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

originally posted by: JimiBlack
a reply to: Boadicea

Any rational person understands this...get physical with the police and your ass just might get shot.

Rational people also understand that officers have no right to put the people in abuse their power and authority by putting them in dangerous and life threatening situations, then killing others to protect themselves from their own stupidity... and or depraved heart.

Hope that clears things up.

He should have complied, filed his grievances at a later date and he would have lived. Simple as that.

Officer Wilson shoud have followed and upheld the law -- and his oath -- and then Michael Brown would have lived. Simple as that.

And the appropriate authorities should have filed appropriate charges, such as involuntary or negligent/reckless manslaughter, against Officer Wilson for his actions.

a reply to: Boadicea

And what's that about if a cop assaults me multiple times would I just accept it. Hell no because I'm not going to give the cops a reason to "assault" me. I'm very capable of handling myself physically but I'm no fool. Takes a real dumbass to repeatedly get assaulted by the police anyway.

a reply to: Boadicea

Let's agree to disagree. You're not changing your mind and neither am I. Good day.

originally posted by: JimiBlack
a reply to: Boadicea

And what's that about if a cop assaults me multiple times would I just accept it. Hell no because I'm not going to give the cops a reason to "assault" me.

You presume you are given a choice. You have no control over what an officer chooses to do.

I'm very capable of handling myself physically but I'm no fool. Takes a real dumbass to repeatedly get assaulted by the police anyway.

No... it takes bad cops willing to abuse their authority and power with abuse of force.

ETA:

Let's agree to disagree. You're not changing your mind and neither am I. Good day.

Disappointing; but as you wish.

originally posted by: Boadicea
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.

In the case of Michael Brown, I would have done everything that Officer Wilson did. The fact that you keep insisting that it was Wilson who initiated things and not Brown tells me enough to know that you're just the kind of person who is never going to change your mind because, after all, you are very clearly right in everything you believe. Of course, it's only in one direction that those beliefs travel.

If you want to hate cops, that's cool. I don't like them all. Just admit it.

a reply to: Boadicea

I can understand your argument, and it has a cold logic to it. If the officer was not provoked in a way that demanded he respond by hitting the man with his door he should not have. That is a simple fact.

However, after the point Mr Brown was struck by the door he had three choices, comply with the officer, fight the officer or run. If he had chose to comply he might be alive today to sue the officer for hitting him with his door. Remembering that not just the police, but all people are responsible for our own actions and choices, when he chose to fight an on duty officer he made a mistake in my opinion.

On a side note I did not pay much attention to this case and I am only aware of names, not specific events except as discussed in this thread. With that in mind I have to ask - Did Mr Brown do anything to provoke the officer to begin with? And if it was verbal what did he say exactly?

If it was only verbal and not a threat just being stupid the officer doesnt even have an argument let alone a right to hit the man with his door.

a reply to: Excallibacca

In the case of Michael Brown, I would have done everything that Officer Wilson did.

Gotcha. I don't like it; I've already explained why I believe it grossly violates both the letter and the spirit of the law; and it makes me sad because this attitude and/or approach will continue to escalate the tension between law enforcement and the public, as well as deaths... but gotcha.

The fact that you keep insisting that it was Wilson who initiated things and not Brown...

I have explained exactly what Officer Wilson did and what Michael Brown did in direct reaction. The chronology, and therefore the initiation of events, is what it is. For reasons I do not understand, you insist on ignoring those actions and pretending they never happened and/or dismissing their impact and their consequences... fatal consequences.

...tells me enough to know that you're just the kind of person who is never going to change your mind because, after all, you are very clearly right in everything you believe.

You are correct that based on these facts, my opinion is what it is. When/if the facts change, then my opinion may (or may not) change accordingly.

If you want to hate cops, that's cool. I don't like them all. Just admit it.

But I don't hate cops... I just hate bad behavior by cops. I know and have known many good LEOs who were also just plain good people. I know one sheriff's deputy that I really hope runs for sheriff because he's that awesome. I have interacted with my own town's police department on various levels, and I think the world of them. Good cops are worth their weight in solid gold and provide invaluable benefit to our communities... but bad cops cause immeasurable damage to our communities and its individuals.

I'm actually quite concerned for the hell this is for all cops -- even those I might call "bad," but I also realize they have been done a disservice as well. We are not doing them any favors by turning them into thugs with badges and guns. Taking a life is not easy on the psyche or the soul. Very few officers ever want to take a life, and they deserve every possible defensive advantage we can give them -- from training and tactics to equipment -- to keep them safe as they are keeping us safe. Most LEOs would much prefer to prevent and avoid any life-threatening situations altogether.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address this.

originally posted by: DeviantMortal
a reply to: Boadicea

I can understand your argument, and it has a cold logic to it. If the officer was not provoked in a way that demanded he respond by hitting the man with his door he should not have. That is a simple fact.

