|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Ferguson and its implications
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Interesting that when a black 12 year old plays with a toy gun he gets killed.
According to the news I hear, it was a BB gun, and the tell-tale orange cap at the tip of the muzzle to identify a toy was nowhere in evidence. A BB gun is not a toy. It can kill small animals and, if aimed at a choice spot, maim a person. IMHO, a city boy has no business carrying one. Whoever in this unfortunate 12-year-old's life allowed him to possess it was falling down on the job. "Live by the sword, die by the sword..." maybe word will get out.
I certainly don't want to excuse the trigger-happy rookie cop who jumped to fatal conclusions, nor the 911 dispatcher who failed to transmit the caution of the original caller (who said it might be a toy gun). But I don't envy, either, the lot of those whose job puts them in harm's way every day. Does anyone commenting here actually have experience in this line of work? Those who make these stories all about race ignore an elephant in the room: dysfunctional families, beleaguered school systems, and drug habits. Ferguson et al. will never prosper until these problems are addressed.
So you want to ignore the part about the white person with an loaded assault rifle in an Airport
not being charged? And certainly not shot.
Poverty and inequality are a big problem but race should not be left out of it.
"Live by the sword die by the sword" to a 12 years old? ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Three, the alternative explanation to the one put forward by Wilson is that Wilson was trying to drag Michael Brown through the window of his car. And his plan once he got him through the window was what exactly?
Aside from that, given the fact that Brown weighed almost three hundred pounds, there is no way he could fit through the car window.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'd also be interested in where there is evidence that any of the shots were fired while Brown was moving away. Certainly not in the description of Wilson's testimony in that Washington Post article.
It is in the BBC description of his testimony I cited above.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pooks
Shipmate
# 11425
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
The post about celebrating the death of an 18 year old with looting and burning was probably the most revealing one.
Actually, I would have the same view if the person who was killed in this case was white. To me it's the sentimentality of 'honouring' a robber that mystifies me. I also have no love for the American style of policing and gun culture. In fact I was extremely upset about the death of Michael Brown when I first saw the news of his death. That changed when I saw the CCTV footage and later learnt of his altercation with the police prior to the shooting. As far as I am concerned, the victim was the shop keeper and nobody was speaking up for him.
With regard to 'celebrating', nobody is celebrating here, but there is an ironic reaction to the notion of 'honouring' someone who robbed others. Colour doesn't come into it. So please stop importing your own prejudices into what I have written. Thank you very much.
Posts: 1547 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
If he had never drawn his gun, he'd never been in any danger of Brown shooting him with it.
Again, is there evidence that Wilson had drawn his gun? The bit of Wilson's testimony in the Washington Post article is "the gun goes down into my hip". Isn't that where a gun is holstered? If Wilson has the gun drawn, what is it doing down at his hip?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'd also be interested in where there is evidence that any of the shots were fired while Brown was moving away. Certainly not in the description of Wilson's testimony in that Washington Post article.
It is in the BBC description of his testimony I cited above.
Quote please. Because I haven't spotted it yet.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
If he had never drawn his gun, he'd never been in any danger of Brown shooting him with it.
Again, is there evidence that Wilson had drawn his gun? The bit of Wilson's testimony in the Washington Post article is "the gun goes down into my hip". Isn't that where a gun is holstered? If Wilson has the gun drawn, what is it doing down at his hip?
Going to retract this one, because the transcript does say he drew his gun. Difference in choices of quote between the BBC and the Washington Post.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I also find your entire series of narrative questions puzzling, Doublethink. Because it seems to miss out the parts where the "unarmed" Brown punches a man in the face.
It also conflates different parts of the sequence of events. You say "why get out of the car if he feared being knocked out" as if the fear of being knocked out continued the entire time. When Wilson gets out of the car is when Brown is moving away. It makes perfect sense to me that Wilson fears physical assault while in the car (because that's when he IS assaulted) and when Brown is coming towards him, but not in the intervening moments. When Brown is moving away he doesn't know that Brown is going to turn around again and charge.
I still cannot see the evidence for the part of your narrative where Wilson shoots at Brown while Brown is moving away. The only witness who seems to have said this is Brown's friend. The independent witnesses appear to have given testimony that agrees with Wilson's on basic timing: shots while Brown was at the car, then more shots while Brown was moving towards Wilson.
[ 26. November 2014, 22:23: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I still don't understand that a police officer is unable to stop a man charging towards him without shooting him multiple times. And I do believe that this is because of training. People do charge towards police in Europe , but they seldom get shot. When someone in Iceland got shot by the police last years, it was world news because it was the first time in centuries.
In the Netherlands, people are aggressive towards the police countless times. There's a lot about that in the news. Yet the police always manages to subdue them without shooting them.
If it is true that Brown charged towards the police, then I don't care how heavy he was, the police should be trained to deal with him without shooting him. They can in other countries.
The feeling I get is that the police is unprepared for dealing with aggressive people, other than pumping them full of lead. Worse when subliminal fear of black people kicks in.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pooks
Shipmate
# 11425
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
the 18 year old victim. Who it seems to some people in this thread to deserve the Death penalty by summary execution for stealing cigarettes and jaywalking.
Which shipmates? Care to name them and show where they've said that? Do you honestly think anyone on this thread actually thinks anything resembling that?
Well what about Pooks?
quote:
Originally posted by Pooks:
On a slight tangent but related to this story. Having stayed most of the night watching CNN's coverage of the verdict and the subsequent rioting, I must say I was rather bemused by one of the 'expert' commentators who said that burning down a store and looting others is not the way to honour Michael Brown's memory. I thought to myself did he really say that with a straight face? Given Michael Brown just robbed a store himself and shoved the store keeper with force not long before he died, looting seems exactly the right way, if somewhat perversely, the way to 'honour' him.
