|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Ferguson and its implications
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
LeRoc
There is Beeswax Altar's post.
And there is this post, citing the Washington Post.
I think it is quite reasonable to argue that Missouri law may stand in need of reform.
FWIW, I think the legal backing for the whole gun culture in the US is in urgent need of reform.
And no doubt there are a whole bunch of social inequity issues in and around Ferguson which may also be in urgent need of reform.
If I lived in the US I would probably be active in the reformers' lobbies on all those issues.
But none of those factors make the case against Officer Wilson for any form of unlawful killing a good case. It isn't a good case. It just isn't.
--------------------
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:
Beeswax Altar: Wilson being a police officer whose job is to arrest those who pose a threat gives pursuit.
By getting out of his car and thinking "what the hell should I do next?" When a police officer decides to give pursuit, he should be prepared for the fact that the suspect could charge back at him. When that does happen, it shouldn't have to be a split-second decision anymore.
--------------------
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:
When a police officer decides to give pursuit, he should be prepared for the fact that the suspect could charge back at him.
In your experience, how common is it for a person heading away from a man with a gun to change direction and move towards them?
This is undoubtedly what happened in this particular case, but without the benefit of hindsight, how likely do you think this behaviour is such that it should be prepared for?
And if it's prepared for, what exactly are you proposing you're supposed to do about it?
[ 27. November 2014, 13:30: 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
quote:
orfeo: You are constantly making positive declarations that Wilson didn't follow correct procedure, but you can't articulate what the PROCEDURES are.
The way I understand it from Wilson's own statement, he didn't follow any procedure at all to try to guarantee the safety of the person he decided to engage.
quote:
orfeo: We get that you would have a different procedure. With all due respect, nobody in Missouri cares about the procedure you would write.
I have every right to have an opinion on procedures in other countries. If what Wilson did is police procedure in Missouri, then these procedures are stupid. And if black people are disproportionately the victims of this, then this is a race problem.
--------------------
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:
orfeo: In your experience, how common is it for a person heading away from a man with a gun to change direction and move towards them?
I don't know and I don't care how probable it is. It is a possibility and police should be prepared for it.
quote:
orfeo: And if it's prepared for, what exactly are you proposing you're supposed to do about it?
I'm a layman, but I can think of a number of things. Only patrol the streets in pairs. Call for backup. Try to use your authority to calm down the situation. Have your pepper spray ready before you pursue someone. The police will have to work it out for themselves.
--------------------
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
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
Thank you for that information, Beeswax, and Orfeo for this:"The law of negligence expects people holding themselves out as professionals to meet professional standards."
I think that was what the officer was talking about when George Stephanapolous asked him if he would do anything differently.
He had examined his own actions under the rules of his job and felt that he had no choice but to try and stop someone who had assaulted him and tried to seize his gun. He had a duty to pursue the criminal while waiting for back-up.
He is now being pilloried in the press as a man who is, "cold as ice," when he was talking about his job not his personal feelings. If he has an average person's sensitivity he will probably always have sleepless nights over this and that's just one more thing that Michael Brown is responsible for.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
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.
[*] This policeman had never used his weapon before. If that's someone who "likes to use his gun," then I can't imagine what you're basing this on.
[*]I thought he seemed to rely on his training throughout the sequence of events. I'm sure when he got up that day he wasn't expecting someone to blatantly refuse to obey his orders, pin him in his own car, punch him in the head until he felt himself losing consciousness, try to grab his gun with likely intent to kill. It was his training that got him through that.
[*] I think there are quite a few legal checks and balances and they are pretty easy to understand if you don't quit blinding yourself with emotional hot buttons like, "racist history," "innocent teenage boy" "death penalty for robbery," etc. None of which apply in this case.
Michael Brown died because he tried to beat up a police officer and take his gun, then refused the order of "Stop, police." If he had ever, once watched a crime drama on TV he knew better.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
orfeo: You are constantly making positive declarations that Wilson didn't follow correct procedure, but you can't articulate what the PROCEDURES are.