Thank you; that is my position here.

However, after the point Mr Brown was struck by the door he had three choices, comply with the officer, fight the officer or run.

The testimony of Michael Brown's companion and Officer Wilson conflict. The companion claims that Officer Wilson grabbed Michael and tried to pull him into the vehicle (I suspect Officer Wilson was just trying to hold onto him and control him, but was most likely a little disoriented, and probably could not see well given the injury to his eye). I'm not sure Office Wilson issued any real command for Brown to comply with. I believe he fought until Officer Brown let go and then he fled.

Remembering that not just the police, but all people are responsible for our own actions and choices, when he chose to fight an on duty officer he made a mistake in my opinion.

Yes, I believe Michael Brown made several mistakes; as did Officer Wilson. I also believe that those mistakes should not have been fatal, and that if Officer Wilson had done what was necessary and proper, that it would not have been fatal.

On a side note I did not pay much attention to this case and I am only aware of names, not specific events except as discussed in this thread. With that in mind I have to ask - Did Mr Brown do anything to provoke the officer to begin with? And if it was verbal what did he say exactly?

If it was only verbal and not a threat just being stupid the officer doesnt even have an argument let alone a right to hit the man with his door.

According to the companion and I believe Officer Wilson, one or both of the boys told Officer Wilson as he was driving away from them that they were almost to their destination. It was also said that the boys had yelled expletives and were basically smartasses. Officer Wilson and other authorities claim that Wilson was trying to detain them for an earlier disturbance at a local convenience store; but authorities initially denied that Officer Wilson was aware of that altercation. There is a video which shows an altercation of some kind, but the store owner claims it was not a robbery and that they did not call the police.

Many different claims...

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig

I starred that for the edit reason in and of itself.

a reply to: Boadicea

It is situations like this that I think all law enforcement should be required to wear audio enabled body cams, and any officer who tampers with a body cam should be fired. If only there was an unbiased 3rd party witness to the events. At least Mr Brown has a friend to speak up for him though.

originally posted by: DeviantMortal
a reply to: Boadicea

It is situations like this that I think all law enforcement should be required to wear audio enabled body cams, and any officer who tampers with a body cam should be fired.

I completely agree -- on both counts.

If only there was an unbiased 3rd party witness to the events.

Cameras may be the closest we can come to that, although even cameras have their limitations. And given their limitations (including their potential for tampering), they should be released for public viewing as soon as possible.

In addition, any/all officers involved should be removed from the scene as soon as possible, and a video recorded statement taken as soon as possible, which should also be released immediately.

Before evidence can be tampered with, and the officer has a chance to fit his/her story to the evidence.

At least Mr Brown has a friend to speak up for him though.

Definitely.

Dash and body cams could be that friend and witness to speak up for whoever deserved to be spoken up for. I really think dash and body cams would be a strong deterrent to would be and wanted punks who would also know that their words and actions will be available for all to see -- including a judge and jury. Many would learn that is a risk they don't want to take.

Anything to reduce risk to everyone is a win-win for all of us.

a reply to: Excallibacca

Something else I think is relevant and important:

There have been studies done at various law enforcement agencies which show that a handful of rogue officers account for the vast majority of complaints of abuse/excessive use of force and settlements paid out to victims.

Most LEOs have the best intentions and act with integrity and courage for all the right reasons. Those officers also deserve better than to have to work with (and too often cover for) the bad behavior of other officers, much less suffer the same loss of confidence from the public that a few others deserve -- but they sure don't.

a reply to: Boadicea

I can see that, I know a lot of the local city police, and even went to school with one of them. I have always been treated with respect by the local officers whenever I have been pulled over. I was even pulled over about ten years ago going 115 down HWY 431 in the middle of the night. Because I pulled over and did not make the officer chase me he lowered the speed in his report and gave me a warning. I have heard of a certain officer o the motor squad though who has a really bad rep, and a lot of the sherrifs deputies have a bad rep too.

a reply to: DeviantMortal

I have always been treated with respect by the local officers whenever I have been pulled over.

Me as well. The last time I was pulled over was actually on the Reservation, and I've heard they're pretty hard, but he let me off with a warning. I was respectful and honest, and just told him I was watching the light and wasn't paying attention to my speed, and he told me since it was so early in the morning and virtually no traffic, it was easy to lose track, but to be more careful in the future.

