Michael Brown verdict discussion policy

by Simon 254 Replies latest forum announcements

• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Giordano,

  Thanks for sharing that video. I've seen things like that before. That policeman made so many mistakes, beginning with his way-too-fast approach to the driver he'd just pulled over. Way too fast of an approach!

  In this case the traffic stop was over a seatbelt violation. And the driver ends up getting shot. And the driver's crime worth getting shot over was? Doing precisely what the policeman told him to do.

  Hope that former police officer never again holds authority in law enforcement, and I hope he never is permitted to carry a concealed weapon.
• 

  Simon

  Things not to do if stopped:

  • Get out of the car (a North American thing - in the UK we typically get out, chat and then have a cup of tea).
  • Jump back into the car suddenly or make any sudden moves at all.
  • Be in certain parts of America (?)

  That's appalling policing but also (frighteningly) slightly understandable - if you watch the training videos and see the difference between a driver presenting their wallet and one grabbing a gun there is literally a split second to make what could be a life or death decision.

  But too much rushing by the cop - he should have started with "good afternoon sir, do you know why I stopped you?" rather than ordering him to hand over something and then shooting when he did as ordered.

  The officer is up on charges and was fired a week or so later.

  How did that happen? I missed the mass protests and riots necessary to 'get justice' ...
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Main thing to do if pulled over by a traffic cop in the USA:

  - KEEP YOUR HANDS IN PLAIN SIGHT for the patrol officer to see at all times!!!

  If you have to dig around in the car looking for something LET THE COP KNOW BEFORE REACHING.

  Don't forget the cop wants to get home alive too!
• 

  Simon

  Well, I just saw a guy interviewed on the news, it's so disappointing.

  He said something that sounded odd and so the interviewer asked if he was saying that "unless the officer is indicted, you don't believe there has been any justice ... even after a thorough investigation and a jury has reviewed the evidence?"

  He couldn't even understand the question. He answered something else and so the interviewer asked him again, spelling it out in more detail.

  The guy sounded genuinely puzzled at the notion that both justice and no-indictment could exist at the same time.

  Very disappointing and very troubling - he was some action group organizer, supposedly a voice of reason for peaceful protest.

  The problem now is that they have completely and utterly pinned a judgement on whether things are fair or not based on whether the officer is indicted regardless or what the evidence actually shows.

  If there is an indictment then the standard for justice will no doubt be raised to getting a conviction. This is not justice.

  Apparently the grand jury will meet finally on Friday and the result could be announced on Sunday (which I expected and makes sense - kids aren't in schools etc...).

  The part that particularly caught my attention is that they are talking about redacting the names of witnesses to protect them and that some may have said different things to the court than they said to the media / in public.

  I don't know if too much can be read into it but to me that points to it being more likely that their testimony supports the officer and that there will not be an indictment (of course it could just be contingency planning).
• 

  Nathan Natas

  I intend to set my toupée on fire regardless of the outcome.
• 

  DesirousOfChange

  I intend to set my toupée on fire regardless of the outcome.

  That would seem to be a hot-headed response to the situation.

  Doc
• 

  designs

  The parents can file a Civil Action case against the Police Department and the officer. In the O.J. Simpson case, where he won in the Criminal Trial, he lost in the Civil Trial.
• 

  AlphaMan

  The parents can file a Civil Action case against the Police Department and the officer.

  .

  After the facts come out I can't imagine a jury would award them any money, especially considering their son escaladed the events in the incident. They'll have to continue to work for a living.
• 

  Ruby456

  theSilence

  re cherry picking

  my understanding is that cherrypicking can suggest that evidence is being suppressed or the reader is being deceived intentionally or unintentionally. What I was pointing to in defence of the article by noting such words and phrases as "allegedly" "not clearly visible" and other words and phrased within the article of which the two i mentioned in the link are examples indicates that the reader be aware that there is contention regarding the views expressed. Therefore rather than suppressing infomation and trying to deceive the reader, the reader is encouraged to keep an open mind and/or go look for other articles, and there are many - including articles that address the points you mention.

  Yes the article does have an agenda as I have already said but equally the police were sought for comment and that was also contentious. So despite having an agenda the agenda was not to suppress or deceive either intentionally or unintentionally but to provide a human angle on the situation and also to highlight how controversial the situation is.

  edit: in fact the impression I am coming away with is that the police and the protestors are mirroring one another. of course this is no comfort for those who are actually in the situation or very close to it and i do sympathise with you all
• 

  JeffT

  • Be in certain parts of America

  We tend to think of this idea as applying to say, African-Americans in the south. But it can cut both ways, I can take you to a part of Seattle where a white guy in an expensive car at night is going to get pulled over for sure. A few years ago, a man was found shot in his car there, the attitutude of the police was "white guy in a BMW here at 2AM, he was looking for drugs or prostitutes or both."

  He said something that sounded odd and so the interviewer asked if he was saying that "unless the officer is indicted, you don't believe there has been any justice ... even after a thorough investigation and a jury has reviewed the evidence?"

  He couldn't even understand the question. He answered something else and so the interviewer asked him again, spelling it out in more detail.

  The guy sounded genuinely puzzled at the notion that both justice and no-indictment could exist at the same time.

  This is the part that bothers me about all this. If your going to demand "justice" that is going to mean living with what gets decided even if you don't like it. Demanding a particular outcome is not justice, its the the sort of mental process that led to lynch mobs. Unfortunately, I think some will take the protest too far, or worse, use it as an excuse to raise hell.