The way I understand it from Wilson's own statement, he didn't follow any procedure at all to try to guarantee the safety of the person he decided to engage.
That's an evasion of the point. You have to know that there was a procedure that he was required to follow before you can say that he breached the procedure. Assuming for the sake of argument you're correct to say "he didn't follow any procedure" (something I would not automatically agree with having read part of his testimony where he explains his thought processes), this still means absolutely nothing unless there was, in fact, a procedure that covered the situation and that he should have been following.
You can't establish a breach of a requirement until you establish the requirement. And "ensure everybody's safety" is not a procedural requirement. That's just an outcome. If there's a procedure, it will tell you best practice towards achieving that outcome.
--------------------
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:
Twilight: [*] I think there are quite a few legal checks and balances and they are pretty easy to understand if you don't quit blinding yourself with emotional hot buttons like, "racist history," "innocent teenage boy" "death penalty for robbery," etc. None of which apply in this case.
Show me where I have used any of these terms.
--------------------
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: In your experience, how common is it for a person heading away from a man with a gun to change direction and move towards them?
I don't know and I don't care how probable it is. It is a possibility and police should be prepared for it.
quote:
orfeo: And if it's prepared for, what exactly are you proposing you're supposed to do about it?
I'm a layman, but I can think of a number of things. Only patrol the streets in pairs. Call for backup. Try to use your authority to calm down the situation. Have your pepper spray ready before you pursue someone. The police will have to work it out for themselves.
I'm not going to lay a murder charge against a police officer on the grounds that he failed to patrol in pairs, because most likely it's not his personal decision. He DID call for backup. He tried to use his authority and encountered a belligerent large man who punched him. He discusses in the transcript why he didn't use pepper spray at the car, and the notion that you can use pepper spray while pursuing someone is just bizarre. It's not a long-distance tool.
The police do have to work out it for themselves, yes, but you are the person who is offering the opinion that the police have got it wrong. If this is the extent of your suggestions as to what should have been done differently, I remain unimpressed.
[ 27. November 2014, 13:44: 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
quote:
orfeo: You can't establish a breach of a requirement until you establish the requirement. And "ensure everybody's safety" is not a procedural requirement. That's just an outcome. If there's a procedure, it will tell you best practice towards achieving that outcome.
Sorry, it's not up to me to establish the requirements of the Missouri police. I'm not supposed to be an expert. These requirements should be that a police officer should try to do everything to guarantee the safety of someone he decides to engage with. How this works out in detail is up to them.
--------------------
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:
orfeo: and the notion that you can use pepper spray while pursuing someone is just bizarre. It's not a long-distance tool.
According to your own admission, pepper spray can be helpful if the subject you persue doesn't run but becomes aggressive. Wilson wasn't prepared for 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
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Twilight: [*] I think there are quite a few legal checks and balances and they are pretty easy to understand if you don't quit blinding yourself with emotional hot buttons like, "racist history," "innocent teenage boy" "death penalty for robbery," etc. None of which apply in this case.
Show me where I have used any of these terms.
Okay, sorry. I think a lot of people are thinking this but you didn't say it so, okay, I withdraw that. I guess that's the only reason I can think of that I might be defending Michael Brown.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
orfeo: You can't establish a breach of a requirement until you establish the requirement. And "ensure everybody's safety" is not a procedural requirement. That's just an outcome. If there's a procedure, it will tell you best practice towards achieving that outcome.
Sorry, it's not up to me to establish the requirements of the Missouri police. I'm not supposed to be an expert. These requirements should be that a police officer should try to do everything to guarantee the safety of someone he decides to engage with. How this works out in detail is up to them.
Then stop asserting with such certainty that he failed to meet the standards of a police officer. Because you don't know anything of the sort. You just feel that he must have failed to meet the standard on the grounds of your perception that European police manage not to kill 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: Then stop asserting with such certainty that he failed to meet the standards of a police officer. Because you don't know anything of the sort. You just feel that he must have failed to meet the standard on the grounds of your perception that European police manage not to kill people.