Before that... well, it was always for one reason... I was guilty of driving a cool car

No kidding! They would ask if I had a few minutes, and then ask me about the car, and we'd talk a few minutes. They were always impressed that I knew as much as I did about the engine. My husband used to laugh about it.

They busted my son for curfew once when he was 16. My son begged them to call his dad -- not me. The cop laughed and asked if I was the "mean" one and my son said yes... and the officer obliged!

Yeah, I really appreciate our local police.

originally posted by: Boadicea
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.

That never happened. There were many witnesses there that say the opposite of what you stated, even Mike's friend he was with. You go ahead and believe that flat out lie.

iTruthSeeker

a reply to: iTruthSeeker

There were many witnesses there that say the opposite of what you stated, even Mike's friend he was with.

Linkady link link, news article.

But if he didn't speak earlier, Brown starts now. Wilson had almost hit him with a truck. Brown is pissed. And so is Wilson. Brown says something and then Wilson hits him with the door of his cruiser. "He thrust his door open real hard," says Johnson. "We was so close to the door that it hit mostly Big Mike, but it hit me on my left side and closed back on him, like real fast. Just the same speed, boom, boom, that fast."

I am having trouble finding where Browns friend, Johnson said anything excet what the OP suggests. Do you have any links?

a reply to: iTruthSeeker

This was me:

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.

This was you:

That never happened. There were many witnesses there that say the opposite of what you stated, even Mike's friend he was with. You go ahead and believe that flat out lie.

What exactly "never happened"? The only statement of fact I made regarding the confrontation is that the officer created a dangerous and life-threatening situation... being almost hit by a vehicle by someone backing up directly at you is, in fact, a dangerous and life-threatening situation. Everyone involved, including Officer Wilson, stated that was exactly what he did.

As for the witnesses, there were many conflicting statements, many statements that only saw part of the confrontation... but that wasn't one of them... and there is no conclusive evidence as to whose statements were true or not. However, given that even Officer Wilson said he had reversed towards them, it is fairly safe to say -- even without me personally witnessing it or seeing video -- that he did in fact do so.

Excellent presentation! My greatest desire is that it will make some people actually stop and think about the difference between what is lawful and what is the morally correct thing to do. I fear that the brainwashing our children and grandchildren are enduring in the classrooms of public schools is only making the problem of tyranny far worse for themselves and their offspring.
How on earth did we get to the point where stealing a few cigars and mouthing off to a cop became a death-penalty crime? Or that a cop is the one to decide? These are the issues that really, really bother my retired cop friends---that guys are just randomly putting their own lives in danger and shooting people and animals for no good reason. Somewhere along the way they've gotten the idea that their life is "worth more" than the person on the other end of their gun.

Can you say cover up? Here's a clip out of a news article....

March 8th 2016

Malheur County district attorneys declared Tuesday the shots that killed militant LaVoy Finicum were justified and “necessary.” Investigators also said that, despite complaints from occupiers and their supporters that police shot more than 100 times into the truck carrying Finicum and other militants, only eight shots were fired – six from the Oregon State Police and two by members of the FBI hostage rescue team.

The District attorney and investigators are covering it up. At what point was Finicum's death necessary? The officers engaged them first on a open highway with an illegal road block and ambushed and fired upon them first! The officers drive them to the road block so they can "Fear for their own lives" and kill them all. That's their idea of a justified shooting. Of course all of them would flee why wouldn't they? Still think it's justified? Ok, let me ask this question... Why is the FBI hostage rescue team firing upon a vehicle with possible hostages hmm??

a reply to: diggindirt

Excellent presentation!

Thank you -- much appreciated!

My greatest desire is that it will make some people actually stop and think about the difference between what is lawful and what is the morally correct thing to do.

Me too. It's not just about these individual lives. It is about the sanctity of life itself and the fundamental values and principles of a good and moral people... once known as American Exceptionalism. But we haven't lived up to that for a long long time -- neither at home nor abroad.

These are the issues that really, really bother my retired cop friends---that guys are just randomly putting their own lives in danger and shooting people and animals for no good reason.

I have heard the same. Rogue cops, and worse, entire departments that are corrupted, put the lives of their fellow LEOs at risk as well, in many ways. Every LEO was in danger at the deadman's roadblock where LaVoy was killed. Many of these killings strike me as psychopathic; though many may be "roid rage."

But it's also training. From what I understand, this is how our LEOs are being trained... basically paramilitary, to see us all as a potential criminal/threat and to shoot first and ask questions later.

Somewhere along the way they've gotten the idea that their life is "worth more" than the person on the other end of their gun.

Yes. And it's very disturbing.