tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,319
|
Post by tashoya on Dec 13, 2014 0:53:29 GMT -5
I'm not an attorney so, on this board, in some ways I feel ill equipped to comment on some of the discussion points. For the most part, however, I appreciate the opinions and discussion. There are a few posts that I found offensive to be honest but, regardless, they have sparked legitimate discourse so I guess that is (maybe) what it takes. If any of you happen to have any close friends that are cops, ask them for their take without any pretense. You might be surprised. I was. At the very least, it will inform your own opinion.
|
|
Talos
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 612
|
Post by Talos on Dec 13, 2014 10:52:58 GMT -5
The NY case and the Ferguson cases are completely different. No they are not. One pivotal thread binds them. Two Black males died at the hands of the police, and neither deserved that fate. Neither officer was indicted. but I was not surprised the Ferguson officer was not indicted. The evidence they did have certainly showed he was telling the truth in his statement, Sorry, but this is not true. While Wilson's and witnesses' testimony aligned in some areas, they differed vastly in others. Besides, Wilson's version sounded like a fairy tale. A jury should have decided if Wilson's testimony was flawed in any way, not the grand jury. Talos, I appreciate your impassioned defense of law enforcement. You chose not to employ deadly force, but too many others don't make the decision you did. Too frequently when they do not, a black male dies. That is a problem in this country. Both Kajieme Powell and John Crawford should be alive today. While you defend law enforcement, I hope you understand why multiracial protests are occurring in cities around the country to point out these inequities. I'll say it once again, no matter how much the media tries to connect the two, the NY case and the Ferguson case details are extremely different. Just because the races of the suspect were the same and the fact the police were involved does not automatically make them the same situation. The use of force and the level of the force used by police are dictated by many different conditions and circumstances. In the Ferguson case, you have a lone officer contacting two suspects, one of who is 6'5" 300lbs and had just committed a violent crime. When the officer contacted him, he viciously attacked the cop and apparently tried to take his gun. If you would review use of force policies from any federal/state/local law enforcement agency, as well as decades of case law, you would realize deadly force is defensible in this case. Deadly force is authorized when it is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury or death to the officer or another individual. Whether you agree with him or not, he apparently felt his life was in danger and made the decision to use deadly force. In fact, this type of scenario is used frequently to teach use of force policies to new recruits. You may disagree with it, but the law supports that the suspect doesn't need his own gun to justify deadly force. The scenario given to new recruits is a situation where you try to arrest a suspect who then attacks you. The suspect is bigger and stronger than you, and physically overpowers you while beating you. You feel another strike might render you unconscious and then you feel the suspect trying to take your gun. What would you do in that situation? There isn't video of the encounter, but Wilson's account shows he felt he was in a life and death struggle. You can debate whether he exaggerated the danger, but unless you were there you can't completely discount his version. Now let's say that situation was different: there were 5 cops and 1 suspect, the suspect was 5'7" and 150 lbs, the officers had surrounded the suspect but the suspect was still fighting the cops. In that situation, you definitely could not shoot the suspect because the circumstances and conditions wouldn't support a contention that your life, or another's life, was in danger. And the fact that a grand jury didn't indict in Ferguson should tell you how little evidence there was to prove the officer committed a crime. Was it a tragedy? Of course, I would have much preferred that Brown wasn't killed and had been prosecuted and imprisoned for his crimes.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Dec 13, 2014 11:37:03 GMT -5
That officer was allowed to skate. Those are the facts. I don't think you know what a fact is.