Exactly. And that's a good standard.
--------------------
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 the notion that you can use pepper spray while pursuing someone is just bizarre. It's not a long-distance tool.
According to your own admission, pepper spray can be helpful if the subject you persue doesn't run but becomes aggressive. Wilson wasn't prepared for that.
Because that's not in keeping with the facts about their respective positions. By the time Wilson got out of his car, there was a considerable distance between the car and Brown. This is precisely the fact that some people were originally using to portray this as the gunning down of a man running away.
There's no reason to prepare for a person who isn't going to run when the person is already moving away from you. That's what pursuit MEANS. It doesn't mean that the guy is currently standing next to you.
--------------------
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 LeRoc:
quote:
orfeo: Then stop asserting with such certainty that he failed to meet the standards of a police officer. Because you don't know anything of the sort. You just feel that he must have failed to meet the standard on the grounds of your perception that European police manage not to kill people.
Exactly. And that's a good standard.
It's not a procedural standard. It's a result, an outcome. That's what I've been telling you the whole time.
--------------------
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: It's not a procedural standard. It's a result, an outcome. That's what I've been telling you the whole time.
Words again.
The police in any country should have procedures in place to try their best to guarantee the safety of the people they engage with, and police officers should follow these procedures. I'm not in a court of law, I'm discussing on an internet forum. It's not up to me what these procedures should be, but they should be there. I have no indications at all that this kind of procedures has been followed in this case.
When a cop kills someone, this should automatically be investigated by a sufficiently independent body.
--------------------
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:
orfeo: There's no reason to prepare for a person who isn't going to run when the person is already moving away from you. That's what pursuit MEANS. It doesn't mean that the guy is currently standing next to you.
You should prepare for the fact that he might stop running.
--------------------
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
Every time you refer to "words", I find myself wondering why you think words and the meaning of words aren't important.
If all you're going to talk about is an outcome, you could replace all the road rules with a single rule:
Don't Crash The Car.
But we don't have that. We don't leave it up to individual drivers to figure out for themselves how to live up to that rule, and do it in the context of a whole mass of other drivers who may or may not be especially interested in achieving that same outcome for not only themselves, but every other driver.
Road rules are procedures, not outcomes. Road rules are procedures designed to help drivers achieve the desired result of Not Crashing The Car. They don't entirely guarantee that result, but they certainly help.
Telling police officers Don't Kill People is not a procedure that can be followed. It's just an outcome.
--------------------
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 LeRoc:
quote:
orfeo: There's no reason to prepare for a person who isn't going to run when the person is already moving away from you. That's what pursuit MEANS. It doesn't mean that the guy is currently standing next to you.
You should prepare for the fact that he might stop running.
Previously the claim was that you should prepare for the fact that he might start running towards you. Which is not the same thing.
We've got 3 different scenarios here: a person standing still and becoming aggressive, a person running away who then stops, and a person charging towards you. They are simply not the same, and they are not equally likely.
I know. Words.
[ 27. November 2014, 14:04: 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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
@ LeRoc
Maybe. Do shoulds and oughts prove anything about what is? Basically, they are an assertion that what is is wrong, that things ought to be different.
And once again, that's big picture stuff. I'm not arguing with you about big picture stuff. I probably agree with you about that. I also agree with the grand jury re this specific case. That's not me being contrary, either.
[ 27. November 2014, 14:03: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Prosecutor: Ladies and gentleman of the jury. I'm asking you to convict Darren Wilson of murder in the first degree. Why? Because, damn it, this might not have happened in Europe. The state rests.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
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: Previously the claim was that you should prepare for the fact that he might start running towards you. Which is not the same thing.
Normally when you are running away, before running back again you stop.
Hereby I give you LeRoc's procedure for pursuing a suspect:- Run after him.
- If he shows signs of stopping or turning around, bring out your pepper spray. You should be trained to do this in the time it takes him to turn around.
