It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tamir Rice/Michael Brown/LaVoy Finicum: ALL Wrongful Deaths for the SAME Reason...

page: 1
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 09:10 AM
link   
... specifically, in each case, law enforcement created, perpetuated and escalated the real or imagined life-threatening situation they used to justify deadly force.

I know... I know... conventional wisdom tells us that it cannot be; that if I believe that LaVoy Finicum's killing was NOT justified, then I must -- MUST -- believe that Tamir and Michael's killings were justified. Well, conventional wisdom tells me lots of things that I know are not true. And I know that each of these people were wrongly killed, either due to negligence, recklessness, depraved heart, and/or malice aforethought. And I'm going to do my best in this thread to explain why, using the foundational and fundamental natural and constitutional law principles that have been grossly distorted, contorted and exploited -- pretty much since our inception. For the sake of ease of reading continuity, I will provide supporting links and definitions at the end, rather than cluttering the text with too many quotes.

Our Declaration of Independence declares our inalienable natural right to life, granted by our Creator, Nature's God. This right is not granted by man, nor any creation of man, and therefore cannot be taken by man -- it is inalienable and absolute, and cannot be violated or infringed by government, but must be protected and defended by government.

Tamir, Michael and Lavoy had an inalienable natural right to life, just like all of us.

And the Declaration of Independence further declares:


“That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”.


In other words, government powers come from us. They must serve our best interests; we do not serve their best interests. Including protecting and defending our inalienable natural right to life. Governments have no rights at all. Government agents/officials have the same exact rights as the rest of us -- as citizens and individuals, not as government officials/agents. Governments only have those powers we grant them.

No one is above -- or below!!! -- the law. Not just including, but especially law enforcement. Law enforcement must do anything and everything necessary and proper to protect our right to life. But in every one of these instances, it was law enforcement who created, escalated and perpetuated the exact situation they claimed put their lives in danger, rationalizing the use of lethal force. But at the same time, they put the lives of Tamir, Michael and Lavoy in danger as well. And it was not necessary, much less proper. Under the "totality of circumstances," start to finish, recklessness and negligence on the part of law enforcement does not justify their use of deadly force, but makes law enforcement liable for any circumstances leading to a real or perceived need for force.

Further, each and every one of these victims -- yes, victims! -- had the inalienable natural right to use whatever force they deemed necessary to protect their own life -- including their natural instinct to fight or flee, even from law enforcement, including using lethal force against the officers who put their lives in danger. Unlike the law enforcement officers, these victims were under no obligation or oath to protect those threatening their lives.

Too often in these cases, deadly use of force by law enforcement is rationalized by citing Tennessee v. Garner and/or Graham v. Connor, which addresses that split-second decision to shoot AFTER law enforcement has already created and/or escalated the circumstances, and totally ignore the officers' recklessness, negligence and therefore their liability. It's about "totality of circumstances" and provocation of conflict. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in Billington v. Smith, has ruled that:


If an officer intentionally or recklessly violates a suspect's constitutional rights, then the violation may be a provocation creating a situation in which force was necessary and such force would have been legal but for the initial violation.


The ruling has since been applied to other cases, including Espinosa v. San Francisco and Alexander v. City and County of San Francisco

Source

There is absolutely no question that the roadblock set up to ambush LaVoy Finicum was life-threatening according to federal standards:


Fixed roadblocks are extremely dangerous and are rarely justifiable.


Source: National Institute of Justice: Restrictive Polices for High Speed Police Pursuits

And Portland, Oregon standards:


Barricading: Barricading is considered deadly physical force and subject to DIR 1010.10.


Source: Portland Police Policy

In my opinion, the same "extremely dangerous" and "deadly physical force" was used by Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson when he used his vehicle to block Michael Brown and his companion, reversing suddenly towards them, almost striking them, and then slamming his door open into them.

While there are various laws and statutes and regulations which can and are construed to justify (but really only rationalize) the bad behavior of law enforcement, the bottom line is really quite simple: if it doesn't conform to and complement our Organic Law -- i.e., Natural Law -- then it is only "color of law." And we have the right, the privilege and the responsibility to call foul... even murder. As our first Chief Justice, John Jay, said:


The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.


