|
Pead posted:So if I am reading this right he is basically implying it was an execution? His preliminary read is that Brown was either surrendering or charging forward. Major facts IMO are that none of the shots hit him in the back.
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 09:59 |
|
|
fknlo posted:Possibly beat him with the cigars for blunt making he stole during the STRONG ARMED ROBBERY as well. ASSAULT WITH A BLUNT INSTRUMENT.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
Duke Igthorn posted:"Property is not worth killing for." This a thousand times this. And in addition I'm just gonna leave this right here and back away: The Bureau of Justice Statistics posted:Federal Bureau of Investigation, Supplementary Homicide
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Wikipedia posted:On February 12, with insufficient cash to pay his overdue rent and a growing suspicion that police were closing in on him, Bundy stole a car and fled Tallahassee, driving westward across the Florida Panhandle. Three days later at around 1:00 a.m., he was stopped by Pensacola police officer David Lee near the Alabama state line after a "wants and warrants" check showed his Volkswagen Beetle as stolen. When told he was under arrest, Bundy kicked Lee's legs out from under him and took off running. Lee fired a warning shot and then a second round, gave chase, and tackled him. The two struggled over Lee's gun before the officer finally subdued and arrested Bundy. In the stolen vehicle were three sets of IDs belonging to female FSU students, 21 stolen credit cards, and a stolen television set. Also found were a pair of dark-rimmed non-prescription glasses and a pair of plaid slacks, later identified as the disguise worn in Jacksonville. As Lee transported his suspect to jail, unaware that he had just arrested one of the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives, he heard Bundy say, "I wish you had killed me."
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:https://news.vice.com/article/el-paso-releases-video-of-cop-executing-handcuffed-man-wheres-the-anger To be perfectly honest this doesn't look like an execution to me. From the video it looks like he drew his weapon and then freaked and either impulsively or accidentally discharged it. It's still murder for sure though.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I think it counts as an execution if you pull out a gun and kill an unarmed, handcuffed man who is being pinned by a prison guard who actually moves out of the way of your shot. They claimed that a "taser would not be sufficient." Says who? Bigger and angrier people than him have been stopped by tasing and he was hardly wearing thick clothing that would prevent the prongs from sticking. I agree that it counts as an execution in terms of culpability. I just doubt that he was expecting to fire when he drew his gun. I think that all of the justifications that they are putting forth after the fact are complete bullshit, to be clear. It looks like he felt he lost control of the situation, (stupidly and inappropriately) drew his weapon, got spooked and fired. An "execution" to me is Murder 1. I don't think that happened here.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Fact 1: Police responded to an uncorroborated report of people making out in a car ("suspected prostitution"). Fact 2: An uncorroborated tip is not probable cause for a "Terry stop" (detention without arrest). Fact 3: Denial of request for ID is not probable cause for a Terry stop. Fact 4: Police do not allege that they had probable cause at any time before or during the encounter. Does anybody dispute these? If not then there can be no argument that the detainee in this case was at fault.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
twodot posted:Probable cause its not the required burden for a Terry stop. Reasonable suspicion is, probable cause is the burden to arrest or search someone. I think there's a valid argument for there not existing reasonable suspicion, but we have to get our facts in order first. The tip provides reasonable suspicion for the initial stop ("questioning persons matching description"). edit: I actually think it's not clear that the uncorroborated tip provides reasonable suspicion for the initial stop either. Refusing to provide ID does not constitute a reasonable suspicion. In fact, ignoring a request for ID and leaving does not constitute a reasonable suspicion. No other facts asserted by the police provide reasonable suspicion for continued detention after the ID question had been answered ("No" is a lawful and acceptable answer that cannot be grounds for reasonable suspicion). Specifically, the police do not assert that they forcibly detained for any other reason than verifying ID. Because this was not a "stop and frisk" Terry stop, there can be no other grounds for continued detention, because the only allowed rationale for the detention caused by a stop and frisk is a surface weapons search. The police do not allege that they had reasonable suspicion to perform such a search. amanasleep fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Welp, looks like the police is trolling the actress pretty hard. Conveniently, the bodycam didn't experience a massive failure! OK, now the police are alleging that they had probable cause (for "lewd acts", not prostitution). Different ballgame.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