What about Pooks? She was bemused by the law expert's comment that one should 'honour' a robber. Then went on to illustrate the absurdity of what that honouring would look like based on the commonly used notion that you 'honour' someone by doing what he would have done himself if he were alive. What I have written was not 'celebrating' as you have put it in your previous post, nor was it the same as saying Michael Brown 'deserve the Death penalty by summary execution for stealing cigarettes and jaywalking.' It's regrettable that you can not see the difference.
Posts: 1547 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
the 18 year old victim. Who it seems to some people in this thread to deserve the Death penalty by summary execution for stealing cigarettes and jaywalking.
Which shipmates? Care to name them and show where they've said that? Do you honestly think anyone on this thread actually thinks anything resembling that?
Well what about Pooks?
quote:
Originally posted by Pooks:
On a slight tangent but related to this story. Having stayed most of the night watching CNN's coverage of the verdict and the subsequent rioting, I must say I was rather bemused by one of the 'expert' commentators who said that burning down a store and looting others is not the way to honour Michael Brown's memory. I thought to myself did he really say that with a straight face? Given Michael Brown just robbed a store himself and shoved the store keeper with force not long before he died, looting seems exactly the right way, if somewhat perversely, the way to 'honour' him.
Where did Pooks' post say anything about Michael Brown deserving a summary execution? Pooks was questioning Michael Brown's behaviour. The post said nothing about any punishment that he deserved for that behaviour.
Here's my 2p: There are many evil injustices in this world when it comes to race, gender, sexuality and disability. It's very evident, there are plenty of statistics to back it up. It is a very good and useful thing to gather statistics, seeing how a big picture forms from many individual events. And it's clear there is something very wrong with regards to the relationship between the police and the black community in the US, and the inconsistent way that black people get treated.
However! As helpful it is to get a big picture from many individual events, it is conversely incredibly unhelpful to work the other way. In other words, projecting a big picture trend on to one isolated event is statistically illogical, and morally unhelpful. In fact, there's a word for it: prejudice.
Yet this is what happens so often, and even here on the ship, whenever we have discussions on one individual event that has something to do with racism, mysogyny or some other similar issue, there are (very smart, respectable and passionate) shipmates who essentially say "this -ism is a big issue, so that must be the dynamic that is going on in this situation". And my impression is that they're often not wanting to listen to any viewpoint that contradicts that narrative, because making this one event fit that is an important tool in fighting that evil -ism. If the event in question doesn't fit that narrative, then it makes the -ism not look like such a big issue, which is bad.
And what's more frustrating is that those who question whether this one event is actually part of that bigger narrative are responded to as if they are questioning whether the big picture -ism is an issue or not. They are not the same questions. The questions "should the cop who shot Michael Brown have been prosecuted?" And "are black people treated disportionally unfairly by police?" are not the same question. One can answer "yes" to one and "no" to the other. Or "yes" to both, or "no".
As for me, I think it's clear that the answer to the second question is "indisputably yes". It's very very difficult to argue against that. The police have a long way to go, as (it seems) do a whole bunch of other US institutions. For the first, my answer is "I just don't know". I wasn't on the grand jury. To even begin to have a valid opinion I'd need to do a lot more research than listening to a bit of news and reading this thread. My bias would be towards trusting the decision not to prosecute. Although mistakes are made and there is institutional bias, I still think that generally courts and systems get these things right much more than they get them wrong.
I get that using an individual case is a useful banner to wave in the battle against injustice. But if we're going to do that, then we'd better be damn well sure that the case we're using in our fight against injustice is one that describes that injustice accurately. If it doesn't, then what we're doing is counter-productive, and will generate more heat than light, and ultimately entrench those who thought that there wasn't an issue in the first place.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Mr Brown immediately grabbed Mr Wilson's gun and said: "You are too much of a pussy to shoot me." The officer said he thought he was going to be shot when Mr Brown dug the gun into his hip.
Mr Wilson said he managed to pull the trigger and the gun "clicked" twice without firing, before a shot went through the police car door.
Mr Wilson said Mr Brown stepped back and then looked at him with the "most intense, aggressive face".
"The only way I can describe it, it looks like a demon, that's how angry he looked. He comes back towards me again with his hands up."
Mr Wilson said he covered his face and fired the gun again, firing two shots in the car before Mr Brown ran off and he followed him.
When Mr Brown stopped, Mr Wilson told him to get on the ground. He said he fired a series of shots when Mr Brown kept coming towards him and put his right hand under his shirt in the waistband of his trousers.
I misread this, he advanced on the car with an angry face and his hands up, so Wilson shot at him again, instead of say - reversing, driving away, or driving the car at him (which would be a lot less likely to kill the man than firing a gun at him).
** I am taking Wilson's testimony at face value here, that does not necessarilly mean I believe it to be the unvarnished truth - just saying that by his own account his behaviour was incredibly stupid, incompetent and potentially illegal.
I also note that in Brown's friend's testimony, the two of them ran away when they were shot at initially - this sounds considerably more plausible to me, though I recognise reasonable doubt in the difference between the two descriptions.
[ 26. November 2014, 22:53: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I still don't understand that a police officer is unable to stop a man charging towards him without shooting him multiple times. And I do believe that this is because of training. People do charge towards police in Europe , but they seldom get shot. When someone in Iceland got shot by the police last years, it was world news because it was the first time in centuries.
In the Netherlands, people are aggressive towards the police countless times. There's a lot about that in the news. Yet the police always manages to subdue them without shooting them.
