- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The real issue that isn't being discussed about the Brown shooting
Posted on 12/2/14 at 11:26 pm
Posted on 12/2/14 at 11:26 pm
We all know there was no racial motivation in the shooting and those who are using that narrative are distracting away from the real issue, which is the use of lethal force by police.
Let me start by saying that, by law, lethal force was justified and the Grand Jury made the correct decision based on evidence and the law.
But the issue to me should be that lethal force shouldn't be allowed in that scenario if the cop has less than lethal equipment he can use against an unarmed individual to subdue him. Should we give the power of taking a life to the police if they aren't in immediate danger from an armed individual?
I think being that lax with lethal force causes a slippery slope which is leading to cops being too trigger happy these days. When they know they will get away with it, they are quick to pull the trigger. There needs to be stricter laws for police firing on citizens..basically unless the person has a visible weapon drawn on the police, then less than lethal force must be used. A taser or a good whack with a nightstick should be more than enough to subdue an unarmed individual.
Let me start by saying that, by law, lethal force was justified and the Grand Jury made the correct decision based on evidence and the law.
But the issue to me should be that lethal force shouldn't be allowed in that scenario if the cop has less than lethal equipment he can use against an unarmed individual to subdue him. Should we give the power of taking a life to the police if they aren't in immediate danger from an armed individual?
I think being that lax with lethal force causes a slippery slope which is leading to cops being too trigger happy these days. When they know they will get away with it, they are quick to pull the trigger. There needs to be stricter laws for police firing on citizens..basically unless the person has a visible weapon drawn on the police, then less than lethal force must be used. A taser or a good whack with a nightstick should be more than enough to subdue an unarmed individual.
16
Posted on 12/2/14 at 11:28 pm to deltaland
smartest thing I've read all month. I mean, it's only the second day, but still. great start.
Posted on 12/2/14 at 11:44 pm to deltaland
The level of force by police is decided by the person they are confronting. When that sentence turns out not to be true, then you have the beginning of a valid claim against LE.
Brown escalated the situation to a lethal force situation by his actions. For this reason, I respectfully disagree with your assertion.
ETA: That downvote is not mine. I don't play that game.
Brown escalated the situation to a lethal force situation by his actions. For this reason, I respectfully disagree with your assertion.
ETA: That downvote is not mine. I don't play that game.
This post was edited on 12/2/14 at 11:51 pm
Posted on 12/3/14 at 12:15 am to Five0
quote:
The level of force by police is decided by the person they are confronting. When that sentence turns out not to be true, then you have the beginning of a valid claim against LE. Brown escalated the situation to a lethal force situation by his actions.
If Wilson's testimony is correct, there's no real abuse of power or overreach of force. I agree with you. You try to take my gun, it's a lethal encounter.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 12:27 am to deltaland
According to Wilson's testimony he was unable to deploy the ASP and didn't want to use his spray in the vehicle.
Assuming that is 100% true, once the gun was in play as a deterrent and Brown grabbed the gun it escalated to a lethal force scenario. Remember, Wilson was under attack at the time he drew his weapon.
Now, I guess one could say that Wilson could have holstered his weapon outside the car and then resorted to a non-lethal means of defense but I think you're asking a lot the way Brown was and had already behaved.
A taser would have been great to have in this instance but as we have seen tasters have their own set of problems associated with them. Most departments consider the Taser optional equipment and if you have ever had to wear a duty belt with all of the crap that is already on it you may not want to carry it either.
There were half a dozen instances where Brown could have deescalated the confrontation.
There were some similar questions from the ABC interview. "Why didn't you just drive away?"
These are the people that come to confront the bad guys as part of their job. Despite all of the media hype, it is pretty clear to me Brown was one of the bad guys on that day.
Again, based on Wilson's testimony, he claimed Brown was reaching for his waist while charging. This doesn't make much sense unless he was trying to hold up his sagging pants, which is a real possibility. We know he wasn't reaching for a weapon that wasn't there.
The only solution I see here would have been for Wilson to wait for backup which would have been a smart move IMHO. Maybe the backup would have had a taser.
Assuming that is 100% true, once the gun was in play as a deterrent and Brown grabbed the gun it escalated to a lethal force scenario. Remember, Wilson was under attack at the time he drew his weapon.
Now, I guess one could say that Wilson could have holstered his weapon outside the car and then resorted to a non-lethal means of defense but I think you're asking a lot the way Brown was and had already behaved.
A taser would have been great to have in this instance but as we have seen tasters have their own set of problems associated with them. Most departments consider the Taser optional equipment and if you have ever had to wear a duty belt with all of the crap that is already on it you may not want to carry it either.
There were half a dozen instances where Brown could have deescalated the confrontation.
There were some similar questions from the ABC interview. "Why didn't you just drive away?"
These are the people that come to confront the bad guys as part of their job. Despite all of the media hype, it is pretty clear to me Brown was one of the bad guys on that day.
Again, based on Wilson's testimony, he claimed Brown was reaching for his waist while charging. This doesn't make much sense unless he was trying to hold up his sagging pants, which is a real possibility. We know he wasn't reaching for a weapon that wasn't there.
The only solution I see here would have been for Wilson to wait for backup which would have been a smart move IMHO. Maybe the backup would have had a taser.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 1:34 am to deltaland
I mean, police are trained to use lethal force.
I don't really know another tactic you can use once someone goes for your weapon. I guess he could have blown off his kneecaps?
