Reply With Quote
surely it can't be permissible for LE to shoot you every time an officer gets scared.
not denied. how often are police held to account for wrongful and unlawful shootings?
surely it can't be permissible for LE to shoot you every time an officer gets scared.
I suspect, whenever they are determined by our justice system to be wrongful or unlawful.
Imminent fear of losing your life is a justification for use of deadly force.
Interesting essay on the police use of force in New York City.
NYPD Firearms Discharge Report Is Bad News For Al Sharpton
Here is a historical look at the number of shootings where a subject was shot and injured by an officer since 1971:
And here are the historical figures going to back to 1971 showing the number of shootings where a subject was shot and killed by an officer:
Except for a e in 2012, levels have been pretty steady (and low) since the peak of the crack era. Finally, there is the geography of where these firearms discharges take place:
If you are not familiar with NYC, then I can just tell you that most of the firearms discharges are located in Brooklyn, the Bronx, and the upper neighborhoods of Harlem and Washington Heights in Manhattan. The blue areas denote where an officer discharged their firearm. The yellow denotes a criminal shooting incident. As you can tell, the criminals are doing a lot more of the shooting than the cops.
Chances are, if some reporters to were to do some digging around (you know….journalism and reporting) they’d find this trend is probably the same all around the country. Granted, the result of this rarity in shooting incidents involving police is obviously tied to the big drop in crime the country has seen in the last 30-40 years.
That said, the media is once again playing into the hands of the loudmouths and cranks who want to convince us all that black men at large are in danger of being picked off by the cops.
Are all police involved shootings legit? No. But the fact of the matter is, incidents like we saw with Mike Brown in Ferguson are very rare. Let’s hope that reason and facts win out over emotion and more importantly, the rabble rousing of frauds like Al Sharpton.
that's easy, and common, TO LIE ABOUT. eg, wannbe cop Zimmerman, etc, etc.
There's a lot of white cops who are scared less of unarmed black guys.
or maybe they're just "doing the job they're trained to do" and preferentially kill blacks.
, in 1995, Al Sharpton was responsible for a quarter as many deaths of the entire 30,000 man New York City Police Department.
Nineteen Years Ago, Al Sharpton Incited the Massacre at Freddy’s Fashion Mart
Nineteen years ago, December 8, 1995, Al Sharpton incited the violent firebombing of Freddy’s Fashion Mart in Harlem, causing the the deaths of Angelina Marrero . . . Cynthia Martinez . . . Luz Ramos . . . Mayra Rentas . . . Olga Garcia . . . Garnette Ramautar . . . Kareem Brunner. . . . names forever linked together as the seven victims of the Sharpton-caused massacre at Freddy’s Fashion Mart.
Unfortunately for your narrative, there is forensic evidence and credible witness statements to suggest otherwise.
Tell me, if Officer Wilson was "scared less of unarmed black guys," why did he even approach the Gentle Giant?
easy one, because he wasn't scared less, just wanted to harass some blacks, got in over his racist head, then his lawyer coaches tell him to say, effectively, the Big N!igg@ Demon grunting like an animal, etc, etc. HAD TO BE SHOT LIKE DOG because that is ALWAYS THE FIRST, ONLY OPTION for WHITE COPS against blacks.
even if that fear is totally unreasonable or otherwise without a factually articulable basis? how magnanimous.
courts decide if the fear was reasonable based on facts/testimony
... almost never do killer cops get into court for killing
Well, see, a Grand Jury found the fear was reasonable and with "factually articulable basis," whatever that means. How objective.
More customary than objective, I'd say. Grand juries are non-adversarial and one-sided in the sense that there is no cross-examination of witnesses: it's the prosecutor's show.
And yet, they are the official arbiter of whether or not Officer Wilson committed a crime and whether or not Michael Brown's shooting was justified. They answered both of those question, No and yes.
you've slyly misrepresented what grand juries do. they do not find guilt or innocence, they only determine whether evidence is sufficient to indict.
a no bill isn't necessarily an exoneration, Yoni.
But they do find whether or not their is enough to warrant criminal charges and, in this case, they didn't. Because there wasn't and, there never will be, no matter how hard you, Eric Holder, and Barack Obama wish otherwise. Pick another martyr for the racialist cause.
But, in this case, it was, simply on the weight of the evidence presented to the Grand Jury.
grand juries don't determine innocence or culpability. sorry.
there are plenty to pick from. hence the generalized outrage over a case that was far from clear cut.
btw, I don't wish the results other than they are. I can accept that there wasn't clear evidence to indict in this case.
The bogus-prosecutor/exonerator didn't try to indict Wilson by presenting only the "evidence" to indict, he bizarrely, bad-faith-ly presented all the "evidence" AGAINST indicting Wilson, leaving it up to the "jury", very probably overwhelmed and confused, to acquit Wilson and convict Brown.
It was a farcical kangaroo TRIAL by a police-protecting, biased prosecutor acting to protect, acquit Wilson, was not a grand jury.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 12-11-2014 at 10:33 AM.
Yep, Ferguson and especially New York were perversions of the Grand Jury system by prosecutors with cleat conflicts of interest. They were working for the defense and not the people. The results would have been much easier to take had the legal procedures not been so out of the ordinary.
Really? Find one that is truly innocent then.
As best as I can tell, the protesters are merely looking for a reason to vandalize and terrorize their own community.
There was clear evidence the shooting of Michael Brown was both justified and legal. The prosecutor didn't want to take the case to the Grand Jury in the first place, because the evidence of innocence was so compelling and the evidence of guilt was so lacking -- as in non-existent. The only reason he did so was to quell the faux outrage fomented by Al Sharpton and the like. I hope all prosecutors learn a lesson from the Ferguson fiasco; "you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't so, just do the right thing."
There was no evidence to indict. He merely presented what he had because the "community" demanded he present the case to a Grand Jury.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
