• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Michael Brown Shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
Monketey Ghost said:
Presents danger to traffic and pedestrian alike, though I've jaywalked in front of cops who didn't care. I've never seen anyone get cited for it actually.
Click to expand...

Yes, usually a warning. I have to warn my colleagues from India when they visit that they can't cross in the middle of the street like they commonly do back home. I have been to India and personally witnessed it many times, so it's much more of a habit for them.
 
jimbob said:
As an aside, why is jaywalking considered an offence in so many parts of the US?
Click to expand...

Not sure. But isn't jaywalking illegally crossing the road? The robber in this case was walking down the middle of the road (at least that seems to be the case as of now). So he wasn't jaywalking. :)
 
Ziggurat said:
No, they do not predictably claim this.

Here's a case of a cop shooting and killing an unarmed suspect:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/0...oliceman-shoots-attacker-on-top-and-punching/
This was a justified case of self-defense, but the cop didn't claim the suspect was going for the cop's gun,.
Click to expand...
Why would he need to say the guy was going for his gun in that case?

Besides, my post was about speculating on what the cop would say if no fingerprints were found on the gun, it wasn't about shooting the suspect who was video taped hitting the cop.


Ziggurat said:
Here's another case of a cop shooting and killing an unarmed suspect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police_shooting_of_Oscar_Grant
This was not a justified case of self-defense. The cop did not claim that the suspect was going for his gun.

While a cop might make a claim of the subject going for an officer's gun in order to justify a shooting (and furthermore that it's reasonable to ask for corroborating evidence before accepting such a claim), you're simply wrong that cops will predictably do so.
Click to expand...
That's your example, a cop who was video taped shooting the kid in the subway? He couldn't exactly say the kid reached for anything.

But look what he did say. He claimed he thought he was firing his taser? You don't think that was an arse saving lie? Isn't that what the jury found? :rolleyes:


See what I mean, you guys are still trying to take my post completely out of context purely to suit your bias.

How about you find the typical cop who honestly says his gun when off accidentally. Think it never happens, or cops who shoot unarmed suspects typically claim the shooting was justified whether it was or wasn't?
 
Last edited:
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Not sure. But isn't jaywalking illegally crossing the road? The robber in this case was walking down the middle of the road (at least that seems to be the case as of now). So he wasn't jaywalking. :)
Click to expand...

Typically, if there are sidewalks, it's illegal to walk on the road surface at all.

If there are no sidewalks, typically you can walk on the edge of the road, but you have to be facing traffic. It's illegal to be on the wrong side.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
That is precisely what they do. They break it down to a very fine level of detail, and assign a color to each group (blues and purples, reds, greens, etc.) and a percentage.
Click to expand...

On my DNA models, the carbons are often black, the nitrogens are green, and the oxygens are red. Hydrogens are white. Is it something like that?

Do the DNA testing companies often assign percentages of "color" or is it "genetic groups" instead? Because I know what color I am (Autumn Mist).
 
I don't believe anyone is arguing walking down the middle of the street was legal. The question is, was it really necessary for this cop to make a big deal of it.

Imagine a different scenario. Cop drives by, "Hey guys, could you move to the sidewalk please? Thanks."
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I don't believe anyone is arguing walking down the middle of the street was legal. The question is, was it really necessary for this cop to make a big deal of it.

Imagine a different scenario. Cop drives by, "Hey guys, could you move to the sidewalk please? Thanks."
Click to expand...

He probably told them they couldn't, and they ignored him and kept on walking, so he backed up past them and cut them off.
 
Redtail said:
Maybe I missed something, what does his being right handed have to do with anything?
Click to expand...

Redtail said:
Maybe I missed something, what does his being right handed have to do with anything?
Click to expand...

He likely didn't grab the gun and point it at the officers with his left hand if he was right-handed and holding a cigar.

I guess, rereading GWCarver's words, the man was smoking when he dozed off, and the officers mistook the cigar for the gun...although that doesn't really make sense if they could plainly see the gun before they woke him up.

I imagine that waking him startled him, and I wouldn't be surprised if he grabbed a gun in that instant before coming awake enough to understand what was going on. But apparently that's not what happened.

Bottom line: someone's story doesn't jive with all the facts. Or something.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
Well, then you are expecting something which has absolutely not happened so far.

And if we basically eliminate borders worldwide, doesn't that sort of just enable whoever is breeding most irresponsibly to "overwrite" the genetics of those who were showing more restraint, over time?
Click to expand...

I think this sort of eugenics thought was popular a hundred years ago. Not so much now.

Actually, in populations, whoever was breeding the most efficiently will compete out the genetics of those who were not, as has happened for billions of years. Efficiently does not necessarily mean having the most babies, It means having the most success at attracting mates and insuring the long term survival and reproductive success (life span, number, attraction to their mates, etc.) of your offspring.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Tank said:
I think when someone responds to an officer catching them coming from the scene of a strong arm felony robbery by attempting to beat that officer, take his sidearm, and murder that officer with it... it is necessary for them to die.

It is certainly in society's best interest that they die.
Click to expand...

Guess what! The officer didn't have any knowledge of the convenience store incident when he he shot and killed Michael Brown, in excess of 7 times.

So there goes that theory down the drain.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I don't believe anyone is arguing walking down the middle of the street was legal. The question is, was it really necessary for this cop to make a big deal of it.

Imagine a different scenario. Cop drives by, "Hey guys, could you move to the sidewalk please? Thanks."
Click to expand...

To be fair, we don't really know who made the big deal out of it. It's what happened after the officers encounter him walking down the middle of the road that is in dispute. I'm thinking that if Michael Brown moves out of the road and is calm, even after the officers decide that they want to question him, or ask for ID, that he is still alive today. The officers don't know about the robbery, they probably let him and his friend go.

It's reasonable to speculate he might have been acting suspiciously and things escalated from there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom