Reply With Quote
I would prefer the conversation be based on illegitimate uses of lethal force because, it only perpetuates the myth Brown's shooting was a illegal when you use it to support a position on illegal police use of lethal force.
...besides, the store owner did not want to comment publicly about the incident......but he did not call police..
I would prefer the conversation be based on illegitimate uses of lethal force because, it only perpetuates the myth Brown's shooting was a illegal when you use it to support a position on illegal police use of lethal force.
...and it would have been a open and shut-case if the police could have produced a police report...
I think a conversation about the uses of lethal force by police can be divorced from the facts of the Brown case.
I agree; this was just a thread about the Brown case and many in here are conflating the two.
But, sure.
I think a this conversation needs to go way beyond just talking about police use of lethal force..
...racial profiling...
...stop and frisk...
..presumption that a crime has been committed because 'this is a high crime' area"...
...police being disconnected from the communities they serve..
....militarization of the police...
....disproportionate number of blacks in jails...
I think it's two different conversations; the conversation about lethal force as it relates to Michael Brown and the conversation about increasingly suspect use of police powers as it relates to our cons utional rights.
Exactly...and that is why I think some people would rather this conversation stays about race...the conversation about increasingly suspect use of police powers as it relates to our cons utional rights.
Michael Brown was already committing a breach of the peace by walking down the middle of the street and he exhibited elements (other than his race) that led the officer to believe he was related to the incident at the convenience store.
Not an element to the Michael Brown case...he was holding the cigarillos in his hand.
The presumption was based on his red hat and the cigarillos in his hand.
Communities that demonize the police that serve them.
Wilson's own statements contradict this...and if walking down the middle of the street is a crime, then we are all guilty...Michael Brown was already committing a breach of the peace by walking down the middle of the street and he exhibited elements (other than his race) that led the officer to believe he was related to the incident at the convenience store.
That's like stopping a Mexican with a Budweiser in his hand...Wilson didn't make the connections about the cigarillos till later..Not an element to the Michael Brown case...he was holding the cigarillos in his hand.
Just like the Vietnamese turned on the Americans in the 60's, right?Communities that demonize the police that serve them.
How do his statements contradict this? Officer Wilson said Brown was wearing a red cap and carrying cigarillos and, after their verbal confrontation over walking down the middle of the street, Officer Wilson noted the red cap and cigarillos and that caused him to be su ious Brown was the person involved in the incident at the convenience store.
No, it's not illegal to walk in the street but, if you do so in a manner that interferes with traffic or presents a danger to yourself or others, it can be a crime. Walking down the MIDDLE of a street, open to vehicular traffic, might be cause for police intervention.
We don't know that for sure....that is what Wilson says now....Wilson was not the police officer dispatched to the incident...so how could there have been a APB already out on suspects?How do his statements contradict this? Officer Wilson said Brown was wearing a red cap and carrying cigarillos and, after their verbal confrontation over walking down the middle of the street, Officer Wilson noted the red cap and cigarillos and that caused him to be su ious Brown was the person involved in the incident at the convenience store.
A misdemeanor...like littering...this 'thug' had just committed a misdemeanor...time to stop and frisk...No, it's not illegal to walk in the street but, if you do so in a manner that interferes with traffic or presents a danger to yourself or others, it can be a crime. Walking down the MIDDLE of a street, open to vehicular traffic, might be cause for police intervention
topically relevant:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...-man?CMP=fb_usA white man who was the police chief in a small South Carolina town was charged with murder on Wednesday in the shooting death of an unarmed black man nearly four years ago.
Richard Combs worked in Eutawville – population 300 and one-third black – when Bernard Bailey came to town hall to argue about his daughter’s broken tail-light ticket in May 2011. Combs tried to arrest Bailey on an obstruction of justice charge, prosecutors said. Bailey marched back outside to his truck, and Combs tried to get inside. The two briefly fought, and then the police chief shot Bailey, 54, twice in the chest.
Combs said at an earlier hearing that he was tangled in Bailey’s steering wheel as he tried to shut off the ignition and feared for his life if Bailey drove away. But prosecutors said Combs was the aggressor, following Bailey as he tried to get away.
Ask your police officer friend. Chances are the description of Brown was broadcast when the dispatcher assigned an officer to the call.
Who said anything about frisking? I think you watch too much television.
infraction =/= misdemeanor
did all of them need shooting too?
certainly not. but there is a difference between when a shooting is required/deserved and when a shooting is a criminal act
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