If it is true that Brown charged towards the police, then I don't care how heavy he was, the police should be trained to deal with him without shooting him. They can in other countries.
The feeling I get is that the police is unprepared for dealing with aggressive people, other than pumping them full of lead. Worse when subliminal fear of black people kicks in.
Surely a big part of this dynamic is guns. Police are armed, and an aggressive citizen could well be armed too. Guns are a big part of the problem. But they're there, so they're part of the story. In terms of what goes through one's head if someone is charging at them - I can imagine that the difference of whether they've got a gun to hand would be a big factor in how they respond. Take the gun away, and people probably think more rationally about how they respond. Give them a gun (or in fact, any weapon), and I can imagine the first instinct would be using that weapon - why take the risk by not doing so?
But yes, I agree, training is vital - more so because of the greater presence of guns in the first place.
ETA. And I think the whole Hollywood action hero culture is another part of the problem too. Too many people want to be 'heroes'.
[ 26. November 2014, 22:58: Message edited by: goperryrevs ]
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
AIUI immediately before Brown grabbed Wilson's gun, he had hit him several times very hard in the face. In his testimony to the grand jury Wilson said that he felt dizzy after these blows.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
So why leave the vehicle ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
I suspect that the blows had slightly rattled his brain and he wasn't thinking clearly.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Interesting that when a black 12 year old plays with a toy gun he gets killed.
According to the news I hear, it was a BB gun, and the tell-tale orange cap at the tip of the muzzle to identify a toy was nowhere in evidence. A BB gun is not a toy.
It was a toy. It was an Airsoft which fires plastic pellets with insufficient force to kill anything save an insect. And they shot the boy within 2 seconds of stopping the car.
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Whoever in this unfortunate 12-year-old's life allowed him to possess it was falling down on the job. "Live by the sword, die by the sword..." maybe word will get out.
Oh, then, the kid's death was worth it.
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Those who make these stories all about race ignore an elephant in the room: dysfunctional families, beleaguered school systems, and drug habits. Ferguson et al. will never prosper until these problems are addressed.
Yeah, because race is never a factor in any of that.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
And what's more frustrating is that those who question whether this one event is actually part of that bigger narrative are responded to as if they are questioning whether the big picture -ism is an issue or not. They are not the same questions.
But they are intertwined to the point that they are, currently, inseparable. Nothing happens in a vacuum. The history of how the police treat black people, especially in America, will colour nearly every interaction.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The feeling I get is that the police is unprepared for dealing with aggressive people, other than pumping them full of lead. Worse when subliminal fear of black people kicks in.
Sometimes, officers will even shoot someone who's in a wheelchair, as happened here in SF in 2011.
[ 26. November 2014, 23:23: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Suppose for a moment that Wilson is right. He stopped Brown for jaywalking. Brown tried to grab his gun in the car and hit him. Wilson got dizzy. Brown walked away but came charging back, Wilson shot him several times.
At no moment in this narrative I see Wilson acting as a professional, being a police officer, taking control of the situation. Nowhere did he even try to take control of the situation.
It's more or less like this:- A law enforcer engages in a situation.
- He cannot control the situation
- He shoots
Another example is here.
When you're a law officer and you choose to engage in a situation, you take control of the situation. The situation is your responsibility. Someone tries to grab your gun in your car? You should be trained for that. Someone becomes aggressive and tries to hit you? It's your job to deal with aggressive people. Someone comes charging towards you? You should know how to deal with that.
How incredibly dumb is it to have people like this on the street in a law enforcing capacity?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I still don't understand that a police officer is unable to stop a man charging towards him without shooting him multiple times. And I do believe that this is because of training. People do charge towards police in Europe , but they seldom get shot. When someone in Iceland got shot by the police last years, it was world news because it was the first time in centuries.
In the Netherlands, people are aggressive towards the police countless times. There's a lot about that in the news. Yet the police always manages to subdue them without shooting them.
If it is true that Brown charged towards the police, then I don't care how heavy he was, the police should be trained to deal with him without shooting him. They can in other countries.
The feeling I get is that the police is unprepared for dealing with aggressive people, other than pumping them full of lead. Worse when subliminal fear of black people kicks in.
I agree completely.
None of this, however, is a foundation for a murder charge. In particular, it is not a foundation for negating a claim of self-defence.
However much we might applaud the wisdom of different strategies, I cannot see how there would be any hope of arguing beyond reasonable doubt that a lawfully armed person with a gun is not lawfully entitled to use that gun when a large man who has already used physical violence is charging in the person's direction. The theoretical existence of other options isn't to the point, because the law of self-defence doesn't require you to pick the best possible option.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Isn't there any extra duty on a trained public servant though ?
For example, at work we are all taught breakaway techniques to deal with aggressive patients (even the mortuary assisstants rather worryingly). The trust tells us we have the right to self-defence, but we are only guarenteed their backing in an incident if we use recognised techniques.
In other words, if I have been taught a specific technique to breakaway from a wrist grab - but instead I punch the client face I would certainly lose my job and professional registration and it would be reported to the police for review at minimum. Even if there was no prosecution, there is a good chance I would be barred from working with vulnerable people in the future.
The fact they were the instigator of the incident would not necessarily be relevant to whether my actions were proportionate.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
So you want to ignore the part about the white person with an loaded assault rifle in an Airport
not being charged? And certainly not shot.
The article I read said that the nutjob who likes to drink airport coffee with an AR-15 never pointed his weapon at anyone. It also claimed that it was legal for him to wander around the airport openly carrying a weapon. It would clearly be highly illegal for him to point the gun at anyone and threaten to shoot them, but there was no claim that that had happened. There were plenty of people at the airport who were scared by the mere presence of a random guy with a gun.
