357SigFan
Regular Member
Interesting development: http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/168...tail-background-video-mins-ferguson-shooting/
Give me a break. Saying that a PD not having DVRs installed in all their cruisers is 'tantamount to lying' is absurd. Basically, what your saying is the same as saying if one of us has to shoot someone in self defense and doesn't have video of it, then we're lying and should be held liable for it.
I completely disagree with your 'assessment' that attacking with hands and/or feet is still 'unarmed' – your hands are weapons – one good punch that KO's the one being attacked, which puts them on the ground and open to be kicked to death, or in the case of a cop, his weapon be taken and shot with it.
No, and the rest of your post is one giant straw man.
I'm absolutely and unequivocally demanding a double standard. There is unquestionably a double standard with regard to the amount of authority possessed by LEOs, the credence assigned to them by prosecutors and judges (not to mention the juries that actually get, in practice, empaneled), the amount of force they bring with them "into the field" and the latitude with which they are permitted to employ that force in the name of "public safety" and "officer safety".
So it's entirely appropriate that there be a double standard with regard to the evidentiary onus placed upon LEOs who cause harm to citizens (or their property, for that matter). It is entirely within the financial and technological abilities of every police department in the US to equip every officer and every vehicle with multiple and independent recording systems, and it is entirely reasonable for us to assume that departments who fail to do so are abusing their authority and, most likely, lying to us.
If you willfully destroyed or falsified records you were required to keep which would prove or disprove some act of fraud (say) of which you had been accused, this act of tampering would be considered (should it come to light) basically proof of your fraudulent deception, in civil proceedings. Same thing.
Only I'm not proposing a thing about the standard applied to private citizens, because of the aforementioned (and totally preexisting) double standard.
It's not an "assessment". The whole point of the word "unarmed" is that it means "not carrying weapons like knives or guns". The word "human" describes the concept you're referring to: that we all have hands and feet which can be used to kill.
My dictionary:
unarmed |ˌənˈärmd|
adjective
not equipped with or carrying weapons: he was shooting unarmed civilians.
Otherwise "disarm" would mean chopping off someone's hands and feet.
also there is no evidence that the officer did not suspect brown of the strong arm
I am laughing out loud at the people saying "...he was armed. His feet and hands are considered weapons."
I guess one can simply make up definitions on a whim to support opinion, eh?
Interesting development: http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/168...tail-background-video-mins-ferguson-shooting/
All the cop had to do was roll up his window and lock the door put it in reverse and wait for backup. I have no doubt the cop fired in anger, that is why he chased the boy down after the first shot and finished him off. The cop put himself in that position in the first place, and it was completely STUPID!
Wait.. Hold on....
"He chased the boy down after the first shot and finished him off"?
Really?
CITE?
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
No No Primus here's up really happen.
Mr. Brown and his friend were peacefully walking down the street obeying every law on the books after having a friend conversation with the store clerk at the QT.
Officer Wilson rudely intruded into their personal space . First my rudely yelling at them the assaulting Mr. Brown my pulling into the cruiser by the neck beating on him while doing so.
Mr. Brown only hit officer Wilson in self defense as the first blows to officer Wilson didn't work. Mr. Brown tried disarming Officer Wilson for the officers own protection. In the process was accidently shot for his trouble.
Officer Wilson then knowing he had to cover up is unlawful assault on Mr. Brown followed Mr. Brown down the street shooting him in the back while Mr. Browns hands were up in the air.
After Mr. Brown fell to his knees begging for his life Officer Wilson fired several more shots to make sure Mr. Brown could not testify against him for the unlawful assault.
And that's the TRUTH ////S
I now know why my head hurts - it's from using my monitor to facepalmI glad that I could clarify the situation for you and offer up a more truthful story then all the rest I have read on the inter net and heard on the news reports.
I now know why my head hurts - it's from using my monitor to facepalm
/[/URL]
Wait.. Hold on....
"He chased the boy down after the first shot and finished him off"?
Really?
CITE?
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
YES! By witness accounts and the FACTS on the scene he chased the boy! There is no doubt that the first shot was fired from INSIDE the squad car, yet the boy was finished off THIRTY FIVE FEET from the first shot. It is pretty clear that they did not stroll hand in hand for thirty five feet, and that Mike was not chasing the officer after being shot.
A little common sense goes along way, too bad the police officer possessed none. At the very least this guy should be fired for being so incredibly STUPID!