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Dec 13, 2014 12:41:50 GMT -5
I'll say it once again, no matter how much the media tries to connect the two, the NY case and the Ferguson case details are extremely different. Just because the races of the suspect were the same and the fact the police were involved does not automatically make them the same situation. The use of force and the level of the force used by police are dictated by many different conditions and circumstances. In the Ferguson case, you have a lone officer contacting two suspects, one of who is 6'5" 300lbs and had just committed a violent crime. When the officer contacted him, he viciously attacked the cop and apparently tried to take his gun. If you would review use of force policies from any federal/state/local law enforcement agency, as well as decades of case law, you would realize deadly force is defensible in this case. Deadly force is authorized when it is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury or death to the officer or another individual. Whether you agree with him or not, he apparently felt his life was in danger and made the decision to use deadly force. In fact, this type of scenario is used frequently to teach use of force policies to new recruits. You may disagree with it, but the law supports that the suspect doesn't need his own gun to justify deadly force. The scenario given to new recruits is a situation where you try to arrest a suspect who then attacks you. The suspect is bigger and stronger than you, and physically overpowers you while beating you. You feel another strike might render you unconscious and then you feel the suspect trying to take your gun. What would you do in that situation? There isn't video of the encounter, but Wilson's account shows he felt he was in a life and death struggle. You can debate whether he exaggerated the danger, but unless you were there you can't completely discount his version. Now let's say that situation was different: there were 5 cops and 1 suspect, the suspect was 5'7" and 150 lbs, the officers had surrounded the suspect but the suspect was still fighting the cops. In that situation, you definitely could not shoot the suspect because the circumstances and conditions wouldn't support a contention that your life, or another's life, was in danger. And the fact that a grand jury didn't indict in Ferguson should tell you how little evidence there was to prove the officer committed a crime. Was it a tragedy? Of course, I would have much preferred that Brown wasn't killed and had been prosecuted and imprisoned for his crimes. And this is exactly the problem. The training is wrong and the law is wrong. If Wilson felt so scared for his life why did he exit the vehicle? Why couldnt he wait for back up? These werent murderers he was trying to confront, they didnt pose and immediate risk to anyone until Officer Wilson confronted them. I am not surprised no officers were indicted in either case. And in fact, if I was on the grand jury its possible i would have found in the officer favor for the exact reason you state: the law and training allow and teach this type of response. And that is the problem at the base of this. Police should be enforcing the law by responding to complaints of the citizens. They should be held to a hire standard than the normal citizen and should have utmost respect for the right of the people they have pledge to (and are paid to) protect. People want the training and laws you talk about changed. Thats what should come out of this. It doesnt matter what happens to the specific officers if the law if the policy doesnt change. This country is nominally a democracy and if the people want the laws changed, the government and its agents (i.e. the police) should listen to that desire and CHANGE THE LAW.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Dec 13, 2014 13:45:30 GMT -5
No police force trains officers to do what Wilson did. Even if you accept his account of what happened at the car door, that danger was over when Brown fled so it does not justify what happened down the street.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2014 14:00:18 GMT -5
I am not taking sides here, but according to Wilson, Brown turned around and charged him. That would constitute a danger. The problem is that we will probably never know exactly what happened. I see two issues which are different. 1. Did racism play a role? 2. Did the police officers act inappropriately considering the circumstances? Unfortunately, neither of these questions will ever be answered to everyone's satisfaction. The overriding question is, where do we go from here?? What are the possible solutions??
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Dec 13, 2014 14:14:44 GMT -5
Wilson shot Brown 9 times after Brown tried to leave the scene and avoid the confrontation. According to the blood on the street, even if Brown "charged" it was after he had been shot several times when he was not an imminent threat. Wilson's actions should be the definition of bad police work.
|
|
Talos
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 612
|
Post by Talos on Dec 13, 2014 14:38:57 GMT -5
I'll say it once again, no matter how much the media tries to connect the two, the NY case and the Ferguson case details are extremely different. Just because the races of the suspect were the same and the fact the police were involved does not automatically make them the same situation. The use of force and the level of the force used by police are dictated by many different conditions and circumstances. In the Ferguson case, you have a lone officer contacting two suspects, one of who is 6'5" 300lbs and had just committed a violent crime. When the officer contacted him, he viciously attacked the cop and apparently tried to take his gun. If you would review use of force policies from any federal/state/local law enforcement agency, as well as decades of case law, you would realize deadly force is defensible in this case. Deadly force is authorized when it is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury or death to the officer or another individual. Whether you agree with him or not, he apparently felt his life was in danger and made the decision to use deadly force. In fact, this type of scenario is used frequently to teach use of force policies to new recruits. You may disagree with it, but the law supports that the suspect doesn't need his own gun to justify deadly force. The scenario given to new recruits is a situation where you try to arrest a suspect who then attacks you. The suspect is bigger and stronger than you, and physically overpowers you while beating you. You feel another strike might render you unconscious and then you feel the suspect