Now, I don't think it's sensible to wander around airports with rifles, and I'm far from sure that it's sensible for it to be legal to wander round airports with rifles. But there's absolutely no evidence that I have seen that suggests that this guy was threatening anyone.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
What Doublethink said.
If a licenced crane driver doesn't follow the procedures, causing an accident that kills someone, he may very well be guilty at least of manslaughter. I don't see how it would be any different for a licenced cop.
[ 27. November 2014, 00:32: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Isn't there any extra duty on a trained public servant though ?
In criminal law? No.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pooks:
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
The post about celebrating the death of an 18 year old with looting and burning was probably the most revealing one.
Actually, I would have the same view if the person who was killed in this case was white. To me it's the sentimentality of 'honouring' a robber that mystifies me. I also have no love for the American style of policing and gun culture. In fact I was extremely upset about the death of Michael Brown when I first saw the news of his death. That changed when I saw the CCTV footage and later learnt of his altercation with the police prior to the shooting. As far as I am concerned, the victim was the shop keeper and nobody was speaking up for him.
With regard to 'celebrating', nobody is celebrating here, but there is an ironic reaction to the notion of 'honouring' someone who robbed others. Colour doesn't come into it. So please stop importing your own prejudices into what I have written. Thank you very much.
The people who were using the phrase "Honor his memory". Were doing it to promote non violence.
Which in context is a worthwhile goal.
What they where honoring is the value of human life.
Its interesting that you call him a "robber".
Is the policeman a "shooter"? Or maybe better a "killer"? Is death the appropriate punishment for a "robber". Is it easier to kill a "robber" than an 18 year old man?
They were both human beings. No one posting here
was present at the time of the shooting.
What makes me so angry is not that I KNOW that the policeman was guilty. (Of course I don't)
It is that now we will probably never know for sure. This was not a trial. Both sides were not presented. There is conflicting testimony from both sides that would benefit from proper cross examination.
If I was that policeman and I knew I was innocent I would want a chance to prove it in court.
Of course, there would still be people that would question the outcome of any trial. But they would have a much weaker argument.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
So you want to ignore the part about the white person with an loaded assault rifle in an Airport
not being charged? And certainly not shot.
The article I read said that the nutjob who likes to drink airport coffee with an AR-15 never pointed his weapon at anyone. It also claimed that it was legal for him to wander around the airport openly carrying a weapon. It would clearly be highly illegal for him to point the gun at anyone and threaten to shoot them, but there was no claim that that had happened. There were plenty of people at the airport who were scared by the mere presence of a random guy with a gun.
Now, I don't think it's sensible to wander around airports with rifles, and I'm far from sure that it's sensible for it to be legal to wander round airports with rifles. But there's absolutely no evidence that I have seen that suggests that this guy was threatening anyone.
Did you read my link? The police arrested him because 2 women in the airport said that they felt threatened and that he did point the gun in their direction. They were able to peacefully arrest a person armed with a loaded automatic rifle. But other policemen spend 2 seconds before deciding they need to shoot a 12 year old?
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
What Doublethink said.
If a licenced crane driver doesn't follow the procedures, causing an accident that kills someone, he may very well be guilty at least of manslaughter. I don't see how it would be any different for a licenced cop.
And I don't particularly see what 'licences' have to do with it. It seems to me that both you and Doublethink are fusing together several different bits of law on different topics: the need for a licence to lawfully perform certain tasks, the duty of professionals to exercise reasonable professional care, and general criminal law about killing people.
There are tasks that you are legally required to be licenced to do. Doing them without a licence is an offence, no matter how competently you do them. Given that no-one has questioned Wilson's legitimacy as a police officer, this is irrelevant.
The law of negligence expects people holding themselves out as professionals to meet professional standards. There is some variance as to the details, but the basic principle is fairly well established. But that's civil law. In a civil suit there will be questions about the existence of a duty of care, what was required and whether the duty was breached. None of that is part of criminal law.
Manslaughter can be based on negligence, but requires an HIGH degree of neligence. As I said before, we're talking about Oscar Pistorius-level degrees of stupidity involving firing at a non-existent threat. Mishandling an actual threat is hardly going to cut it.
You say the crane driver "might very well" be guilty of manslaughter. To which I say, and he might very well be not. You can't just lump all breaches of procedure together on the grounds that if someone dies, it must have been a bad mistake. That's simply not true. The size of the mistake has no automatic correlation with the size of the consequence. To think like that is to work backwards from the result and use a hindsight not available to the person whose conduct you are examining.
I'm not even going to try and get into the question of whether there is, in fact, a breach of procedure by Wilson, because I don't know the details of his training or the procedures he was supposed to follow. I doubt they got as specific as how to handle being punched in your vehicle. They probably do have some stuff about how to handle aggressive people. The police of the United States may well need better training about how to handle aggressive people.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
orfeo: And I don't particularly see what 'licences' have to do with it.
I guess you'll always be able to find a word in my argument you disagree with. I'm sorry, I'm not really interested in dicussing about words, I'm not a lawyer.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
orfeo: And I don't particularly see what 'licences' have to do with it.
I guess you'll always be able to find a word in my argument you disagree with. I'm sorry, I'm not really interested in dicussing about words, I'm not a lawyer.
Words are all we have here.
If you don't feel like engaging with the rest of my response, and just want to pick out one sentence, that's up to you, but it doesn't do a lot to persuade me of the merits of your reasoning. I've already said I entirely agree with you that the police need good training and good tactics to avoid these fatal confrontations, but it simply does not follow, in my view, that this has a significant bearing on whether a fatal confrontation that DOES occur is a crime.