I'm calling foul. Our Natural Rights and Law have been degraded to Constitutinal Rights and Law, which has been degraded to Civil Rights and Law, and which has now been degraded to a free-for-all. FOUL!!!




posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Additional Information for your reading (dis)pleasure:

The Declaration of Independence is the first and primary source of law, and establishment of law. It is (among other documents), our Organic Law, as established by an act of the 43rd Congress and published by the Government Printing Office. Our Organic Laws are found in Volume One of the United States Code (the general and permanent laws of the United States and include:
    [***]Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776
    [***]Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777
    [***]Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787
    [***]Constitution of September 17, 1787

Wikipedia: Organic Law

Bill of Rights of the United States of America

Quotations and Comments on Fully Informed Juries

Provoking a Confrontation and the Fourth Amendment

Particular Rights—Fourth Amendment—Unreasonable Seizure of Person—Detention During Execution of Search Warrant

LaVoy Finicum's Death with Jury Instructions

Was the Shooting of Tamir Rice “Reasonable”?

The bad Supreme Court standard that lets cops who kill go free.


Current law gives police wide latitude to use deadly force

Ferguson shooting case renews debate over whether officers have too much leeway, too little accountability.


St. Louis University Law Journal: Police Use of Deadly Force: State Statues 30 Years after Garner

One place to start in drawing the line between justified and unjustified uses of deadly force is the Supreme Court’s 1985 opinion in Tennessee v. Garner. Reading the majority opinion in Garner is a bracing experience. Justice White’s extended discussion of the common law standard of police use of force makes clear on many levels that he did not merely want to replace the common law rule: he wanted to bury it. That police could use any amount of force, including deadly force, to “seize” a fleeing felon—the common law rule which at issue in Garner—was not only constitutionally infirm, it made little sense as a policy matter. Police departments had long ago abandoned the idea (at least in theory, but also in practice) that deadly force should be the default option for stopping non-violent offenders.


T he U.S. Supreme Court Is Marching in Lockstep with the Police State

Out of Breath and Down to the Wire: A Call for Constitution-Focused Police Reform

How to Regain Control of Your Local Police



posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Do you think this officer would be justified in shooting? Well he didn't, and this is what happened to him. He was very lucky. He said he didn't fire because he didn't want to be in the news for shooting an "unarmed" man.

wwlp.com...


iTruthSeeker
edit on 30-4-2016 by iTruthSeeker because: fixed somethign



posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

Apples and oranges. I see absolutely nothing in this account to suggest that officer did anything to provoke a confrontation, nor did the officer use excessive -- much less deadly -- force. The perp has been rightfully arrested and charged with a crime. I'm very sorry the officer was assaulted and harmed, but this OP does not in any way apply to this officer.

More to the point, however, is that the answer is not the wanton killing of anyone and everyone who "might" be a danger to officers, but to provide much better defensive training and equipment to our law enforcement officials in order that they do not put themselves and others in potentially dangerous positions.



posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 10:36 AM
link   

edit on 30-4-2016 by TorqueyThePig because: I've been so good, not going to fall off the wagon now.



posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

Apples and oranges. I see absolutely nothing in this account to suggest that officer did anything to provoke a confrontation, nor did the officer use excessive -- much less deadly -- force. The perp has been rightfully arrested and charged with a crime. I'm very sorry the officer was assaulted and harmed, but this OP does not in any way apply to this officer.

More to the point, however, is that the answer is not the wanton killing of anyone and everyone who "might" be a danger to officers, but to provide much better defensive training and equipment to our law enforcement officials in order that they do not put themselves and others in potentially dangerous positions.



It applies because you used Mike Brown as an example, who tried to do the same thing. Beat the officer and tried to get his weapon.


iTruthSeeker



posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Yours is a well written post with plenty of appropriate links to back it up. I agree very strongly with everything you said but by including Brown as a victim you have done your post a disservice.
Knowing what we know about the events that led up to his death, not to mention the lies and poor behavior of Brown's "supporters" after the fact, make him a very bad example to use.



posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig

Should have left your post up, it was good.

a reply to: Boadicea

Further, each and every one of these victims -- yes, victims! -- had the inalienable natural right to use whatever force they deemed necessary to protect their own life -- including their natural instinct to fight or flee, even from law enforcement, including using lethal force against the officers who put their lives in danger. Unlike the law enforcement officers, these victims were under no obligation or oath to protect those threatening their lives.