trying to take your gun. What would you do in that situation? There isn't video of the encounter, but Wilson's account shows he felt he was in a life and death struggle. You can debate whether he exaggerated the danger, but unless you were there you can't completely discount his version. Now let's say that situation was different: there were 5 cops and 1 suspect, the suspect was 5'7" and 150 lbs, the officers had surrounded the suspect but the suspect was still fighting the cops. In that situation, you definitely could not shoot the suspect because the circumstances and conditions wouldn't support a contention that your life, or another's life, was in danger. And the fact that a grand jury didn't indict in Ferguson should tell you how little evidence there was to prove the officer committed a crime. Was it a tragedy? Of course, I would have much preferred that Brown wasn't killed and had been prosecuted and imprisoned for his crimes. And this is exactly the problem. The training is wrong and the law is wrong. If Wilson felt so scared for his life why did he exit the vehicle? Why couldnt he wait for back up? These werent murderers he was trying to confront, they didnt pose and immediate risk to anyone until Officer Wilson confronted them. I am not surprised no officers were indicted in either case. And in fact, if I was on the grand jury its possible i would have found in the officer favor for the exact reason you state: the law and training allow and teach this type of response. And that is the problem at the base of this. Police should be enforcing the law by responding to complaints of the citizens. They should be held to a hire standard than the normal citizen and should have utmost respect for the right of the people they have pledge to (and are paid to) protect. People want the training and laws you talk about changed. Thats what should come out of this. It doesnt matter what happens to the specific officers if the law if the policy doesnt change. This country is nominally a democracy and if the people want the laws changed, the government and its agents (i.e. the police) should listen to that desire and CHANGE THE LAW. I wasn't there, and there's no video, so I'm not going to definitively defend the officer. However, if his account is completely accurate then according to the law he used deadly force appropriately. How should an officer act if a much larger and stronger man is beating him senseless and trying to take his gun? There's only one reason a criminal would attack an officer and then try to take his gun. For example, two agents in an office I worked at were killed in the line of duty. The suspect attacked the female agent, beat her up, overpowered her and took her gun. Then he shot her and then shot and killed another agent. If that female agent had shot and killed the suspect while he was trying to take her gun, would you have thought that was inappropriate also? So do you want a new law passed that says cops can only use deadly force if a suspect has their own weapon in their hands? Most people don't realize there are deadly force situations that fall outside that strict interpretation and that's why the law and use of force policy allow for that. Politicians, lawyers, judges, and courts, have all looked at this issue many times and agreed. I just want everyone to have all the facts before forming opinions...and listening to CNN soundbytes doesn't count in my opinion...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2014 14:44:59 GMT -5
Hi BMartin
With respect. There were a few shots fired when Brown reached in the car and tried to take the officer's gun. However, if what you stated is correct, then Brown would have been shot in the back. No one has claimed that any of the shots were to the back, so Brown had to be facing Officer Wilson and not moving away.
Once again, we need to go forward and try to find possible solutions (this will not be easy).
Jerry
|
|
Talos
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 612
|
Post by Talos on Dec 13, 2014 14:53:40 GMT -5
People just don't understand how difficult it is to make split-second, life or death decisions in the middle of an adrenaline-filled violent encounter. There were no split-second, adrenaline-filled, life or death decisions to be made in the Garner case until Pantaleo decided to choke him. There were six officers standing around one guy to arrest him for selling loose cigarettes on a busy street in broad daylight. my personal opinion is that law enforcement has much fewer bad eggs than most professions. Believe me, those in law enforcement want the bad eggs removed more than anyone. I'm reasonably sure every public sector union says exactly this and then stonewalls every attempt at actually accomplishing it. The bottom line is no one will get hurt if you don't attack a cop. As posted in another thread, this is not true. The fact that he was placed on paid leave is an excellent example of my second point above. I disagree with most of your post, but wholeheartedly agree with your comment that "I'm reasonably sure every public sector union says exactly this and then stonewalls every attempt at actually accomplishing it." As I said before, the rank and file agents and officers want to get rid of the bad actors who abuse their power and make our jobs more difficult and dangerous. The problem is those in power don't want to address problems and look to sweep things under the carpet. From my experience, there are several reasons for that: 1. Heads of federal agencies, state governors, Commanders of state police agencies, Sheriffs, and Chiefs of Police all have one thing in common: they're politicians. And what do politicians do when they receive a complaint of impropriety in their organization? They sweep it under the rug and punish any whistleblowers. I have personally reported impropriety on several occasions over the years and was told to shut up or be fired by high-ranking officials (non-law enforcement). 2. Law enforcement agencies receive an incredible amount of complaints on a daily basis and from my experiences the overwhelming majority are completely bogus. As a result, many in a position of authority end up ignoring all complaints. I'm not defending or agreeing with that stance, just explaining what I've seen. I've had a number of ridiculous complaints made against me personally over the years, and it can be frustrating and stressful to deal with. I just had one filed against me last week: several individuals hired an attorney and sent a letter to DC HQ that included a number of untrue allegations. They weren't even embellished or exaggerated, but the scenarios were just completely fabricated. However, I still had to drop everything and write statements defending my actions.