EDIT: And if you read my response, I wasn't even picking on the particular choice of word. I think I made it pretty clear that the notion that a qualification makes a difference is what I was disagreeing with, regardless of the particular choice of word to express the idea of the qualification.
[ 27. November 2014, 01:05: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The article I read said that the nutjob who likes to drink airport coffee with an AR-15 never pointed his weapon at anyone. It also claimed that it was legal for him to wander around the airport openly carrying a weapon.
My guess is that this is an American airport. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
A recent visit to the county palace of justice (as I call this whale of an office building/prison now oppressively dominating the skyline of our small county seat) was amusing. In order to renew my passport, I was directed to the sheriff's office to get my picture taken. There was one and only one application form on the counter. Was it for getting passport pictures taken? No, it was for getting a concealed-carry permit. Apparently, this is the most popular reason to enter the sheriff's office.
But at the entrance to the building, I had to shed coat, shoulder bag, wallet, watch, shoes, etc. and pass through the metal detector-- which test I often fail nevertheless (thanks to my iron constitution, perhaps). I didn't ask whether I could keep my gun if I had a concealed-carry permit, but suspect I'd have to leave it with them. The powers-that-be want no citizens with guns in their backyard. It's just everywhere else that it's o.k.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
orfeo: I've already said I entirely agree with you that the police need good training and good tactics to avoid these fatal confrontations, but it simply does not follow, in my view, that this has a significant bearing on whether a fatal confrontation that DOES occur is a crime.
Some checks and balances are needed. My impression of the police in all of these situations:- They have guns and like to use them.
- They are not very well trained to handle situations of aggression.
- There aren't enough legal checks and balances that allow society to have a grip on this.
I don't care about the distinction between civil and criminal law. Heck, I don't even know where this distinction lies. If a crane driver doesn't follow procedures and because if this someone gets killed, he should at least be charged. The same with the cop.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I don't care about the distinction between civil and criminal law. Heck, I don't even know where this distinction lies. If a crane driver doesn't follow procedures and because if this someone gets killed, he should at least be charged. The same with the cop.
You clearly DO care, because being charged is criminal law. If Brown's family want to sue the police force, then there'll be a whole different set of issues and questions to deal with, but as soon as you talk about charging people you are talking about looking to CONVICT someone of a crime. We don't go around charging people so that everyone can go "oh well, at least he was charge".
Presumably you want every driver involved in a fatal accident charged as well? They fit all your criteria. Licensed. Broke a road rule. Somebody died. What's missing, of course, is any consideration of how bad the breach of the road rule actually was - as I said before, you're reasoning entirely from the severity of the consequence, and not the severity of the breach.
[ 27. November 2014, 01:26: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
orfeo: You clearly DO care, because being charged is criminal law.
I don't know and don't fucking care what fucking kind of law it is. I am not a lawyer.
If someone breaks a rule of traffic and because of this someone dies, then yes, I expect this person to be charged. How severe the breach of the rule has been can then be considered in a court of law. Maybe he will be convicted, maybe he won't. But at least an impartial body has taken a look at that.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
My guess is that this is an American airport.
Yes, it was the Phoenix Airport in Arizona were I live.
A few years back I went to a pro immigration rally.
There were a few counter demonstrators wielding automatic weapons and it was apparently legal judging by the reaction of the police that was there. I wonder what the reaction of the Ferguson police would be if a few people decided to exercise their second amendment rights by bringing automatic weapons to the protest.
Would it make a difference if they were not white like the people in the Arizona protest?
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
orfeo: You clearly DO care, because being charged is criminal law.
I don't know and don't fucking care what fucking kind of law it is. I am not a lawyer.
If someone breaks a rule of traffic and because of this someone dies, then yes, I expect this person to be charged. How severe the breach of the rule has been can then be considered in a court of law. Maybe he will be convicted, maybe he won't. But at least an impartial body has taken a look at that.
And why is a court the only thing that counts as impartial? Most people who are involved in traffic accidents are not friends of the police or the prosecutor.
My problem with your position is this: it's one size fits all. I don't think mandatory charging is any better than mandatory sentencing. Both are, in my view, totally against the notion of individual justice requiring looking at the facts of the individual case.
I think that means that police and prosecutors should look at the facts of the individual case JUST as much as it means that courts should look at the facts of the individual case.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390
|
Posted
That's a huge "should", Orfeo. I don't think it's a stretch to claim that the police and the prosecutor generally have a pro-police bias in matters involving officer misconduct. Juries tend not to be a whole lot different, but at least in a real trial there is the possibility that evidence submitted will be subject to meaningful challenge.
The O.J. trial is a notable example of police testimony being totally demolished while the trial court jury (and nearly the whole country) watched.
In any event, if the present case had gone to trial, I wonder who would have prosecuted? I wouldn't bank on a strong prosecution on the part of the St. Louis County Prosecutor's Office. If the prosecution were to be farmed out to independent counsel, there is the possibility of some surprises.
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
That's a huge "should", Orfeo. I don't think it's a stretch to claim that the police and the prosecutor generally have a pro-police bias in matters involving officer misconduct. Juries tend not to be a whole lot different, but at least in a real trial there is the possibility that evidence submitted will be subject to meaningful challenge.
I agree. And I had thought about making that specific point that in cases such as this one, where there's a possibility of a lack of impartiality, then it should be open to more scrutiny.
But: (a) I didn't make that point in that last post because the conversation with LeRoc had gone in a far more general direction, not merely talking about investigation of police, and (b) this case HAS been opened to more scrutiny. We have the whole transcript of evidence. We have plenty of opportunity to assess just what the grand jury had before them, precisely so that we can decide for themselves whether their decision was reasonable.
