Thomo123

You accuse him of being arrogant but deny him the right of an opinion. Look closer to home.

And I reserve the right to call you a cunt for having differing opinion to me. Because I am a fucking legend!

Wrong, it's entirely up to them to have their opinion of what we may have decided. That's called 'their opinion' which is lost on a lot people these days.

And in my opinion it makes him a cunt.

It was a question Skids - just to confirm that you accept that there are cases where deadly force is warranted.

 

TBH - I think most decisions to use such force are, and need to be made in a split second.

 

The incident you are referring to was not one of them.

I sort of agree with that, when your life is in immediate danger then you have to make a quick decision. It just seems that line is become blurred and police are opening fire far too quickly and assessing situations poorly.

Don't get me wrong, I've never been in a situation like that but at the same time I've never had the training to deal with it either. If the training tells them to shoot first then think later, or doesn't prepare them mentally for the situations then the training needs to be improved.

You do understand that is a one way street right?

 

That the majority of times an officer uses deadly force it is warranted.

 

Or do you believe that 9 times out of 10 it resembles this case?

I see what you are saying but 'majority' just isn't good enough when you look at the consequences. You just have to look around the web to see how often police are caught using inappropriate force, 99 times out of a hundred they probably end up losing there jobs at worst.

As a police officer you have a tremendous amount of power, surely with this must come responsibility and as such accountability. From what I can see this just isn't the case in the US where police close ranks and protect each other before seeing justice done. That is all that people want to see at the end of the day, that justice will be done whether you are a member of the public or a public servent. The people of Ferguson obviously don't think this will be the case and have a massive mistrust of law enforcement. This obviously isn't helped by the fact the law are overwhelming white and the citizens they serve overwhelming black.

Proper law enforcement in my eyes revolves around better integration into the communities they protect, when it's just them versus us you are bound to have massive problems.

I think lack of sleep is getting to you.

 

Armed robbery, suspect has a knife, he rushes at you and your partner. Options are;

 

A) Shoot him

B) Run away

C) attempt to talk him down

D) attack him with nightsticks

 

Options B,C and D could quite easily lead to you, your partner or someone else being killed.

He didn't rush at them though, that's the point most of us are trying to make. Fair enough if someone does that then you have grounds to open fire. I've watched that video again and I still can't see a reason for them to kill him. Surely they have training to deal with situations like that other than two of them unloading on him.

No, I haven't a clue who you are so pass over your comments.

The clue is the posters name, it's at the top just above the rest of the post.

Simple enough even for you.

If you had read the post you decided to comment on you would read what I thought. Problem is you don't seem to read things properly before commenting.

Jesus Rico, thank fuck you aren't in law enforcement. You are the one having a mare lad. There was absolutely no need in shooting that guy. If you think otherwise you are indeed a bit of a cunt.

http://huff.to/1AzlbdA

 

Can someone paste this please , as on my phone.

Fucking hell, it's literally like a war zone. Why don't they back away, give him space and attempt to diffuse the situation. Yes he is closing the distance but he isn't running and seems relatively relaxed. They have ample time to back off and attempt to spk to him. It's just shouting then shooting, the way they deal with it is all wrong.

As for the police lying about the scenario, why? How can you possibly believe anything they say.

Oh no, I feel bad that some internet cock doesn't like me. Might cut myself.

 

Back in the grown up world...he was asked what he'd do if he knew about DS in a pregnancy. He said he'd abort and try again, that HE felt it immoral to bring a baby into the world that was potentially very ill (I don't want to put words in his mouth but that's how the subsequent tweets read). At no point did he talk about forcing other parents to do the same. His position is vindicated because a huge majority of people actually in the situation do the same thing.

The majority hardly vindicates an opinion, we all have are our views. I understand the logic but I still believes he doesn't really get humanity.....a bit like Spock. Maybe he is just the next step on the evolutionary ladder!!

That doesn't mean I dislike you mind, I don't even know you.

Christ, read what he said in the tweets rather than what the press said.

 

90% of DS pregnancies in Europe are aborted, 75% in the US, he said he'd do the same. So why have a go at him in a hypothetical situation, would you have a go at the parents who made the decision to abort?

I've read the tweets. My opinion hasn't changed. The fact you disagree confirms I was correct in this assumption.

Richard Hawkins might understand evolution but he doesn't seem to know much about humanity.

You seem to be gleefully swallowing up the authorities word on all this -

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/17/1322435/-So-Darren-Wilson-has-a-clean-record

 

 

 

The Ferguson police have indicated that there were no disciplinary reports in Darren Wilson's file.

What Chief Jackson didn't tell anyone at any of the press conferences was that, until he took over in 2010, use of force complaints were not kept in an officer's personnel file.

Jen Hayden wrote about the Henry Davis case on Friday: Ferguson police beat a man and then charged him with 'destruction of property' for bloody uniforms

What I found interesting in the Daily Beast article by Michael Daly, was the way use of force complaints were treated by the Ferguson PD.

 

 

In brief, Henry Davis was arrested in Ferguson on Sept 9, 2009, when he took the wrong exit off of the highway and pulled over to wait for a heavy rain to lighten. He was arrested in a case of mistaken identity, beaten by four officers in his cell, after they knew he was innocent, and then charged with damaging police property i.e. he got blood on their uniforms. BTW, first they handcuffed him. Then they beat him.

When Henry Davis' lawyer, James Schottel tried to find out what type of record the officers who beat his client had, he uncovered a can of worms.

