What goes around, comes around, I guess.
I’ve even seem some comments to the effect that “I understand why they’re doing it” or even “no one will pay attention if they don’t loot.” Sad. Hey, fight the cops if you think you’re in the right, stand your ground, you’ll get plenty of notice. Stealing and destruction of property on the other hand are just that and no more. The only notice you’ll get is noticing your town has turned into a dump. I’m off my original fence–I’m pretty convinced the local cops were doing did what they had to do to maintain order, and were doing a pretty good job of it all told in very difficult circumstances.
[quote=“zender”]I’m not following this case closely, but I have a few questions that one of you may know the answer to.
When Michael Brown’s body fell dead, how far was it from the policeman? We’re they both in the street at that time (within 5 meters)?[/quote]
I don’t think how far exactly has been revealed. Five meters is probably reasonable.
Not much AFAIK. He was shot in the front and one eyewitness recorded accidentally in a Youtube video seems to suggest so.
Yes, security footage. It’s been released.
Not really. Minutes seems too long though. It happened in the general vicinity of the car I believe.
There must be but not released yet.
Did it?
I heard that somewhere (that Brown had been left at the scene for 4 hours), but can’t recall where. Below is a link to video of the convenience store robbery.
I’m not. The rioters and looters appear to be a completely different, unrelated crowd to the people staging a peaceful protest. Our police service has become militarized; time and again across the country - almost every day - we hear and see reports of these thugs not only using inappropriate, often lethal force not only against against criminals, or at least, people suspected of committing a crime, but also people who are completely innocent and unrelated to any form of criminal activity. Not only this, but the these thugs in uniform usually get protection from their force, keep their jobs and face no criminal proceedings. It’s a disgrace. We think of ourselves as a model for the world. Freedom and liberty my ass. The only place you see heavy-handed tactics like this are in war zones or places like China. No other country in the west deals with the general public in the manner we have seen over the last couple of days.
I support the police in theory, but in practice, they need a good old fashioned beating and they need to be taught a very harsh lesson. The day will come when people have had enough.
Militarizing the police, imposing curfews, constantly launching tear gas and firing rubber bullets, etc., dramatically escalates tensions in an already tense environment. That doesn’t excuse the violent reaction from some people in the community, nor does it justify looting.
If “restoring order” against a largely peaceful crowd with a handful of bad apples is justification for tanks, snipers, tear gas, rubber bullets, curfews, arresting reporters, and general police bullying and rough-handling, then we may as well repeal the Posse Comitatus Act. The purpose of that act is to keep the military out of police matters, but if the police look, dress, and act like military (complete with military weapons, body armor, aircraft, and ground vehicles), then why not simply get rid of the local police forces and deploy the military everywhere? There is no effective difference, except who issues the paycheck.
Cops are supposed to be cops, not soldiers. They’re members of the community, people who might think twice before launching tear gas at children or shooting rubber bullets at a guy holding a sign that says “Justice for Michael”. Of course there will be extreme circumstances that do merit the military getting activated, but the danger in doing that is that the community feels bullied and lashes out.
It as predicted years ago in that great movie of our time.
Robocop.
[quote=“Gao Bohan”]Militarizing the police, imposing curfews, constantly launching tear gas and firing rubber bullets, etc., dramatically escalates tensions in an already tense environment. That doesn’t excuse the violent reaction from some people in the community, nor does it justify looting.
If “restoring order” against a largely peaceful crowd with a handful of bad apples is justification for tanks, snipers, tear gas, rubber bullets, curfews, arresting reporters, and general police bullying and rough-handling, then we may as well repeal the Posse Comitatus Act. The purpose of that act is to keep the military out of police matters, but if the police look, dress, and act like military (complete with military weapons, body armor, aircraft, and ground vehicles), then why not simply get rid of the local police forces and deploy the military everywhere? There is no effective difference, except who issues the paycheck.
Cops are supposed to be cops, not soldiers. They’re members of the community, people who might think twice before launching tear gas at children or shooting rubber bullets at a guy holding a sign that says “Justice for Michael”. Of course there will be extreme circumstances that do merit the military getting activated, but the danger in doing that is that the community feels bullied and lashes out.[/quote]
checks and balances. it takes the governor to deploy national guard (?) and the president to deploy military.
Even the Romans knew better (the legions cannot enter the original Roman territory) until Caesar et al, screwed the pooch. alea iacta est, etc.