- If he comes towards you in an aggressive way, use the pepper spray.
Of course it is flawed, but if I as a layperson can come up with something like this, surely the police can think of something better.
I'll send the bill to the Missouri police later.
quote:
Barnabas62: Maybe. Do shoulds and oughts prove anything about what is? Basically, they are an assertion that what is is wrong, that things ought to be different.
I'm not sure if I understand you. I'm not trying to prove anything, like I said I'm not in a court of law. But I do feel that things are wrong here.
--------------------
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: Prosecutor: Ladies and gentleman of the jury. I'm asking you to convict Darren Wilson of murder in the first degree. Why? Because, damn it, this might not have happened in Europe. The state rests.
It is the duty of the police in any country to follow procedures that try to guarantee the safety of the person you choose to engage with. If the police in Europe does this, but this police officer in the US didn't even try, then yes. At least manslaughter.
[ 27. November 2014, 14:16: 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 Beeswax Altar:
Prosecutor: Ladies and gentleman of the jury. I'm asking you to convict Darren Wilson of murder in the first degree. Why? Because, damn it, this might not have happened in Europe. The state rests.
This is pretty much the essence of why it's wrong to try to use individual court cases to address systemic problems.
When there is an ongoing discrepancy between the outcomes in different places, then there should be questions for the Chief of Police and others in that kind of position of authority. There should be an examination of procedures. There should, in general, be questions asked about why there is a worse outcome 'here' then 'there'.
This is in fact exactly what happened in Australia a few years ago, when one of the states (Victoria I think) had had a markedly higher rate of police shootings over a period compared to the other states. There was a systemic investigation. I confess to not recalling the outcomes, other than noting that there are no longer media stories about there being one state with a markedly high rate of police shootings.
But like Barnabas, I can entirely agree with the need for that kind of systemic investigation while completely rejecting LeRoc's belief that this somehow translates into the prosecution of individual police officers for failing to achieve the same outcome as individual police officers in another country.
It seems to have got to the level of asserting that each individual police officer is required to know how to achieve the safety of those around them, based on knowing best practice elsewhere. Which is roughly equivalent to me getting into trouble for failing to follow the road rules of the country with the lowest accident rate.
--------------------
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:This is pretty much the essence of why it's wrong to try to use individual court cases to address systemic problems.
Now this is something I agree with.
--------------------
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
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
orfeo:This is pretty much the essence of why it's wrong to try to use individual court cases to address systemic problems.
Now this is something I agree with.
With the problem that there is nothing addressing the systemic problems, as previously noted.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
orfeo:This is pretty much the essence of why it's wrong to try to use individual court cases to address systemic problems.
Now this is something I agree with.
With the problem that there is nothing addressing the systemic problems, as previously noted.
And I fail to see how one can deal with the systemic problems w/o exploring what happened in the individual cases.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pooks:
[QUOTE]
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.
I was discussing your claim that they were celebrating a "robber".
Now you seem to agree with me that they were not.
quote:
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.
What do you mean by saying he is not "an inocent victim"? Is he guilty of a capital crime? Which one? You keep insisting you don't mean it that way but it sounds that way. I never used the phrase "innocent victim". I even said I don't really know what really happened in my post. I was arguing in favor of a trial not a guilty veredict.
quote:
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.
When you use "the robber" and "not an inocent victim"
quote:
While I can understand your anger, I can not understand the grotesque way that you misrepresented what I wrote.
I never said "Pooks believes he deserved to die". If you understood that I am sorry. I ASKED if the death penalty was appropiate for a robbery. Fully hoping you would disagree with that statement and explain what you mean by "not an innocent victim" and "robber". If you did not mean to defend the shooting using those words.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And I fail to see how one can deal with the systemic problems w/o exploring what happened in the individual cases.
