Michael Brown Shooting: A Bitterly Divided Nation

[The Notorious]

The problem is that they're used as a pretense to illegally search your vehicle.

ETA:

All an officer has to say is that he smellls alcohol, regardless of whether it's true or not. And I know the SC ruling.

Whether or not it's true should be determined by the outcome of sobriety tests. I'm sorry but the huge public risk of drunk-driving outweigh your irrational hatred of cops here.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

There is no "hatred of cops" in wanting them to be properly limited in power and to not engage in fraud to give an excuse for a search.

[The Notorious]

Scot,

Certainly you don't think that false and/or unverified accusations of "fraud" is sufficient enough to get rid of DUI checkpoints as a law enforcement policy?

[YoungGriff89]

Scot,

Certainly you don't think that false and/or unverified accusations of "fraud" is sufficient enough to get rid of DUI checkpoints as a law enforcement policy?

I think the possibility of a truly unwarranted search is a good enough reason.

[The Notorious]

I think the possibility of a truly unwarranted search is a good enough reason.

I think it's ignorant paranoia so we'll just have to disagree on that.

[YoungGriff89]

I think it's ignorant paranoia so we'll just have to disagree on that.

What's ignorant about it? Give cops too much leeway and allow them to be too proactive and they're holding you at gunpoint for going 15 miles over the speed limit. Never mind what's behind you if they miss you when they open fire, or if you were pulled over while going slower than the car in front of you.

Source: actually happened to me.

Is speeding dangerous? Yes. It's dangerous when the car in front of you is doing it too.

[The Notorious]

What does your personal anecdote about being pulled over for exceeding the speed limit has to do with DUI checkpoint?

[YoungGriff89]

It's more about inappropriate proactivity on the part of police than what I was pulled over for. What reasonable suspicion do they have that a car they're forcing to stop has an impaired driver? It's the same reasonable suspicion that would suggest "well they were speeding and they could have been speeding because they were armed and driving away from a bank robbery. I was scared I needed a SWAT team as back up, I needed to shoot first and ask questions later. Hey it's hard to be a cop okay?"

[The Notorious]

It's more about inappropriate proactivity on the part of police than what I was pulled over for. What reasonable suspicion do they have that a car they're forcing to stop has an impaired driver? It's the same reasonable suspicion that would suggest "well they were speeding and they could have been speeding because they were armed and driving away from a bank robbery. I was scared I needed a SWAT team as back up, I needed to shoot first and ask questions later. Hey it's hard to be a cop okay?"

Are you talking about DUI checkpoint or speeding ticket here?

Also, I think a proactive law enforcement is certainly better than a reactive one, don't you think so?

[TerraPrime]

[mod hat]

There's a thread about the general status of police activity. Please take the discussion on DUI checkpoints and related issues there.

Thanks.

[/mod hat]

[YoungGriff89]

Are you talking about DUI checkpoint or speeding ticket here?

Also, I think a proactive law enforcement is certainly better than a reactive one, don't you think so?

Thought I was pretty clear on what I was talking about and it really depends on the proactivity. Stopping everyone to see if somebody is doing something they shouldn't be doing is not constitutional. As a policeman you are reporting and observing violations of orders you're instructed to enforce. That doesn't mean shake people down until they admit to something.

I agree with the mod we're too off topic. Trying to get back on track with the thread how many people on the board right now have actually read both testimonies?

[Swordfish]

More hair-splitting. Why won't you just admit you are OK with deadly force when someone is unarmed?

I'll say it.

I think deadly force is appropriate in some circumstances, even if the person being shot is unarmed.

Essentially, i don't think that 'being armed' is the only condition that can justify deadly force.

Is this actually controversial to anyone?

Whether or not it was justified in THIS CASE is a seperate question. but 'Can it be justified'? Definitely.

[The Notorious]

I want to comment on the argument that the lack of a police complaint from the store owner/clerk is important.

Well I'm not sure why it's important because a customer did called and reported it to the police and identified the suspects, but I want to point out that there is a perfectly legitimate reason why small business owners do not want to report small robberies or assault ..... fear of retaliation by the suspects or their associates.

I believe that the particular store was eventually looted during subsequent riots .... hence the amplification of the chilling effect.

[YoungGriff89]

I'll say it.

I think deadly force is appropriate in some circumstances, even if the person being shot is unarmed.

Essentially, i don't think that 'being armed' is the only condition that can justify deadly force.

Is this actually controversial to anyone?

Whether or not it was justified in THIS CASE is a seperate question. but 'Can it be justified'? Definitely.

If we just pretend for a second everything Darren Wilson says is true and it all went down the way he said then of course deadly force would be authorized when an unarmed suspect who is 6'4" and 280 pounds is hitting him and reaching for his gun. Bare hands are capable of administering deadly force too. The question is was chasing Michael Brown and shooting him until death authorized once he ran away from Wilson's vehicle?

[The Notorious]

What I'm noticing is a lot of conflict in testimony and 'might haves.'