I may agree with your premise on occasions where the victim is innocent. But with criminals? Michael Brown? He was a victim of his own stupid decisions, not a victim of the police. We live in a society, there are rules. He didn't have to fight with the police, he was just trying violently to avoid taking responsibility for his actions. He forced the situation, not the police.
edit on 30/4/2016 by BelowLowAnnouncement because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: iTruthSeeker


It applies because you used Mike Brown as an example, who tried to do the same thing. Beat the officer and tried to get his weapon.


From my OP:


In my opinion, the same "extremely dangerous" and "deadly physical force" was used by Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson when he used his vehicle to block Michael Brown and his companion, reversing suddenly towards them, almost striking them, and then slamming his door open into them.


Officer Wilson created a dangerous and life-threatening situation. If Michael Brown did, indeed, "beat the officer and tried to get his weapon," it was because the officer created a situation which was dangerous and life-threatening to Michael Brown, and Michael Brown had every right to DEFEND himself.

Officers are not above the law... Michael Brown was not below the law.

Again, the answer is not to turn officers into lawless thugs with badges and guns and a license to kill. The answer is to provide any and all apropriate training and equipment to protect the officers AND the public. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.



posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: JohnthePhilistine
a reply to: Boadicea

Yours is a well written post with plenty of appropriate links to back it up.


Thank you. I appreciate that.


I agree very strongly with everything you said but by including Brown as a victim you have done your post a disservice.
Knowing what we know about the events that led up to his death, not to mention the lies and poor behavior of Brown's "supporters" after the fact, make him a very bad example to use.


Actually, it is exactly because of the facts leading up to his death that Michael Brown is an excellent example. We know that everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of his/her peers -- including Michael Brown. What we know about the event that led up to his death is that Officer Wilson created and escalated a life-threatening and dangerous situation, which Michael Brown had every reason to believe was a threat to his life, giving him every right to defend and protect his life.

Further, what Michael Brown's "supporters" did or did not do is irrelevant. There is no legal or Constitutional foundation for justifying a death based on the words/actions of others after the fact. None.



posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: BelowLowAnnouncement


I may agree with your premise on occasions where the victim is innocent. But with criminals? Michael Brown? He was a victim of his own stupid decisions, not a victim of the police. We live in a society, there are rules. He didn't have to fight with the police, he was just trying violently to avoid taking responsibility for his actions. He forced the situation, not the police.


Except it is not up to police to determine guilt nor to impose punishment. It is the job of officers to protect and defend life -- ALL lives -- and to arrest those suspected of crimes. It is not the job of officers to play judge, jury and executioner.

Again, no matter what Michael Brown did or did not do, Officer Wilson had no right to create and escalate a dangerous and life-threatening situation; but Officer Wilson had every responsibility -- both moral and legal -- to protect and defend Michael Brown's life and to do anything and everything necessary and proper to avoid such a situation... Once he did create that dangerous and life-threatening situation, Michael Brown had every right to protect and defend himself. By the actions Officer Wilson took, HE forced the situation... not Michael Brown.



posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: JohnthePhilistine
a reply to: Boadicea

Yours is a well written post with plenty of appropriate links to back it up. I agree very strongly with everything you said but by including Brown as a victim you have done your post a disservice.
Knowing what we know about the events that led up to his death, not to mention the lies and poor behavior of Brown's "supporters" after the fact, make him a very bad example to use.

I agree wholeheartedly. Brown played a stupid game and won a stupid prize. He brought his demise on himself.



posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: JimiBlack


I agree wholeheartedly. Brown played a stupid game and won a stupid prize.


That may be true... but it is just as true for Officer Wilson. The difference is that Michael Brown did not kill anyone via his stupidity; Officer Brown did. Well, that, and the fact that Michael Brown is no longer a threat to anyone (if he ever was); But Officer Brown is still a threat to pretty much anyone and everyone.


He brought his demise on himself.


That's nonsense. No one is responsible for their actions except themselves. Michael Brown did not have the power to force Officer Wilson to do anything -- including something so stupid as to put his own life in danger.

