[Broadjumper]

Originally Posted by rapeWhistle ↗

I'm absolutely in favor of liberty and the right to privacy, but i'd support cops wearing a lapel cam - it keeps everyone honest in the interaction.
It will keep the cop accountable for how he interacts with the citizen and it will keep the citizen accountable for THEIR behavior. The tech is out there and it can be easily deployed at a reasonable cost to taxpayers. I'm for it.

If you're out in public, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. There's no valid reason that these shouldn't be used, but there should be notice, it could be as simple as a decal on the patrol car or a button that says video on the officer's lapel...but if you on on private property, then the issue is somewhat more clouded unless you were called to that location. Also, who gets to control it? I've seen some accounts were the audio or video was 'accidentally' turned off...uh-huh.

As long as ground rules are set and followed, video should be standard in all patrol police work.

[rapeWhistle]

Originally Posted by Broadjumper ↗

My point is that even petty thieves and thugs are still afforded due process, just like the rest of us, at least they're supposed to be. Funny, for as much as I see people post shit about cops, they sure seem to love it when they summarily execute someone like Brown..

They're 'supposed' to be taken into custody too - kinda hard for an officer to apprehend someone when they're built like a Sasquatch attacking you and attempting to take your sidearm from you though.

I've flip-flopped on this issue, when it first came out i thought it was a case of an officer over-reacting - not it looks like he was protecting himself.
I would've done the same thing if i were the officer, he gets to go home to his family and wait for the investigation to decide his fate - Michael Brown made a serious of choices that cost him his life.
That cop didn't go to work that day looking to murder someone, Michael Brown left the house that day with the intention of committing a strong-armed robbery - he get's no sympathy from me.

It's a shame the officer was put in that position, i would've rather seen that shopkeeper produce a shotgun from under the counter and put a load of shot into that big gorilla - would've been an excellent addition to the Death Videos section.

[Zambini]

Originally Posted by rapeWhistle ↗

They're 'supposed' to be taken into custody too - kinda hard for an officer to apprehend someone when they're built like a Sasquatch attacking you and attempting to take your sidearm from you though.

I've flip-flopped on this issue, when it first came out i thought it was a case of an officer over-reacting - not it looks like he was protecting himself.
I would've done the same thing if i were the officer, he gets to go home to his family and wait for the investigation to decide his fate - Michael Brown made a serious of choices that cost him his life.
That cop didn't go to work that day looking to murder someone, Michael Brown left the house that day with the intention of committing a strong-armed robbery - he get's no sympathy from me.

It's a shame the officer was put in that position, i would've rather seen that shopkeeper produce a shotgun from under the counter and put a load of shot into that big gorilla - would've been an excellent addition to the Death Videos section.

I think a lot of people were surprised when the video came out, but they've already hitched their ride on Michael Browns comet and can't stop now...really ruins the " He was an angel, gunned down by the cops walking down the street" argument.

A shame, really, because we all know this isn't a definitive example of police brutality, but we do know it exists.

Cases like this are difficult for both sides, it's obvious the guy was a thug, but it's not obvious how and why he got shot

[Broadjumper]

Originally Posted by rapeWhistle ↗

They're 'supposed' to be taken into custody too - kinda hard for an officer to apprehend someone when they're built like a Sasquatch attacking you and attempting to take your sidearm from you though.

Agreed, but the question remains, if you can't manage to take someone into custody by yourself, is shooting them to death the only available option?

I've flip-flopped on this issue, when it first came out i thought it was a case of an officer over-reacting - not it looks like he was protecting himself.

This is usually what happens as more information comes out, the problem is that none of it's official. I'd guess this will go one for awhile and you're probably looking at a massive civil lawsuit no matter what any report says.

I would've done the same thing if i were the officer, he gets to go home to his family and wait for the investigation to decide his fate - Michael Brown made a serious of choices that cost him his life.

You may be right and of course if it turns out that Brown was the aggressor, we'd support the officer defending himself. The problem I see is determining the necessary level of force. The point here is that will a jury believe is was necessary to shoot Brown, not one, not two, not three, BUT six times in order to halt him? Face it, no matter the circumstance, this is what he issue will boil down to.