|
|
Talos
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 612
|
Post by Talos on Dec 13, 2014 15:11:24 GMT -5
It seems from reading the posts of those who are responding to this thread, I'm probably in the minority on this issue. And that's fine, I don't expect an internet chat room to change people's deeply held convictions. However, I really hope people don't make judgments on situations until they have all the facts and truly understand the relevant laws. I hope people don't make emotional decisions based on sensationalized and biased headlines on CNN or other media outlets. Hopefully, people understand that each situation is different and reserve judgment until the facts are known.
To be honest, if we had this debate 20 years ago, and I read my comments, I would have vehemently disagreed with myself. However, after two decades working for multiple federal agencies, I've seen and experienced things that have truly opened my eyes and changed my opinions.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
Member is Online
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Dec 13, 2014 15:19:26 GMT -5
No they are not. One pivotal thread binds them. Two Black males died at the hands of the police, and neither deserved that fate. Neither officer was indicted. Sorry, but this is not true. While Wilson's and witnesses' testimony aligned in some areas, they differed vastly in others. Besides, Wilson's version sounded like a fairy tale. A jury should have decided if Wilson's testimony was flawed in any way, not the grand jury. Talos, I appreciate your impassioned defense of law enforcement. You chose not to employ deadly force, but too many others don't make the decision you did. Too frequently when they do not, a black male dies. That is a problem in this country. Both Kajieme Powell and John Crawford should be alive today. While you defend law enforcement, I hope you understand why multiracial protests are occurring in cities around the country to point out these inequities. I'll say it once again, no matter how much the media tries to connect the two, the NY case and the Ferguson case details are extremely different. Just because the races of the suspect were the same and the fact the police were involved does not automatically make them the same situation. The use of force and the level of the force used by police are dictated by many different conditions and circumstances. In the Ferguson case, you have a lone officer contacting two suspects, one of who is 6'5" 300lbs and had just committed a violent crime. When the officer contacted him, he viciously attacked the cop and apparently tried to take his gun. If you would review use of force policies from any federal/state/local law enforcement agency, as well as decades of case law, you would realize deadly force is defensible in this case. Deadly force is authorized when it is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury or death to the officer or another individual. Whether you agree with him or not, he apparently felt his life was in danger and made the decision to use deadly force. In fact, this type of scenario is used frequently to teach use of force policies to new recruits. You may disagree with it, but the law supports that the suspect doesn't need his own gun to justify deadly force. The scenario given to new recruits is a situation where you try to arrest a suspect who then attacks you. The suspect is bigger and stronger than you, and physically overpowers you while beating you. You feel another strike might render you unconscious and then you feel the suspect trying to take your gun. What would you do in that situation? There isn't video of the encounter, but Wilson's account shows he felt he was in a life and death struggle. You can debate whether he exaggerated the danger, but unless you were there you can't completely discount his version. Now let's say that situation was different: there were 5 cops and 1 suspect, the suspect was 5'7" and 150 lbs, the officers had surrounded the suspect but the suspect was still fighting the cops. In that situation, you definitely could not shoot the suspect because the circumstances and conditions wouldn't support a contention that your life, or another's life, was in danger. And the fact that a grand jury didn't indict in Ferguson should tell you how little evidence there was to prove the officer committed a crime. Was it a tragedy? Of course, I would have much preferred that Brown wasn't killed and had been prosecuted and imprisoned for his crimes. Talos, you continue to ignore, or at best downplay, the fact that black males are overwhelmingly the victims in these encounters. That is a systemic issue for our country. Our perspectives quite clearly are shaped by different experiences. There is no way you can justify to me the use of deadly force in Ferguson or any of the other murders which have been in the news. And yes, I used the word murders. As well, this issue resonates across the nation. Witness the many protests taking place in the country. Wilson told a fairy tale, and got away with it. The officer in NY used a choke hold, on camera. A child with a toy gun was murdered in Cleveland. It's time for this nonsense to stop.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2014 15:33:34 GMT -5
Hi Hoyainspirit
I would like to ask you some questions about how you see these incidents.
Do you think racism played a role and if so, how much?? In each case, do you feel that the officers involved were careless, negligent (and if so, was it criminally negligent). Do you think either officer should go to jail??