Schottel got another unpleasant surprise when he sought the use-of-force history of the officers involved. He learned that before a new chief took over in 2010 the department had a surprising protocol for non-fatal use-of-force reports.

“The officer himself could complete it and give it to the supervisor for his approval,” the prior chief, Thomas Moonier, testified in a deposition. “I would read it. It would be placed in my out basket, and my secretary would probably take it and put it with the case file.”

No copy was made for the officer’s personnel file.

Daily Beast - August 15, 2014

No investigation. Just an officer writing up his excuse. The excuse went in the case file and nothing went on the officer's "record."

Chief Jackson changed that policy when he took up the reins of the department in 2010, but a policy change that fundamentally alters the long term relationship between the police and the citizens they are sworn to serve and protect, would probably take a while to implement. If it could, in fact, be implemented.

According to his deposition in the Davis case, Jackson instituted a system that required all complaints to cross his desk and be "assigned a number in an internal affairs log." There is no indication when this new system was begun and/or how effective it was. It should be interesting to see if any mention is made of this in regards to Officer Wilson, if and when he is ever charged and tried.

The fact that Officer Wilson had no disciplinary record is different from the fact that he has no record of using excessive force. It could mean that he was not disciplined for use of force. Or that he never used excessive force. But the information that is coming out on him, in drips and drabs, makes me wonder. He was at best an unfeeling, foul-mouthed asshole according to the report of one woman who had an earlier encounter with him.

But while the police department is trying very hard to portray Darren Wilson as a good cop, we should keep in mind the history of a department that had officers commit perjury to claim that another innocent victim bled on their uniforms. Police Officer John Beaird, Police Officer Christopher Pillarick, and Police Officer Michael White were all named in the Daily Beast article as signing the complaint and then denying the facts in their depositions.

And don't forget that the policewoman, Kim Tihen, who straddled Mr. Davis and cuffed him before her fellow officers beat him badly enough to cause a concussion, is now a member of the City Council of Ferguson, as reported here by a member of Daily Kos.

Like many forces in the US these people play to their own rules, not the rules of a civilised society.

More propaganda from Ferguson PD, it seems they are rather too stupid or have underestimated the powers of investigative journalism.

These people cannot be trusted.

I just don't believe that a six year veteran of the police force, with an impeccable service record, decides to one day randomly pull over a black male and execute him. None of the story makes sense to me, shooting him in the back, or on the ground with his hands raised surrendering (which the autopsy disproved). The officer has worked those streets for six years and all of a sudden executes someone? Not buying it.

 

As for the rest about me being excited to fire 10-15 rounds at someone, that's just bollix.

But your happy to believe a young guy with his whole life ahead of him would bum rush a guy with a gun trained on him?

Personally I think executes is a very strong term, I think the officer possibly panicked and made a very bad decision when he probably had other options available.

Plenty of people panic and made stupid decisions which they end up paying for. I think it should be no different for this guy.

As for his experience and record, we don't know the ins and outs of his career so putting that out there is yet more conjecture.

The one indisputable fact is he shot an unarmed man, at range multiple times including two shots to the head. You have to be some sort of fucked up to think that's acceptable from a trained member of law enforcement....who by very definition are there to protect and serve. These people are trained to handle situations like this, he handle it poorly should face the consequences.

It seems you don't need much convincing to accept the cop's version of events without question. You sound excited about the thought of firing 10-15 rounds at someone. I've only fired a shotgun in real life but have close to half a million sniper kills on various guises of Call of Duty.

It's an massive reach to believe that particular time line of events. I mean why the fuck would you bum rush a man with his gun drawn and trained on you.....it's suicide.

I agree, it's hard to define what "coming back at him" means in this instance as it's being used by an eye witness and he has his own interpretation of the meaning. Full clips are 10/15 rounds, depending on the handgun.

Fair play, I was using a bit of artistic license on that particular point. Unless he was charging him at full speed I just cannot see how shooting him so many times can be considered an acceptable response.....even if that was the case the first couple of shots would have slowed him down.

Either way that officer is getting away with it, guaranteed when you see some of the shit these boys get away with on a fairly regular basis.

That happened a day or two after the incident.

It's still a ridiculous generalisation though.

'Coming back towards him' is hardly charging him though is it, and certainly something that you would expect a trained law enforcement officer to be able to handle without unloading a full clip into him

It was good of the folks of Ferguson to burn down the robbery victims shop the other day.

 

Bit unfair to say that tbh, reading a lot of the news coverage it seems loads of non locals have came to the area to protest, most of whom have differing motives.

I still can't get it straight in my head....even if the guy was walking towards the copper, you use a taser, mace or get back in your car and call for back up. Surely you can't get away with shooting him seven fucking times!

Dennis there is a video about 5 posts up where witness say he charged the cop.

Did they say charged or walked towards? Massive difference.

What was the issue?

My stupidity I think. The speaker takes about 30 secs to recognise the line in before it will play. I assumed it would happens as soon as I plugged it in so it threw me a little.

As an avid golfer I have to say that sounds superb. Would love to play Portrush. Get those knockdown shots perfected...

If a uk copper was allowed and had the means to shoot an unarmed man I wouldn't be living in this country.

It's like a police state over there. Coppers should be paid to keep the peace, not shoot first think later.

 

So how many of you voted for the party that best represented your views? Or, were even in the same quadrant as you?

I suppose for a lot of us we are voting for the lesser of two evils, this country is still a two party democracy.