That cop didn't go to work that day looking to murder someone, Michael Brown left the house that day with the intention of committing a strong-armed robbery - he get's no sympathy from me.

No one said you had to be sympathetic, but irrespective of Brown's intent that day, the cop's job is not to be judge, jury and executioner. That's what this will boil down to, did the officer do his job the way he was supposed to, was the amount of force used necessary to apprehend or stop Brown? It's a valid question.

[Broadjumper]

Originally Posted by rapeWhistle ↗

It's a shame the officer was put in that position, i would've rather seen that shopkeeper produce a shotgun from under the counter and put a load of shot into that big gorilla - would've been an excellent addition to the Death Videos section.

Nah, there's no racism in that statement, is there?

That aside, it's interesting to note that the shopkeeper's level of justification is a far lower barrier than the officer's...but it should be that way. Police actions deserve far greater scrutiny..

[Zambini]

The courts always give the benefit of the doubt to the home team (cops).

There wouldn't have been a "situation" unless Michael Brown made one, and it will be shown that he did, you can bet the cop didn't stop and shoot him randomly.

[Zambini]

Two cops and a citizen shot, why no riots?

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/201...edly-shot.html

[rapeWhistle]

Originally Posted by Broadjumper ↗

No one said you had to be sympathetic, but irrespective of Brown's intent that day, the cop's job is not to be judge, jury and executioner. That's what this will boil down to, did the officer do his job the way he was supposed to, was the amount of force used necessary to apprehend or stop Brown? It's a valid question.

I agree that officers should be trained to only use deadly force as a last resort, but when a physically larger and more powerful suspect assaults you and attempts to disarm you - all bets are off.
It will be very interesting to see what the investigation reveals, especially now that 'celebrity pathologist' Michael Baden is involved.
Which brings me to your other post about the lapel cams, which would have been invaluable in this incident.

Originally Posted by Broadjumper ↗

If you're out in public, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. There's no valid reason that these shouldn't be used, but there should be notice, it could be as simple as a decal on the patrol car or a button that says video on the officer's lapel...but if you on on private property, then the issue is somewhat more clouded unless you were called to that location. Also, who gets to control it? I've seen some accounts were the audio or video was 'accidentally' turned off...uh-huh.

As long as ground rules are set and followed, video should be standard in all patrol police work.

As a citizen of this republic, who pays for police officers to 'protect and serve' me, i would like for them to be recorded while on duty - the Michael Brown incident should be enough to sell this concept nation wide.
I don't think anyone(on either side of this racially-heated debate) would be against it. We already have dash-cams on patrol cars, not to mention virtually everywhere else outside our homes.
The recording and archiving of the footage is above my pay-grade, but it could be done by a third party company to avoid tampering - you'd just have to figure out a way for officers to take use the restroom privately while on duty.

[rapeWhistle]

Originally Posted by Broadjumper ↗

Nah, there's no racism in that statement, is there?

Indian shopkeeper, black robber...

No white folks involved, therefore no racism possible.

Originally Posted by Broadjumper ↗

That aside, it's interesting to note that the shopkeeper's level of justification is a far lower barrier than the officer's...but it should be that way. Police actions deserve far greater scrutiny..

Exactly. Too bad the 'righteous kill' didn't occur inside the shop.

[BigFoot]

There still hasn't been confirmation as to if that latest video I posted is in fact Michael Brown, there's some dispute over it regarding his attire in the photo and his autopsy photo, so I'm going out on a limb to say this:

If the witness account of what actually happened is true and credible, from what it sounds like, then Michael Brown tried to over-power the officer. If that is the case, slap a stamp on this and file it away. I don't like it when anything like this happens close to home, especially with a teenager, but if it is true then yes, I stand with the officer.

What is abundantly clear with this whole case though is that the black community (and every individual standing with them at the riots, protests, etc.) responding to this whole case without knowing the details, and using it as a means to destroy property, steal, and shoot at the police is just a complete fucking joke.