We can debate this forever, but after reading the comments, I don't think anyone is going to post something to the effect of "You are right."
We need to try to find solutions. Not easy, but that is what we have to do.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,861
|
Post by EtomicB on Dec 13, 2014 15:46:22 GMT -5
No police force trains officers to do what Wilson did. Even if you accept his account of what happened at the car door, that danger was over when Brown fled so it does not justify what happened down the street. This is exactly my thoughts on the Brown shooting.. The fact that Wilson left the safety of his vehicle to pursue Brown bothers me, if he was that scared for his life why not keep a safe distance while you await back-up? Also the fact that I've never heard that Brown's fingerprints were found on his gun, the forensic reports state "DNA" was found which I always thought meant blood.. Wilson stated in both his interview with the detective after the shooting and the Grand Jury that Brown grabbed his gun so shouldn't there have been prints left? Thoughts Talos?
|
|
SirSaxa
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by SirSaxa on Dec 13, 2014 16:10:16 GMT -5
|
|
nathanhm
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by nathanhm on Dec 13, 2014 16:31:50 GMT -5
No police force trains officers to do what Wilson did. Even if you accept his account of what happened at the car door, that danger was over when Brown fled so it does not justify what happened down the street. This is exactly my thoughts on the Brown shooting.. The fact that Wilson left the safety of his vehicle to pursue Brown bothers me, if he was that scared for his life why not keep a safe distance while you await back-up? Also the fact that I've never heard that Brown's fingerprints were found on his gun, the forensic reports state "DNA" was found which I always thought meant blood.. Wilson stated in both his interview with the detective after the shooting and the Grand Jury that Brown grabbed his gun so shouldn't there have been prints left? Thoughts Talos? Office Wilson used the exact same story as Zimmerman. Young unarmed black kid went for his gun and he was forced to shoot him to death.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Dec 13, 2014 16:54:37 GMT -5
Jerry, in what universe is a belief that Brown was shot before he might have charged in any way refuted by the fact that he was not shot in the back? Standing still or walking is not charging.
Brown did not want to be shot so after the two shots at the car he fled. Wilson went after him. At what point would a person who does not want to be shot decide to charge a police officer with a gun? When he is being shot anyway. If he really wanted to beat the hell out of Wilson he would not have run away from the vehicle. Distance favors the guy with the gun.
The fact that Wilson went after him and then fired 10 more shots at a huge man supposedly charging toward him before stopping him shows that the shots were not at close range and that Wilson is a terrible shooter.
|
|
|
Post by AlexanderClaude on Dec 13, 2014 17:52:31 GMT -5
Wilson did exactly what he was trained and had to do... Brown proved to be an immediate threat to Wilson and the public. If Wilson had not pursued Brown, the Wilson could be charged with cowardness or dereliction of duty and be fired from the department,
NYC is different because they went against NYpd policy. Does it warrant a criminal indictment? No, because they acted on good faith. However the officer who applied the hold should and will probably end up getting terminated.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Dec 13, 2014 18:22:08 GMT -5
I feel like debating unanswerable questions is a distraction from a much more important debate--what can be done to prevent these kind of things from happening again? Justice May or May not have been done here--buts lets use these tragedies as a way to ensure that there aren't any more Eric Garners or Mike Browns.
How do we 1) prevent cops from abusing their power and 2) ensure that we have a trustworthy process for ensuring justice is done, because people obviously don't believe there is any accountability.
Body cameras seem like a good way to improve accountability (obviously they'd really help us figure out what actually happened), but as the Eric Garner incident shows, video evidence doesn't guarantee anything. Do we need special prosecutors? State level? federal? How do we fix the process so people accept justice is being done?
|
|
This Just In
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Bold Prediction: The Hoyas will win at least 1 BE game in 2023.
Posts: 10,592
|
Post by This Just In on Dec 13, 2014 20:53:32 GMT -5
Since posters are speaking about the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, has anyone read Witness #40 testimony of the altercation which collaborates with Officer Wilson's?
Conservatives or viewers of Fox News may be familiar with quotes from this witness as Sean Hannity has quoted her numerous times via his show. The famous quote being:
"The big kid turned around and had his arms out with an attitude and the cop just stood there. Dang, if that kid not start running right at the cop like a football player, head down."
Direct quote from Witness #40 testimony and submitted as evidence to the "Grand Jury" by Ferguson's District Attorney Robert P. McCulloch.
|
|