There is more supporting evidence for Wilson in this case than there was for either Pistorius or Zimmerman, in the other controversial cases we've done to death in the Ship in recent times. There is physical evidence that backs him up, and there are witness accounts that back him up. I find it very hard to see that a trial is worthwhile in those circumstances, because it's hard to see how, even with cross-examination, enough of that evidence is going to fold to meet the requirement to disprove self-defence beyond reasonable doubt. And I can come to that opinion precisely BECAUSE the evidence has been released. That's the scrutiny, right there, and it's a lot cheaper than going to a trial that is going to end in an acquittal anyway.
[ 27. November 2014, 05:36: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
The O.J. trial is a notable example of police testimony being totally demolished while the trial court jury (and nearly the whole country) watched.
Actually, the entire legal process was demolished. Start with jurors asking OJ for his autograph, and Judge Ito's strangeness, and go from there.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pooks
Shipmate
# 11425
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
The people who were using the phrase "Honor his memory". Were doing it to promote non violence.
Which in context is a worthwhile goal.
What they where honoring is the value of human life.
While I do agree with you that promoting non violence is a worth while goal and value of human life is also a good thing, I just don't think 'honour' is a fitting word in this case.
quote:
Its interesting that you call him a "robber".
Is the policeman a "shooter"? Or maybe better a "killer"?
I called Michael Brown a robber because the evidence showed him to be one. In terms of the police, if we were discussing the police in this case, then yes, I would have no problem saying the policeman is the 'shooter' or alternatively, a 'killer' depending on the context of the conversation because it's factually correct. What I do have problem with is the kind of thinking that says because someone died a violent death, therefore we must all pretend that he was an innocent victim. (This, by the way, is not the same as saying his life has no value.) In case you were wondering, I also have a problem with the thinking that says all policemen are always right. Both statements are equally stupid in my view.
quote:
Is death the appropriate punishment for a "robber". Is it easier to kill a "robber" than an 18 year old man?
I didn't say anything about punishment one way or the other precisely because I know there are those who are more able to think and speak on this issue. If you show me where I said anything about punishment for a robber then I will tell you whether it's appropriate or not.
What's interesting to me is that you have used the word 'punishment' several times now to refer to the shooting, which implied that you know exactly what motive was in the policeman's head when he pulled the trigger. I have no clue whether the shooting was meant as a punishment or just a tragic consequence of a scared witless policeman who was out of his depth, who then took the fatal option of shooting to solve his problem. There are culpabilities in both scenarios, but the two are not the same. Of course there is also a third option that it was a genuine defence case. The point is, you have pointed a finger at me as someone who belived that shooting was a fitting punishment for a robber, when I haven't even decided whether the shooting was intended as a punishment or not.
quote:
What makes me so angry is not that I KNOW that the policeman was guilty. (Of course I don't)
It is that now we will probably never know for sure. This was not a trial. Both sides were not presented. There is conflicting testimony from both sides that would benefit from proper cross examination.
If I was that policeman and I knew I was innocent I would want a chance to prove it in court.
Of course, there would still be people that would question the outcome of any trial. But they would have a much weaker argument.
While I can understand your anger, I can not understand the grotesque way that you misrepresented what I wrote. I probably would have agreed with you on the issue of the process of justice in this case, but for the fact that I don't know enough US law to be able to discuss it intelligently. Which is my short coming of course, but that doesn't give you the right to project your own view over mine, however limited my view may be at this point.
Posts: 1547 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
A grand jury can interview pretty much anybody they damn well want to. And not being idiots, this one chose to hear from basically anybody with the slightest connection to the case. That would certainly include the accused.
That is just not true. The grand jury hears whatever witnesses the DA chooses to present to them. Normally, the DA presents the case for the prosecution in its most minimal form--just enough to show that there is a case--and then suggests to the grand jury the range of charges they might choose to indict on.
In this case, the DA dumped all the evidence there was in the jurors' lap, clearly emphasizing the inconsistencies in the eyewitness testimony, and offered no instruction about possible charges (he acknowledged this in the press conference). He had the potential defendant testify for four hours, also very unusual (it may be that potential defendants should get to present their side of the case to grand juries--but somehow this doesn't happen when the defendant is not a white police officer). What really happened was that McCulloch used the grand jury as a trial jury, and he acted more as a defense attorney than an prosecutor.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Timothy
I appreciate the argument about normal use. From this side of the pond, the odd thing is the fact that the grand jury processes are normally used by the prosecutor to "indict a ham sandwich" if he wants to. Reading the 5th Amendment, the constitutional position appears to have been to prevent prosecutorial strong-arming a case before a jury unless there was "probable cause". The normal reading of "probable" hardly suggests "not obviously not guilty" but that seems to be the way it gets used.
On reflecting, I'm now pretty convinced that the prosecutor wanted to kick the case, not necessarily out of any pro-police bias but because of the evidence. You might argue a bit of both. But from what's out there now, reasonable doubt is a shoe in. So he used the process to share responsibility, for political reasons as well as legal ones.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
orfeo: My problem with your position is this: it's one size fits all. I don't think mandatory charging is any better than mandatory sentencing. Both are, in my view, totally against the notion of individual justice requiring looking at the facts of the individual case.
He should be charged as an individual of course. But the comparison with a traffic incident is irrelevant. When a law enforcer engages someone, doesn't use his training and his procedures to control the situation and then shoots, he should be charged, yes.
And in my view, if it is indeed true that he didn't try to use his training and procedures to control the situation, he cannot claim self-defence and he's guilty.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
But the comparison with a traffic incident is irrelevant.
Why? Why is a comparison with a crane operator apt, but not a comparison with a car driver?