I don't really know another tactic you can use once someone goes for your weapon. I guess he could have blown off his kneecaps?
Posted on 12/3/14 at 1:40 am to deltaland
Two words: Rodney King
He was hit with multiple Tasers before he finally went down. Not at all saying he deserved the beating he received, but he was not rushing headlong towards a single cop whom he had previously tried to disarm.
Non lethal sounds great, but is not always practical.
He was hit with multiple Tasers before he finally went down. Not at all saying he deserved the beating he received, but he was not rushing headlong towards a single cop whom he had previously tried to disarm.
Non lethal sounds great, but is not always practical.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 1:40 am to TOKEN
Posted on 12/3/14 at 1:41 am to TOKEN
Or missed, engaged in combat, lost, had his gun taken, been shot in the head as brown fled.
People don't want to acknowledge that cops have slack under the law to just fricking kill people. Doesn't make it fair or good, but it makes it legit. I can live with it, but each case has to be judged by its own facts.
People don't want to acknowledge that cops have slack under the law to just fricking kill people. Doesn't make it fair or good, but it makes it legit. I can live with it, but each case has to be judged by its own facts.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 1:43 am to deltaland
It's a good discussion to have, but not in relation to this case.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 1:59 am to baybeefeetz
quote:
People don't want to acknowledge that cops have slack under the law to just fricking kill people.
In AL most of that slack is applied to average citizens too.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 2:34 am to deltaland
quote:
But the issue to me should be that lethal force shouldn't be allowed in that scenario if the cop has less than lethal equipment he can use against an unarmed individual to subdue him. Should we give the power of taking a life to the police if they aren't in immediate danger from an armed individual?
If Wilson is telling the truth about his natural reaction to pepper spray. Than hitting Brown with that could have cost him his own life.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 5:23 am to deltaland
Did this individual pull the officers gun or did the officer pull the gun while seated in his vehicle? If he was fighting for the weapon then that became the issue. If the perp had the weapon you fight to get it back and if you have been threatened already and the man comes back at you, do you use other than lethal force?
Sorry for not reading more... It seems some have answered those questions I asked.
Sorry for not reading more... It seems some have answered those questions I asked.
This post was edited on 12/3/14 at 5:27 am
Posted on 12/3/14 at 6:22 am to deltaland
The real issues of the matter are:
Don't go into a store and steal other peoples stuff because there will be consequences.
Don't walk out in the middle of the road high as a kite, it will draw attention to you. Bad things are gonna happen.
Don't try to punch out a cop & try to steal his weapon. Bad things are gonna happen.
Don't rush a cop. He has a deadly weapon and he will probably kill you.
Don't go into a store and steal other peoples stuff because there will be consequences.
Don't walk out in the middle of the road high as a kite, it will draw attention to you. Bad things are gonna happen.
Don't try to punch out a cop & try to steal his weapon. Bad things are gonna happen.
Don't rush a cop. He has a deadly weapon and he will probably kill you.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 6:43 am to olgoi khorkhoi
quote:
It's a good discussion to have, but not in relation to this case.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 7:22 am to mauser
Posted on 12/3/14 at 7:28 am to Reubaltaich
quote:
The real issues of the matter are:
Don't go into a store and steal other peoples stuff because there will be consequences.
Don't walk out in the middle of the road high as a kite, it will draw attention to you. Bad things are gonna happen.
Don't try to punch out a cop & try to steal his weapon. Bad things are gonna happen.
Don't rush a cop. He has a deadly weapon and he will probably kill you.
fricking this.
He is no longer able to reproduce, and as a side benefit we aren't paying $100K a year to lock him up. This is a win.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 7:32 am to deltaland
quote:
But the issue to me should be that lethal force shouldn't be allowed in that scenario if the cop has less than lethal equipment he can use against an unarmed individual to subdue him.
I think the important point is that I should be given a reasonable opportunity to SELECT a "less than lethal" alternative. AND, I think that was part of the debate in the Brown case. The ones that claimed Brown was 20 feet away with hands up, etc.
Anyway, if I encounter Five-O:
He should give me clear instruction of what he needs from me
He should give me appropriate time to process the command and implement them
He should allow me to have a conversation (after complying) in which I at least give my "side" of the issue.
If those things occur, then I have the right to choose a non-lethal outcome.
I am NOT some "pro-police" sycophant. But, Police officers have the right to go home to their wives and children, too.
If I expect that I can call one of them and say "a guy with a gun is here" and they come running TOWARD that while I get to go hunker down and wait....then, I will accept that they have lethal force rights and we can adjudicate each use thereof individually.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 7:37 am to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
Anyway, if I encounter Five-O:
He should give me clear instruction of what he needs from me
He should give me appropriate time to process the command and implement them
He should allow me to have a conversation (after complying) in which I at least give my "side" of the issue.
This is reasonable MOST of the time. Not everyone that LEOs contact are reasonable people. Michael Brown and his associate do not strike me, nor did they strike the grand jury as reasonable persons in this case for this given incident.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 7:41 am to Five0
quote:
Not everyone that LEOs contact are reasonable people
That was my entire point. Did you not read the rest?
I am on your "side" of this. The fact that I may choose to NOT do those things means I am CHOOSING the lethal route. Not the officer.
I, also, said that each case need to be looked into to see if the officer gave me that opportunity.
Page 1 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News