bassguitarhero posted:The police are citing probable cause based on the phone call and the officer's description of them actually having sex, wiping off and depositing a rag on the ground. Like it or not, unless someone has video evidence to the contrary, that's the end of it. Can we shut up about this now? The officer does not allege that he witnessed this behavior. The caller described this (and based on the account it is not clear whether the caller initially described this to dispatch or only later after being questioned by police). edit: Once again, uncorroborated tips do not constitute probable cause to believe that a crime has occurred, either for lewd acts or anything else. If the officer did not witness lewd acts by the couple in his presence then he did not have probable cause. edit2: Let's assume that the lewd acts occurred and that the caller witnessed them. 1. The call, with accurate descriptions of the individuals, provides reasonable suspicion. 2. The police officer may reasonable approach and ask the persons to identify themselves. 3. Providing only a verbal answer is sufficient. The content of this answer is irrelevant (even if it is a lie). 4. The police officer may also ask for ID (it is not unlawful for the police to ask for it). 5. It is lawful for the detainee to refuse to provide the ID when asked. 6. It is not lawful to further detain after the question is answered (content of the answer is irrelevant). So IMO this all revolves around whether the officer actually had probable cause like he claims. If he did, then he could have arrested her. Because he did not do so, I think that's pretty strong evidence that he did not have probable cause, despite his claims to the contrary. It appears that he was using a false claim of having probable cause (which means: "I have the right to lawfully arrest you right now") to intimidate her into providing ID. amanasleep fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
temple posted:He has the right to detain to question. Probable cause is about arresting someone. She was not being arrested. He had reasonable suspicion she had committed a crime. So he questioned her. Obtaining her identity was important information to the investigation. He had the ability to detain her until he could confirm her identity for a reasonable amount of time. On grounds of reasonable suspicion he has the right to detain her to ask for ID, but does not have the right to continue to detain her if she declines to provide the ID. In the recording, the officer specifically claims that he has probable cause, and that this required her to provide ID. If he really had probable cause then he had the right to detain or arrest her if she refused to provide it. He detained, but did not arrest her. So once again the question is: did he have probable cause as he claimed or was he claiming to have probable cause in order to coerce her into providing her ID? twodot posted:I still have an issue here, of course it's not lawful to detain someone based solely on the content of the answer, but asking the question doesn't invalidate other reasons for being allowed to detain someone (it's fine to argue those other reasons didn't exist, or that the length of the detention wasn't justified by those other factors, but this bullet point isn't doing either of those). I am only arguing that absent other evidence at the scene that could provide probable cause, merely declining to provide ID cannot in itself provide it. Never mind that the officer claimed that he already had probable cause. edit: It certainly seems prudent for police officers not to claim probable cause if they don't have it. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ amanasleep fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Condiv posted:could someone tell me why the cops needed to identify her still if her husband was free to go? if they concede her husband is not a john, then how can they suspect she's a prostitute. if her husband is not charged with whatever you get charged with for having sex in public, how could she be? To be fair, having his ID but not hers doesn't prove they are married to each other. Of course, since LAPD claims that they did not have suspicion of prostitution, this is irrelevant.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Nobody was charged with anything. The cops rolled up and were like "Hey, we got this report about you guys, what's up with that?" and her husband was like "I'm Lucas and here's my ID and she's my wife and didn't you see that Jamie Foxx movie? (I guess)" and they were like "Ok cool we're going to verify this story because every john we've ever busted says that." and when they asked for her ID she wouldn't give it to them and walked off. So they cuffed her and put her in the back of the car until they could figure out who she was, and then both of them were free to go. This sounds about right as a summation of events. I don't really think that any parties dispute these facts. Everything here hinges on whether the officer actually had probable cause to believe she committed a crime either before or during the stop. If he did then the later detainment was lawful. If not then it wasn't. My view is that the officer responded to dispatch reporting lewd conduct, and found them making out and matching the description and location (triggering reasonable suspicion), but didn't see evidence (no jizz tissues or nudity) corroborating the lewd conduct claim (thereby not providing probable cause). Asked for ID