In any event, Michael Brown has met his Maker -- and his Judgment. Officer Wilson's day is still coming...



posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: JohnthePhilistine
a reply to: Boadicea

Yours is a well written post with plenty of appropriate links to back it up. I agree very strongly with everything you said but by including Brown as a victim you have done your post a disservice.
Knowing what we know about the events that led up to his death, not to mention the lies and poor behavior of Brown's "supporters" after the fact, make him a very bad example to use.


Not only that , but the DOJ , Holder's DOJ , investigated that one and found no wrong-doing.



posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog


Not only that , but the DOJ , Holder's DOJ , investigated that one and found no wrong-doing.


Hmmmm... rather cryptic. Care to expand on that thought and share what you consider its significance?

As I read it, it seems to express some sort of left/right paradigm premise... but I don't play that game. I'm one of those equal opportunity politico bashers that thinks both the left and the right is rotten to the core. So rather than somehow pacifying my concerns, it only heightens them when they're in lockstep. Especially when it comes to the use of deadly force by government against the people.



posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

No it's not nonsense. Brown manhandled a store clerk twice as small as himself and snatched up some cigars to add insult to injury. Mistake #1. Cop comes down the street and this guy and his pal were walking in the middle of said street and cop asks them to get out of the street. They didn't comply, mouthing off and now here comes unnecessary interaction with the cop. That was mistake #2. Getting confrontational and physical with the cop was his third and final mistake. He didn't shoot himself and snatching cigars shouldn't be a death sentence. That's not why he was shot anyway. But Mike Brown brought his demise on himself. His parents should have had "the talk" with that kid along time ago. And don't get me wrong, I'm not a cop cheerleader by any means whatsoever, but if someone tried to physically harm me and go for my weapon, I'm going to do what I have to do and if it's deadly force, so be it. I'll have to take it up with my maker. This kid and Tamir's situations are so different that I don't see how you even put Brown in your post to illustrate your point.



posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: BelowLowAnnouncement


I may agree with your premise on occasions where the victim is innocent. But with criminals? Michael Brown? He was a victim of his own stupid decisions, not a victim of the police. We live in a society, there are rules. He didn't have to fight with the police, he was just trying violently to avoid taking responsibility for his actions. He forced the situation, not the police.


Except it is not up to police to determine guilt nor to impose punishment. It is the job of officers to protect and defend life -- ALL lives -- and to arrest those suspected of crimes. It is not the job of officers to play judge, jury and executioner.

Again, no matter what Michael Brown did or did not do, Officer Wilson had no right to create and escalate a dangerous and life-threatening situation; but Officer Wilson had every responsibility -- both moral and legal -- to protect and defend Michael Brown's life and to do anything and everything necessary and proper to avoid such a situation... Once he did create that dangerous and life-threatening situation, Michael Brown had every right to protect and defend himself. By the actions Officer Wilson took, HE forced the situation... not Michael Brown.


And by your very own justifications of Michael Brown feeling that his life was threatened and your conclusion that he was justified in trying to get Officer Wilson's sidearm, we can also justify Officer Wilson in ending Michael Brown's life. After all, Officer Wilson had a job to protect and defend life -- ALL lives -- including his own.

Below, find enclosed a second copy of your above quote with no changes except the positions of the names. Read them both and see if they sound ANY different.


originally posted by: Boadicea
Again, no matter what Officer Wilson did or did not do, Michael Brown had no right to create and escalate a dangerous and life-threatening situation; but Michael Brown had every responsibility -- both moral and legal -- to protect and defend Officer Wilson's life and to do anything and everything necessary and proper to avoid such a situation... Once he did create that dangerous and life-threatening situation, Officer Wilson had every right to protect and defend himself. By the actions Michael Brown took, HE forced the situation... not Officer Wilson.

edit on 30-4-2016 by Excallibacca because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-4-2016 by Excallibacca because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimiBlack
a reply to: Boadicea

No it's not nonsense.


To clarify: Did Michael Brown bring on his own demise; you say yea, I say nay.


Brown manhandled a store clerk twice as small as himself and snatched up some cigars to add insult to injury. Mistake #1. Cop comes down the street and this guy and his pal were walking in the middle of said street and cop asks them to get out of the street. They didn't comply, mouthing off and now here comes unnecessary interaction with the cop. That was mistake #2. Getting confrontational and physical with the cop was his third and final mistake. He didn't shoot himself and snatching cigars shouldn't be a death sentence. That's not why he was shot anyway.


