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.
“That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”.
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.
Fixed roadblocks are extremely dangerous and are rarely justifiable.”
Barricading: Barricading is considered deadly physical force and subject to DIR 1010.10.
The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.
The bad Supreme Court standard that lets cops who kill go free.
Ferguson shooting case renews debate over whether officers have too much leeway, too little accountability.
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.
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.
originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
I agree wholeheartedly. Brown played a stupid game and won a stupid prize. He brought his demise on himself.
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.
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.
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.
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.
originally posted by: JimiBlack
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.
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.