So?
However there was looting before such police action, and when a softer touch was tried, it eventually became necessary to call the National Guard in.
By the way, given that the local police were the exact focus of community anger in this case, I don’t think it was a good decision to keep them in place as long as they were.
I think there are two separate issues here–did the local police go too far, and should the police be militarized. I’ve been concerned about the latter for a while–indeed it’s been happening for a while. However I can’t fault the police, the decision having previously been made to give them this equipment, for using that equipment in a situation it was designed for. On the other hand–
–I agree with you. It’s good that this case is drawing attention to this issue–I hope something will come of it.
However there was looting before such police action, and when a softer touch was tried, it eventually became necessary to call the National Guard in.
By the way, given that the local police were the exact focus of community anger in this case, I don’t think it was a good decision to keep them in place as long as they were.
I think there are two separate issues here–did the local police go too far, and should the police be militarized. I’ve been concerned about the latter for a while–indeed it’s been happening for a while. However I can’t fault the police, the decision having previously been made to give them this equipment, for using that equipment in a situation it was designed for. On the other hand–
–I agree with you. It’s good that this case is drawing attention to this issue–I hope something will come of it.
Tell me that a police car has a camera on the dashboard and that they record. Has anyone seen any footage? I ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.
And the three wounds on Brown’s arm . . . could they have been shots from behind? Some witnesses claim that Brown was shot in the back.
The body was left for hours in the middle of the road. Can they ascertain anything from it’s position or from the trajectory of the bullet wounds?
FYI… 
[quote=“zender”]Tell me that a police car has a camera on the dashboard and that they record. Has anyone seen any footage? I ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.
And the three wounds on Brown’s arm . . . could they have been shots from behind? Some witnesses claim that Brown was shot in the back.
The body was left for hours in the middle of the road. Can they ascertain anything from it’s position or from the trajectory of the bullet wounds?[/quote]
i think the autopsy shows the wounds are from the front, most hitting the arm (as one would raise to protect oneself or raising arms in surrender gesture) and a few hitting top of the head (as he was falling?). A witness said shots were fired when he was turned away but missed. only when he turned around did he get hit.
if you look at the photo from the neighbour, you can see how the body fell. obviously, you can’t see bullet trajectory from that.
The governor’s name is Nixon. As in, tin soldiers and Nixon coming. He’s a Democrat.
Our national mythos is being deconstructed.
[quote=“Tigerman”][quote=“Jack Burton”]TM:
I’m disappointed. How can you expect the guy, who is not directly involved in the case, and at this preliminary stage, to lay down a conclusion? that would be irresponsible of him. I expected more from you.[/quote]
Where did I expect any conclusion?
If anything, I did the opposite. I cited my favorite Lefty who confirms that no conclusion can be drawn at this stage.
Crump is the attorney for the Brown family. He was the attorney for Trayvon’s family, too. My cite comments on Crump’s spin, not on the statement of the Doc who performed the autopsy.[/quote]
i went back and realised i got confused by the lack of quotations or quote within quote (which I blame on your formatting 
) and mistook the guy’s comments to “recommend ignoring him” as your remarks. So rather I would redirect my comment to him that the first guy should not be expected to, and would be irresponsible, for laying down conclusions. my bad.
Well, the narrative that’s been shoved down our throats by the media is being slowly eroded by new data. Isn’t that always the way?
This case seems to be heading the same direction as the Trayvon thing. If it cntinues on trjectory, Wilson will be indicted and acquited, the news media will sensationalize the trial, and a politicized DOJ will use this to increase black turnout.
Some big differences:
1 This is a midterm coming up, not the presidential election.
2 We’ve got that surveillance video killing the nice boy narrative dead for rational observers.
3 The local blacks seem to be turning on the black opinion leaders.
4 Excessive police force after the fact makes this a bigger story, but also complicates the narrative.
if the guy did assault the police officer and the officer’s injuries corroborate that, it still may be legal for him to shoot the gun running away. however, once he turned around, put his hands up and surrendered (if those are the facts that is), was it reasonable for the cop to continue firing?
The prosecution will probably have a very hard time proving that Brown was surrendering. It’s looking more and more like he was rushing. All indications are the kid was mentally defective and violently crazy. I’ve known the type.
The prosecution will probably have a very hard time proving that Brown was surrendering.[/quote]
True.
huh?