In other words, it's really the thing that should've been resolved at trial.

I seriously doubt that. The Zimmerman trial certainly failed to resolve the racial tension and the various doubts about conflicting testimonies.

It is interesting to note that no riots have followed the Zimmerman verdict though; and maybe that's what most people wanted .... a trial. Perhaps the prosecutor (or jurors) in the Ferguson case really did screwed up by failing to secure at least an indictment.

But then again, my reasonable side would argue that why should someone be dragged through the lengthy and expensive spectacle of the criminal justice system just to satisfy the whim of an outraged mob?

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

If we just pretend for a second everything Darren Wilson says is true and it all went down the way he said then of course deadly force would be authorized when an unarmed suspect who is 6'4" and 280 pounds is hitting him and reaching for his gun. Bare hands are capable of administering deadly force too. The question is was chasing Michael Brown and shooting him until death authorized once he ran away from Wilson's vehicle?

That last question is very misleading.

[Swordfish]

If we just pretend for a second everything Darren Wilson says is true and it all went down the way he said then of course deadly force would be authorized when an unarmed suspect who is 6'4" and 280 pounds is hitting him and reaching for his gun. Bare hands are capable of administering deadly force too. The question is was chasing Michael Brown and shooting him until death authorized once he ran away from Wilson's vehicle?

I don't think that is the question now, and it definitely wasn't the question i responded to.

The question as it pertains to this case is whether Wilson had a reasonable reason to administer deadly force. there are a lot more nuanced questions included in that larger question, but that is the core of it.

Once you decide that deadly force is required, you keep shooting until the guy stop coming. I know that isn't the way it works in the movies, but that's the way it works in real life. If he's justified to shoot the guy, then I have no issue with the number of times he was shot. in a situation like that you are firing fast and have no certainty about whether any of the shots are hitting.

[MerenthaClone]

But then again, my reasonable side would argue that why should someone be dragged through the lengthy and expensive spectacle of the criminal justice system just to satisfy the whim of an outraged mob?

Because the law should apply evenly to everyone and having a prosecutor toss a case is incredibly damaging to the idea of the justice system as a whole. McCullough's unusual action to just toss the evidence at the grand jury and just see what happens was probably more damaging than anything else he could have done short of refusing to go forward with a grand jury trial at all. Furthermore, the fact that we're still discussing the facts of the case here is pretty solid evidence, in my mind, that there's enough evidence for a grand jury to indict. And they should have. That doesn't mean, by the way, that I think that Wilson should or would have been convicted. (I do to the first, and do not to the second, depending on the hypothetical charges). But if Missouri is going to have grand juries, they need to be consistent. And they weren't here, and that's worth getting mad about.

[YoungGriff89]

I don't think that is the question now, and it definitely wasn't the question i responded to.

The question as it pertains to this case is whether Wilson had a reasonable reason to administer deadly force. there are a lot more nuanced questions included in that larger question, but that is the core of it.

Once you decide that deadly force is required, you keep shooting until the guy stop coming. I know that isn't the way it works in the movies, but that's the way it works in real life. If he's justified to shoot the guy, then I have no issue with the number of times he was shot. in a situation like that you are firing fast and have no certainty about whether any of the shots are hitting.

To get 150 feet away from the vehicle he had to run from the officer at some point and Darren Wilson had to get out of his car to chase him. Maybe the law is completely messed up and it allows you to decide that no matter what once you start shooting you finish the job but that needs to change. We have trials and judges and juries to hash out whether or not someone needs to die, we don't give police alone the right to make that decision.

So lack of awareness as to what your shots are doing and whether or not you're hitting the suspect or missing should be okay because at one point you decided deadly force was authorized. So according to that logic if they did punch you and then surrendered with their hands up you're not murdering them.

[Swordfish]

To get 150 feet away from the vehicle he had to run from the officer at some point and Darren Wilson had to get out of his car to chase him.

Well... Yes. it is the job of the police to apprehend people. That sometimes requires chasing. Not sure what the point is here. That he should have just let him go? That's an odd way of looking at the role of the police.

Maybe the law is completely messed up and it allows you to decide that no matter what once you start shooting you finish the job but that needs to change.

it's not messed up. It's how self defense works. If someone is threatening your life, you eliminate the threat. This isn't the movies where it is reasonable to expect someone to shoot a suspect in the foot. Real life doesn't work that way.

We have trials and judges and juries to hash out whether or not someone needs to die, we don't give police alone the right to make that decision.

Except in the case where there is a reasonable self defense claim. We allow for that discretion and we allow for the courts to evaluate that decision making afterward. That's the process.. There is no judge and jury present to make that decision as the event is unfolding.

So lack of awareness as to what your shots are doing and whether or not you're hitting the suspect or missing should be okay because at one point you decided deadly force was authorized. So according to that logic if they did punch you and then surrendered with their hands up you're not murdering them.

I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean. you seem to have an overly simplistic, black and white understanding about how these situations unfold that has no real basis in reality.