That is not only right, it isn't even wrong. Because there's lots of individual cases and it really doesn't matter than there's yet another. Because yet another shooting means merely there's someone else dead and another young cop got to try out his penis.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pooks
Shipmate
# 11425
|
Posted
Ikkyu, I think you and I have an obvious problem with communication. Perhaps our different cultures mean that we use words and understand them differently. To me, when I say A, I mean A and A does not equate to B. But you seem to think that A and B are always linked. If we carry on we will only go in circles. To spare the hosts and other shipmates from the tediousness of our argument on this side issue (not to mention the possibility of bleeding eyes) I think I will just stop here and wish you well. I hope that's OK.
Posts: 1547 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Individual cases may help the diagnosis that something is wrong. But good diagnosis is not the same as cure.
LeRoc, Beeswax said it better than I did. We can't judge the criminality of anyone except under the criminal law which applies. Sure, you can assert moral culpability according to your own moral standard, but that doesn't affect findings of legal guilt or innocence. And it would be wrong if it did.
Reminds me of a comment in re Watergate. Something like this, from one of the Supreme Court clerks, as a spoof during the drafting of the Supreme Court judgement..
"Executive privilege has not only got a good constitutional basis, it is a very important to safeguard the principle of its use by any sitting President.
But we're going to ignore any dangerous precedents we set in this case because Nixon is a crook and somebody ought to throw his ass in jail."
(From Woodward's book about the Supreme Court I think.).
Pretty funny of course, but the serious point is the courts have to apply the law as it stands, no matter how pragmatic or vengeful some of its officers may be feeling.
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Individual cases may help the diagnosis that something is wrong. But good diagnosis is not the same as cure.
Yes. But good diagnosis-- not just that "something's wrong" but what precisely is wrong & how and where and when and why-- is an essential element of finding the cure. If we think we're dealing with the flu and it turns out to be ebola, skipping over those individual particularities to just say "oh, you're sick-- something's wrong" would be (and has been) deadly. I would argue the same is true here. Which is why a public examination-- not necessarily a trial but some sort of examination of all those individual particularities-- is essential to healing what appears to be much closer to ebola than the flu.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
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.
Apparently, I read it better than you.
It did indeed say that two women felt threatened. It didn't say that he was threatening them. They were probably feeling threatened because they had just seen a random guy with a scary-looking gun.
It also said that they were especially scared when the gun pointed in their direction. From that article,
quote:
According to a probable cause statement, Steinmetz "proceeded to remove the Stag Arm AR-15 from his right shoulder, thus causing the muzzle to face two victims sitting to the right."
There's no suggestion there that Steinmetz's fingers were anywhere near the trigger, or that the gun was held in a shooting position.
The article doesn't say, but the description sounds like a man removing the gun from his shoulder and placing it across his lap so he can sit down. Poor muzzle discipline? Sure. Unsafe? Quite possibly. But not threatening.
[ 27. November 2014, 17:38: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Barnabas62: We can't judge the criminality of anyone except under the criminal law which applies. Sure, you can assert moral culpability according to your own moral standard, but that doesn't affect findings of legal guilt or innocence. And it would be wrong if it did.
But we do. In some countries it is perfectly legal to beat up or even kill your wife. Yet, we judge it to be wrong.
I'm well aware that my voice carries no weight at all, and that it won't affect the findings. Duh. But to me there are problems with the law and the system that regulate the police in the US, and I believe that what Wilson did is wrong. So, even if his laws say he isn't, I find him guilty, and in a better system he would be prosecuted.
--------------------
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
|
|
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390
|
Posted
Here is a firm critique that can be applied to the the Wilson grand jury proceedings on the part of someone who is anything but a bleeding heart, anti-police, liberal
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
It is said justice should be done, and be seen to be done. In a case like this, it would have been in everyone's interest to have a full trial. The policeman could be properly acquitted, if appropriate, and the evidence heard and understood in public. It is suspicion of cover up which drives the unrest.