Your thesis had to do with having qualifications or licensing. It now seems that your thesis is actually to do with having uncommon qualifications, but I don't know why this makes a difference.
And I certainly don't know why you think being charged with a crime is an appropriate response to any failing to follow the correct procedures for one's job. Surely it's disciplinary action from your employer or your professional body that is appropriate. If you were proposing that a police officer should face disciplinary action for a breach of procedure, I would entirely agree (in fact, I think I already have).
If this particular police officer has breached a procedure (which is not at all obvious - as previously noted, neither of us has a clue about that so this entire branch of discussion is extremely theoretical despite your apparent confidence that he MUST have failed to handle the situation properly given there was a death - as if the actions of the other person had nothing to do with it and police officers can always gain control of the situation if they really want to) then it would be entirely appropriate for him to be disciplined in some way.
But I cannot see why you think being charged with a crime is the appropriate method for professional discipline, or why it should suddenly become the appropriate method based on the result of death. Why is it that you are focusing on the consequence as the measure of culpability? It makes no sense.
It's simply not the case that the result of our actions is correlated with what we did. This morning, I dropped an item that I've dropped more than once before, but this time I dropped it on a harder surface and it broke. This doesn't mean I was somehow more clumsy today than the other times I dropped it.
And 2 days ago, a cricket ball was bowled and as a result a man is dead. It's simply not true that the bowler was more reckless than other bowlers, or that the ball was more dangerous than thousands of other balls bowled in exactly the same way. If the bowling action had been outside the laws of the game of cricket, this wouldn't have meant that it was appropriate to charge the bowler over the death.
Responsibility for our actions is not the same responsibility for the consequences of our actions.
[ 27. November 2014, 11:20: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pooks:
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Its interesting that you call him a "robber".
Is the policeman a "shooter"? Or maybe better a "killer"?
I called Michael Brown a robber because the evidence showed him to be one.
The convenience store video shows Brown committing strong-arm robbery
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
orfeo: Why? Why is a comparison with a crane operator apt, but not a comparison with a car driver?
Because a crane operator is doing it as a profession, and received training and regulations because of this.
The fact that Wilson is a cop is very relevant. This has to do with qualifications, yes, but also with the fact that a cop is allowed to do things that other people aren't. With these entitlements come responsabilities.
When I go into an operation room, a surgeon is allowed to do things that other people aren't. He is allowed to cut my body, inject it with potentially poisonous substances ... He is only allowed to do that because he has a training and because he follows this training. If he just improvises (which is very much what Wilson did) and I die, it is his fault.
A friend of mine is an ambulance driver. As soon as he turns on the siren, normal traffic rules don't apply to him. But he is trained to drive under these circumstances. If he just improvises and someone dies, the fault is his.
Wilson stopped Browne for jaywalking. The moment he did this, Browne became his responsibility, and he is required to use all of his training to guarantee Browne's safety. He didn't do anything of that, he just improvised. Browne is dead, and it is his fault.
As I argued in another thread, killing someone in self-defence should only be allowed as a last resort. First, you should do everything in your power to prevent this situation from occurring. The fact that a cop has special training, that we specifically pay him to deal with aggressive people, puts more of a burden on him to avoid having to resort to self-defence.
The rule should be: if a law enforcing official chooses to engage someone, doesn't use his training to take control of the situation, and ends up shooting someone, he can't claim self-defence. Period.
I know that self-defence laws in the US don't say this, but this is because these laws are stupid. Black people are disproportionately the victims of this. Which makes it an issue of race.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The fact that Wilson is a cop is very relevant. This has to do with qualifications, yes, but also with the fact that a cop is allowed to do things that other people aren't. With these entitlements come responsabilities.
Okay, fine.
quote:
Wilson stopped Browne for jaywalking. The moment he did this, Browne became his responsibility, and he is required to use all of his training to guarantee Browne's safety.
Okay... Except for the part where you're asking for a guarantee. How exactly do you guarantee such a thing? Try to achieve it, sure, need to use your professional best efforts, sure, but I have a hard time with the notion that a police officer is in a position to give an absolute guarantee about a person's safety. He's a police officer. He's not God.
quote:
He didn't do anything of that, he just improvised.
This strikes me as a bald assertion rather than an assessment of the evidence. What are the correct procedures here? What procedure are you claiming Wilson didn't follow?
It seems, as I've said before, very much that you're reasoning backwards from a death occurring and reasoning "he MUST have done something wrong". In the last couple of years our own High Court threw out a work health and safety case against an employer because it used that kind of reasoning: it's not good enough to point to a death and say "you had responsibility, so it's your fault and you must have done the wrong thing". Unless and until you identify what was the wrong thing, the thing that could have been done differently and was obviously a better choice without a downside, this claim doesn't hold up.
So please identify what was the decision that went outside the boundaries of correct procedure. Stopping the car? Trying to open the car door? Trying not to get shot in the leg?
You keep positing this world where a policeman is inherently in control of the situation as soon as he wants to be. It somehow seems ironic that you are the one ascribing police officers with these amazing powers and skills. I just see them as fairly fallible human beings with a bit of training.
quote:
As I argued in another thread, killing someone in self-defence should only be allowed as a last resort. First, you should do everything in your power to prevent this situation from occurring. The fact that a cop has special training, that we specifically pay him to deal with aggressive people, puts more of a burden on him to avoid having to resort to self-defence.
Well, sorry, but that isn't the law, and I for one think you are proposing a deeply unrealistic burden, and again you are creating notions of a world where 1 person is in control of everything, as if others around them are just passive objects rather than people with autonomy who may act contrary to the same interests, and indeed contrary to their OWN interests. "Everything in your power?" Who says I have power beyond the control of my own voice and limbs? Who says I gain power over a confrontational, physically aggressive person just because I'd like to have it?