You're right. Michael Brown was shot because Officer Wilson pulled dangerous and life threatening move when he suddenly backed up directly towards them, almost striking them, and further escalating the situation by slamming his door open on the boys... which tragically backfired on him when the door slammed back in his face, most likely injuring and even momentarily stunning him, and putting him in fear for his life from the two he had just assaulted. Because he knew that he had just given them every reason to fear for their well being -- if not their lives. So he then -- perhaps instinctually, in fight or flight mode and knowing he could not flee -- he further assaulted Michael Brown's person AND life when he not only threatened to shoot him but did in fact shoot him. Even further reason for Michael Brown to fear for his life and take necessary and proper steps to protect and defend his life. He fled. And Officer Wilson proceeded to shoot at Michael Brown in his back as he fled, even further escalating the situation, even having no reason to believe that Michael Brown was not armed and did not pose an immediate danger to Officer Wilson, nor the general public. But when Officer Wilson proceeded to fire at Michael Brown as he fled, Officer Wilson in fact endangered the general public.

Officer Wilson provoked the confrontation.


But Mike Brown brought his demise on himself.


Michael Brown did not have the power to make Officer Wilson do a damn thing. Officer Wilson alone is responsible for his actions... and the consequences.


His parents should have had "the talk" with that kid along time ago. And don't get me wrong, I'm not a cop cheerleader by any means whatsoever, but if someone tried to physically harm me and go for my weapon, I'm going to do what I have to do and if it's deadly force, so be it. I'll have to take it up with my maker.


I can only assume then that if a law enforcement officer assaulted you not once, twice, or even three times, but four or more times that you would just meekly accept it? And everyone else should as well?

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion; but as I explained in the OP, this opinion is in direct opposition to and violation of our natural inalienable rights, and the very foundation of law. There is a proper legal procedure for trying to change that, and you are welcome to make that case, but this isn't it.


This kid and Tamir's situations are so different that I don't see how you even put Brown in your post to illustrate your point.


For explicitly that reason: Our responsibility is to hold our government officials and accountable to legal and Constitutional principles under any and all circumstances; not just including, but especially towards the accused -- but still innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of peers, with full due process and equal application of the law.



posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Any rational person understands this...get physical with the police and your ass just might get shot. Hope that clears things up. He should have complied, filed his grievances at a later date and he would have lived. Simple as that.



posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Excallibacca


And by your very own justifications of Michael Brown feeling that his life was threatened...


Michael Brown is dead. Obviously, his life was in danger.


... and your conclusion that he was justified in trying to get Officer Wilson's sidearm...


Actually, I never expressed that conclusion. I cannot and therefore do not know that Michael was trying to get Officer Wilson's firearm -- and neither does anyone else. We only have Officer Wilson's claim that he was, which may or may not be true, even if Officer Wilson believes it is true. For example, it may also be that Michael was simply trying to point it away from himself... which he had every right to do, since Officer Wilson did state that he did in fact reach for his firearm after grabbing Michael. However, I will not argue that Michael did in fact have that right because he had every reason to fear for his life at that time.


... we can also justify Officer Wilson in ending Michael Brown's life. After all, Officer Wilson had a job to protect and defend life -- ALL lives -- including his own.


Which began with the legal obligation, as a sworn officer of the law, to uphold the laws. As soon as Officer Wilson put Michael Brown's life in danger he not only violated his oath, he broke the law.

Think this through: By this logic, a violent rapist serial killer could attack someone, putting their life in danger, but when that person defends themself, the rapist serial killer would have the right to kill their victim in "self defense" with no legal consequences!!!.


Below, find enclosed a second copy of your above quote with no changes except the positions of the names. Read them both and see if they sound ANY different.


Michael Brown was not a sworn officer of the law with a duty and responsibility to uphold the law.

Michael Brown did not initiate and provoke the confrontation.

Apples and oranges.

ETA: I find it very dangerous that so many people are so quick to demand our "compliance" with commands from LEOs, but have no interest in and ignore the officer's failure to comply with the law he swore to uphold... and refuse to hold them to same letter of the law that dead victims are held to... very dangerous indeed. We are trading the equal application of rule of law for the arbitrary rule of one man.
edit on 30-4-2016 by Boadicea because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join