--------------------
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
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Here is a firm critique that can be applied to the the Wilson grand jury proceedings on the part of someone who is anything but a bleeding heart, anti-police, liberal
a) It's debatable (four justices dissented)
b) State and federal grand juries are completely different. Many states have given targets the right to testify, and obliged prosecutors to introduce all relevant evidence. Federal grand juries are pretty much a rubber stamp. State grand juries can be anything but.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
A couple of things:
--As far as Wilson's statement that it was his duty to follow Brown. I would think his duty was to wait for back-up.
--I have trouble accepting that Brown severely beat up Wilson's face. The pics I've seen look more like sunburn, or the aftermath of being around lots of steam. And there seems to be a shape to it, rather than impact spots.
There was a pic of a man with a bloodied face that went viral as a pic of Wilson, but it was someone else.
He may well have been beaten, but it doesn't look like it to me.
--Someone (LeRoc?) said that cops have a duty to always keep the safety of the person they're confronting in mind. That's a good idea, but I don't think I've ever heard that as a universal tenet of American policing--in theory or in practice.
There may well be cops who *do* keep that in mind, bless 'em. However, I've heard many, many news stories where the cops seem to put their own safety way ahead of anything else (understandable); and choose a quick, brutal approach to solving a situation. Especially
when the person in question is mentally ill. Like the 2011 story I mentioned up thread, where a SF man in a wheelchair had stabbed an officer (and from that or another article I read, it sounded like that was partly to the officer's lack of caution in approaching him), and the police shot the man. (Far more details in the article.)
--------------------
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
|
|
Eigon
Shipmate
# 4917
|
Posted
I've been reading an article in the Huffington Post, which lays out the story of what happened as told by the police department (or various members of it). What struck me was the total incompetence they were all owning up to - the photographer who didn't have spare batteries for their camera, the scene of crime officers who didn't take basic measurements, the fact that the officer's gun was not tested for fingerprints (since this would have given evidence of whether or not Michael Brown had touched it at any time).
Honestly, I'd sack the lot of them, and draft in officers from somewhere else.
--------------------
Laugh hard. Run fast. Be kind.
Posts: 3710 | From: Hay-on-Wye, town of books | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The article doesn't say, but the description sounds like a man removing the gun from his shoulder and placing it across his lap so he can sit down. Poor muzzle discipline? Sure. Unsafe? Quite possibly. But not threatening.
Seriously? He may not have intended to threaten them. But if you've ever looked down (or rather UP) the business end of an automatic (or semi-automatic) weapon, as I have, you can definitely feel threatened.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Barnabas62: We can't judge the criminality of anyone except under the criminal law which applies. Sure, you can assert moral culpability according to your own moral standard, but that doesn't affect findings of legal guilt or innocence. And it would be wrong if it did.
But we do. In some countries it is perfectly legal to beat up or even kill your wife. Yet, we judge it to be wrong.
I'm well aware that my voice carries no weight at all, and that it won't affect the findings. Duh. But to me there are problems with the law and the system that regulate the police in the US, and I believe that what Wilson did is wrong. So, even if his laws say he isn't, I find him guilty, and in a better system he would be prosecuted.
I might consider it wrong that someone in another country is allowed to beat up his wife. But I would never express that by saying that he is guilty. Guilty of what? Of breaking the laws of MY country? Of breaking my moral code?
No. I would say that the law of his country is wrong. That it needs changing.
When you talk about an individual person being guilty, you are saying he is the problem. If you mean that the law is the problem, that the system is the problem, don't sheet it home on the individual. You cannot reasonably demand that an individual follow a law that does not exist. You cannot expect me to follow the better road rules of another country with a lower road death rate.
--------------------
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.:
It is said justice should be done, and be seen to be done. In a case like this, it would have been in everyone's interest to have a full trial. The policeman could be properly acquitted, if appropriate, and the evidence heard and understood in public. It is suspicion of cover up which drives the unrest.
How is the evidence not being made available to the public? Between the release of the transcript and the endless reporting via social media in the days following the incident, lack of evidence is hardly a problem.
--------------------
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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
... 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. ...
No he didn't and wasn't. Throughout this sad episode, Brown was Brown's responsibility. Nobody should ever lose sight of that.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
orfeo: I might consider it wrong that someone in another country is allowed to beat up his wife. But I would never express that by saying that he is guilty.