Who says, for that matter, that my sole responsibility is to that confrontational, physically aggressive person in front of me, and not to the road-users, the bystanders, or the shopkeeper who I suspect was robbed by this guy a few minutes ago?
The law requires reasonableness in self-defense. It does not require best practice. I'm not aware of ANYWHERE that has self-defence laws along the lines you propose, never mind the US. Because the real world isn't anywhere near as neat and tidy as the theory you're presenting, and because laws have to be written before the fact rather than after (something I am personally acutely aware of).
The prospect of self-defence not being open if someone comes along later and points out you had a better choice is, frankly, a bit nightmarish. Can you imagine the hesitation that would require? Self-defence is not a planned procedure with a checklist, even for a cop with training. Self-defence is a quick thing happening in the moment, in a situation that is inevitably unique in some way and different in some way from whatever training mock-up you went through.
No-one makes perfect decisions without the time in which to make decisions. Even Roger Federer hits the ball out. Your proposed model of best practice self-defence is imposing a requirement for considered choice where there is unlikely to be any opportunity for considered choice. It's unjust.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
orfeo: My problem with your position is this: it's one size fits all. I don't think mandatory charging is any better than mandatory sentencing. Both are, in my view, totally against the notion of individual justice requiring looking at the facts of the individual case.
He should be charged as an individual of course. But the comparison with a traffic incident is irrelevant. When a law enforcer engages someone, doesn't use his training and his procedures to control the situation and then shoots, he should be charged, yes.
And in my view, if it is indeed true that he didn't try to use his training and procedures to control the situation, he cannot claim self-defence and he's guilty.
Shortly after Michael Brown was killed, my wife contacted a former parishioner who was chief of police in a city with a high crime rate. He is also African-American. She wanted to know under what circumstances Wilson would have been justified in using force. His reply was that if Brown tried to take away Wilson's gun that using deadly force was justified. The police officer would prevent a person from taking their gun at all cost.
After Brown attacks Wilson, injures him, and then goes for his gun, Brown must then be seen as a danger not only to the officer but potentially to others. Apprehending him becomes a priority. Brown then flees. Wilson being a police officer whose job is to arrest those who pose a threat gives pursuit. Brown turns around and comes forward. Wilson shoots him because he must stop a person who has already shown himself to be a danger. Perhaps, Michael Brown turned around and tried to surrender but Wilson interpreted that as a charge. The notion that once Michael Brown started to charge or come towards Wilson that Wilson should have holstered his gun and pulled out pepper spray or a baton is just silly. One, Brown demonstrated the intent and ability to injure Wilson. Two, if Brown had been charging Wilson, it is unlikely he was going to wait while Wilson got his baton or pepper spray. For the record, most acts of aggression towards police don't end in death.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
orfeo: Okay... Except for the part where you're asking for a guarantee.
Words again. 'Do everything reasonably in his power to try to guarantee' if you want to be a lawyer. Later on your post you're setting up the strawman that I'd think that a police officer can be in control of everything. They can't. But for me, they should do everything reasonable to try, in order to claim self-defence. According to his own story, Wilson didn't try.
quote:
orfeo: What procedure are you claiming Wilson didn't follow?
I'm not a cop. But he should have followed the procedure that supposedly is in place when someone tries to grab a police officer's gun in a car. The procedure that supposedly is in place when a big person comes charging towards a police officer. The procedure of using you authority to try to calm things down. I don't see Wilson trying to do any of this.
He just struggled, got out of his car, got scared and shot. That's not the behaviour of a police officer.
quote:
orfeo: Who says, for that matter, that my sole responsibility is to that confrontational, physically aggressive person in front of me, and not to the road-users, the bystanders, or the shopkeeper who I suspect was robbed by this guy a few minutes ago?
At the moment Wilson shot Browne, he wasn't directly threatening road-users, bystanders or the shopkeeper.
quote:
orfeo: In the last couple of years our own High Court threw out a work health and safety case against an employer because it used that kind of reasoning: it's not good enough to point to a death and say "you had responsibility, so it's your fault and you must have done the wrong thing".
It becomes different if you can show that this employer hasn't followed safety procedures.
quote:
orfeo: No-one makes perfect decisions without the time in which to make decisions.
The decision not to make use of his training to take control of the situation wasn't a split-second decision.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Beeswax Altar: His reply was that if Brown tried to take away Wilson's gun that using deadly force was justified.
I strongly disagree with this. There are ways for a policeman to try to prevent someone to take his gun that don't involve deadly force. Otherwise, the policeman shouldn't carry a gun.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
He just struggled, got out of his car, got scared and shot.
In my opinion that is so wildly inaccurate that I don't see the point of carrying on this conversation further. It is quite clear to me that you have a picture of what the factual evidence is that is markedly different from the picture that I have (and, I note, Beeswax Altar, and a few others), such that it is pointless trying to have a discussion about the law and theory.
You are constantly making positive declarations that Wilson didn't follow correct procedure, but you can't articulate what the PROCEDURES are. You just keep saying he should have achieved a different RESULT. Which is exactly what I said about in my last post about the Australian work health and safety case.
And when Beeswax tells you that actually, the procedure when someone tries to get your gun is pretty much what Wilson does, you just change to "well I disagree with the procedure then".
We get that you would have a different procedure. With all due respect, nobody in Missouri cares about the procedure you would write. If you're going to say the requirement is "follow the procedure", this is fundamentally different from "follow MY procedure".
[ 27. November 2014, 13:24: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
