article painted the jury as less than impartial. Whether or not the guy should have been convicted, I'm not sure; as I don't have enough information. I do think the guy was guilty of manslaughter, but whether or not he could be charged with that and murder is a jurisdictional matter which I am not familiar with.
But anyway, this is way OT, as I have repeatedly stated.
Since you flat out stated he got away with murder, I would agree you believed he was guilty, evidence and jury be damned. I also agree this is a topic to be discussed elsewhere.
I feel the need to let you know, that in spite of the sometimes heated nature of our disagreements, I do have a huge amount of respect for you and think there are more than a few times you have justly corrected me.
The white house sending three reps to his funeral while it ignores the funeral of a general, a 30 year veteran killed in the line of duty.
If by "ignored" you mean Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel attended, then I guess you have a point.
Yeah, someone posted this on my facebook. The SecDef and Army Chief of Staff were there.
And the white house reps are apparently from the
http://www.whitehouse.gov/my-brothers-keeper program, which certainly seems to fit within their purview.
The white house sending three reps to his funeral while it ignores the funeral of a general, a 30 year veteran killed in the line of duty.
If by "ignored" you mean Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel attended, then I guess you have a point.
Yeah, someone posted this on my facebook. The SecDef and Army Chief of Staff were there.
And the white house reps are apparently from the
http://www.whitehouse.gov/my-brothers-keeper program, which certainly seems to fit within their purview.
Wild West hanging and Lynching....for those who went there....I now have to question if Toby Keith is a racist
The context is completely different.
Let's part like gentlemen from this subject taking from this the lesson that it means something different to many of us in the west as opposed to the east, or at least what the first thought that comes to mind for us is.
Because I follow the news and can recognize when someone is obviously inadequate for their job, especially when it's so obvious.
Oh, I thought you were talking solely about this independent. But doesn't he answer to and obey Obama? That would mean that he would not really be the one at fault here (if there is fault).
9
So you have lawyers that act as prosecutors in some municipalities, go a few miles over act as a judge in another, and then go to a third town and act as a defense attorney. Working only a few days a year in each one (some of these small courts only meet once a month) and pulling in 50K for each job. A whole freaking shadow economy that profits off of minor traffic violations. Some of these towns have outstanding warrants that outnumber the populations. All for minor city ordnance and traffic violations. Someone mentioned nuking things from orbit. It's beyond time that St. Louis city annexed the county.
Also these same municipalities make it difficult to expand public transportation. So you have no good option but to drive a car in order to live and work in St, Louis. So when you see these people getting ticked for driving without insurance, it's not like they have much of a choice.
And then this gem:
“There have been instances where someone will drive to court to clear a warrant for driving with a suspended license. They’ll pay the fine, get the warrant removed, and then get pulled over as they’re leaving the parking lot, because a police officer in the courtroom overheard why they were there,”
Because I follow the news and can recognize when someone is obviously inadequate for their job, especially when it's so obvious.
Oh, I thought you were talking solely about this independent. But doesn't he answer to and obey Obama? That would mean that he would not really be the one at fault here (if there is fault).
9
For those keeping score...
Number of times DOJ is investigating Ferguson? twice
Number of times DOJ is investigating Loris Lerner? zero
So you have lawyers that act as prosecutors in some municipalities, go a few miles over act as a judge in another, and then go to a third town and act as a defense attorney. Working only a few days a year in each one (some of these small courts only meet once a month) and pulling in 50K for each job. A whole freaking shadow economy that profits off of minor traffic violations. Some of these towns have outstanding warrants that outnumber the populations. All for minor city ordnance and traffic violations. Someone mentioned nuking things from orbit. It's beyond time that St. Louis city annexed the county.
Also these same municipalities make it difficult to expand public transportation. So you have no good option but to drive a car in order to live and work in St, Louis. So when you see these people getting ticked for driving without insurance, it's not like they have much of a choice.
And then this gem:
“There have been instances where someone will drive to court to clear a warrant for driving with a suspended license. They’ll pay the fine, get the warrant removed, and then get pulled over as they’re leaving the parking lot, because a police officer in the courtroom overheard why they were there,”
Yeah... we have some cases in MO that is working it's way up to the State's SC. This is government-sponsored racketeering.
Lots of unsavory angles to this story from both sides Why should the trend break now? First Brown is a mother's angel, cut short in the bloom of promising youth, next, he's revealed on video as a bully, shoving around small people and robbing their store. Now we get two different reports of why the video was released.
One side says it's character assasination, the other says it shows the kind of person he really was.
The merry go round continues, hurrah!
Relapse wrote: Now we get two different reports of why the video was released.
One side says it's character assasination, the other says it shows the kind of person he really was.
Relapse wrote: Now we get two different reports of why the video was released.
One side says it's character assasination, the other says it shows the kind of person he really was.
Lots of unsavory angles to this story from both sides Why should the trend break now? First Brown is a mother's angel, cut short in the bloom of promising youth, next, he's revealed on video as a bully, shoving around small people and robbing their store. Now we get two different reports of why the video was released.
One side says it's character assasination, the other says it shows the kind of person he really was.
The merry go round continues, hurrah!
The only thing right in this post is that there are two stories. The rest is just some weid rambling.