I would. I guess we express ourselves differently then.
quote:
orfeo: No. I would say that the law of his country is wrong. That it needs changing.
That too.
quote:
orfeo: You cannot expect me to follow the better road rules of another country with a lower road death rate.
But I do. In some countries, calling on your cell phone while driving isn't illegal. Yet if someone does in such a country and kills a child, I'd say that he's guilty. Even if the laws of his country say that is not.
Adherents of the ISIS kaliphate behead people. I'd say that they are guilty, no matter if the laws of the Kaliphate says they're not.
quote:
Enoch: No he didn't and wasn't. Throughout this sad episode, Brown was Brown's responsibility. Nobody should ever lose sight of that.
When a police officer engages a person, he is responsible to take every reasonable measure to try to guarantee the safety of that person. It troubles me that you think he isn't.
--------------------
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
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
--I have trouble accepting that Brown severely beat up Wilson's face. The pics I've seen look more like sunburn, or the aftermath of being around lots of steam. And there seems to be a shape to it, rather than impact spots.
Is there any explanation of how Wilson developed sunburn on certain areas of his face, while the rest of it was not sunburned? Is there any evidence that Wilson had been exposed to steam on certain areas of his face, and not the rest of it?
As far as the use of pepper spray is concerned, Wilson testified that while he was in the car, pepper spray would have done no good because Brown's hands were in a position that protected his face.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
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.
If you are prepared to trust a trial verdict as being a generally reliable way of finding truth (not perfect - as a professional advocate I know that they aren't), then you are just plain wrong about that. A 'no case to answer' finding is stronger than a 'not guilty' verdict. It expresses more certainty in the accused's innocence, not less.
A not guilty verdict is 12 citizens deciding that the prosecution has not proved its case. This decision is 12 citizens deciding that there is no real chance that the prosecution could prove its case. It's a decision that there's no point having the trial because there's no basis on which the man could be convicted.
It seems to me that there are two reasons suggested why this shouldn't have happened: one, that there's a public interest in having a show trial anyway, just so other people think the case was taken seriously even though the grand jury have decided he'd almost certainly be acquitted, and two, the grand jury process was flawed here, because the prosecutor set out the whole of the evidence, including points favourable to the defence, for the jury to consider, rather than going all-out for an indictment on a slanted view of the facts.
The answer to the first objection is "What the fuck? Are you serious?!?".
The answer to the second objection is "What the fuck? Are you serious?!?".
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
[...] A 'no case to answer' finding is stronger than a 'not guilty' verdict. [...]
Word.
All those saying, "Send it to trial regardless," what you're suggesting is unconstitutional. Under the Fourth Amendment, a person can't be charged without probable cause. This is considered so important that there's a constitutional right to a probable cause hearing within 48 hrs of arrest. (Scalia, who's quoted approvingly above, wanted it to happen even faster.)
What you're arguing for is the right of the state to prosecute someone without cause. That's dangerous beyond the telling of it, and if it existed, we can guarantee that many minorities would fall victim.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
There is a difference between no case to answer, and a low chance of a guilty verdict. There is self-evidently a thing to be explained, he shot an unarmed man. Now he, and the prosecutor and the grand jury, think he has a good explanation - but that doesn't mean he has no case to answer.
There is, for example, conflicting eye witness testimony.
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eigon:
I've been reading an article in the Huffington Post, which lays out the story of what happened as told by the police department (or various members of it). What struck me was the total incompetence they were all owning up to - the photographer who didn't have spare batteries for their camera, the scene of crime officers who didn't take basic measurements, the fact that the officer's gun was not tested for fingerprints (since this would have given evidence of whether or not Michael Brown had touched it at any time).
Honestly, I'd sack the lot of them, and draft in officers from somewhere else.
Indeed. Enough incompetence in gathering evidence that one might wonder if it all that group incompetence could really be all that accidental...
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