The first story is that the police HAD to release the video that had nothing to do with the incident because the media file FOIA requests.
The second story is that the police made a choice to release the video that they admit had nothing to do with the shooting and then lied about the reason why they did it.
The fact that a FOIA request showed that no FOIA requests were filed for the video, and that a lot of the stuff that was actually asked for has not been released speaks volumes.
The first story is that the police HAD to release the video that had nothing to do with the incident because the media file FOIA requests.
The second story is that the police made a choice to release the video that they admit had nothing to do with the shooting and then lied about the reason why they did it.
The fact that a FOIA request showed that no FOIA requests were filed for the video, and that a lot of the stuff that was actually asked for has not been released speaks volumes.
Be fair, let's not pretend for a single dang second that this case was not already decided in the minds of most people the second "black kid shot by white cop" was put out as the defining piece of information.
Lots of unsavory angles to this story from both sides Why should the trend break now? First Brown is a mother's angel, cut short in the bloom of promising youth, next, he's revealed on video as a bully, shoving around small people and robbing their store. Now we get two different reports of why the video was released.
One side says it's character assasination, the other says it shows the kind of person he really was.
The merry go round continues, hurrah!
The only thing right in this post is that there are two stories. The rest is just some weid rambling.
The first story is that the police HAD to release the video that had nothing to do with the incident because the media file FOIA requests.
The second story is that the police made a choice to release the video that they admit had nothing to do with the shooting and then lied about the reason why they did it.
The fact that a FOIA request showed that no FOIA requests were filed for the video, and that a lot of the stuff that was actually asked for has not been released speaks volumes.
Why weird rambling? That appears to be what's going on, unless you have a different take on one side presenting pictures of him at age 13 or during his graduation while the other side puts out videos of him bullying someone and saying he was a gang member.
Is it my comment about unsavory angles on the story you find weird?
Lots of unsavory angles to this story from both sides Why should the trend break now? First Brown is a mother's angel, cut short in the bloom of promising youth, next, he's revealed on video as a bully, shoving around small people and robbing their store. Now we get two different reports of why the video was released.
One side says it's character assasination, the other says it shows the kind of person he really was.
The merry go round continues, hurrah!
The only thing right in this post is that there are two stories. The rest is just some weid rambling.
The first story is that the police HAD to release the video that had nothing to do with the incident because the media file FOIA requests.
The second story is that the police made a choice to release the video that they admit had nothing to do with the shooting and then lied about the reason why they did it.
The fact that a FOIA request showed that no FOIA requests were filed for the video, and that a lot of the stuff that was actually asked for has not been released speaks volumes.
Why weird rambling? That appears to be what's going on, unless you have a different take on one side presenting pictures of him at age 13 or during his graduation while the other side puts out videos of him bullying someone and saying he was a gang member.
Is it my comment about unsavory angles on the story you find weird?
I'm not talking about "the story".
I'm talking about one specific act by the police department and their apperant lie about the reason for doing so.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: and before we go down the "media made this a "black kid shot by white cop" story trail again:
Either back up the statement from many many pages ago when you first made it or accept that this was not covered by national media until they covered the protests that followed it and not the shooting itself.
Lots of unsavory angles to this story from both sides Why should the trend break now? First Brown is a mother's angel, cut short in the bloom of promising youth, next, he's revealed on video as a bully, shoving around small people and robbing their store. Now we get two different reports of why the video was released.
One side says it's character assasination, the other says it shows the kind of person he really was.
The merry go round continues, hurrah!
The only thing right in this post is that there are two stories. The rest is just some weid rambling.
The first story is that the police HAD to release the video that had nothing to do with the incident because the media file FOIA requests.
The second story is that the police made a choice to release the video that they admit had nothing to do with the shooting and then lied about the reason why they did it.
The fact that a FOIA request showed that no FOIA requests were filed for the video, and that a lot of the stuff that was actually asked for has not been released speaks volumes.
Why weird rambling? That appears to be what's going on, unless you have a different take on one side presenting pictures of him at age 13 or during his graduation while the other side puts out videos of him bullying someone and saying he was a gang member.
Is it my comment about unsavory angles on the story you find weird?
I'm not talking about "the story".
I'm talking about one specific act by the police department and their apperant lie about the reason for doing so.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: and before we go down the "media made this a "black kid shot by white cop" story trail again:
Either back up the statement from many many pages ago when you first made it or accept that this was not covered by national media until they covered the protests that followed it and not the shooting itself.
I was talking about the whole thing and how it has become a huge gak hole for both sides. Get touchy about it if you wish, but that's what it is.
So we can't talk about isolated facts like "he robbed a store" and "the police released a video and lied about the reason" because the "whole thing is a gak hole"?
Is that the standard answer from now on about anything in this case?
The local reporters requested those info too... the biggest one was the St. Louis Post Dispatch, not to mention plethora of news organizations in the region.
d-usa wrote: So we can't talk about isolated facts like "he robbed a store" and "the police released a video and lied about the reason" because the "whole thing is a gak hole"?
Is that the standard answer from now on about anything in this case?
Where do you get I'm saying we can't talk about it? I think the whole thing is becoming more a a gak hole with each new revelation, I'm not saying you can't talk about it.k
(as in, 9 months or so prior)
)