like it was a traffic stop (it wasn't) and overreacted when she refused to provide the ID, claiming he had probable cause which required her to provide it. When she still refused and left the scene he forcibly detained her (without probable cause, because refusing to provide a an ID under reasonable suspicion and then leaving the scene also does not provide probable cause). The fact that he claimed to have probable cause does not create the requirement to follow his command. Edit: I think it is quite possible that the officer believed in good faith that he had probable cause, or else that he had the right to require Driver's Licences because they were in a vehicle when stopped. This case sounds like regular incompetence, perhaps compounded by lack of discretion. I can't know if the lack of discretion had other motivators, but I think it's reasonable to ask if it did. amanasleep fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Condiv posted:they no longer had any reason to suspect her of prostitution, so how was it legal to hold her for identification considering california law requires they have reasonable suspicion she committed a crime? Here is the recent news report. LA Weekly posted:An LAPD official said Parker had responded to a call reporting lewd acts. The official told us the exact dispatcher comments of the citizen's report were that a white man and a black woman in floral shorts were ... Also, LAPD posted this: LAPD Rampart Division posted:Officers may "detain" someone when they have "reasonable suspicion" that criminal activity has, is, or is about to a occur and the person being detained may be involved. You are not free to leave during a legal detention. If you try to leave, it is a violation of 148(a)(1) PC - Resisting, Delaying, or Obstructing Officer; and you may be subject to arrest. So their view is that the officer determines when detention under reasonable suspicion ends. amanasleep fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Condiv posted:allowing "reasonable" to be defined by the officer makes the term worthless Well, legally, the officer's definition of reasonable is subject to review by the courts. Operationally, the officer on the scene obviously has to use his judgement as to whether he has reasonable suspicion grounds for further detention after the initial stop. It is in the interests of the Police for people to believe that the officer has unlimited discretion to detain them during an investigation. Technically, an officer can detain you under reasonable suspicion, then charge you for interfering with an investigation for refusing to identify yourself or leaving the scene. But that's pretty unlikely to hold up in court. Note that this is exactly what happened in this case but the officer did not charge her, only detained her. According to LAPD she could have been charged for interfering. Traditionally, the courts have been pretty deferential to defendants who have asserted that they had a right to exit a street detention after being asked for ID (and either ignoring or refusing the command). Keep in mind that this was not a "stop and frisk" during which the detainee may be forcibly detained to determine if they are carrying a weapon. No reasonable suspicion of weapons possession is asserted by the police in this case.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Sunset posted:I'm not trying to insinuate anything. Just going off of a few tidbits I noticed in the initial days of all of this happening. I honestly don't know which one of those really graphic videos had it - but I quite distinctly recall seeing someone carrying a rifle. Bean bag rifle? Hell, I don't know, but it certainly looked longer then a gun. There was also a sudden rumble in the Senate about looking into the 1033 program and investigating all of the goodies departments are getting, maybe liability, etc, who knows. If it was an assault rifle that would have come out in the results of the private autopsy.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Well, they're arguing that he gave chase, so he wasn't always shooting from the SUV Yes, the question isn't how far Brown was from Wilson's SUV, but how far he was from Wilson when Wilson started shooting (not including the shot that allegedly was fired during the interaction in the SUV itself).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:This is my favorite thread. Not ironically, but actually. If a person not in touch to anything would read this from start to finish, it would be a trip through the 1800's to modern policing and emergency response, touching firearms, small unit tactics, racism, misandry, feminism, politics, parties, chauvinism and overall pretty much any relevant topic of the modern society. Even economics and social policy. Only in America. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
I think that the only way to deal with this is to pass legislation that requires special prosecutors in all police involved killings based on the assumption that the DA will always have a conflict of interest in presenting an indictment of a police officer. After all, his normal job requires the cooperation of the cops, and if that trust is broken then it will inhibit future prosecutions.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
We have a recording of the proceedings of the Grand Jury in the Satterwhite case: http://youtu.be/C9dFKRZ8EbU?t=1m22s
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
Radish posted:I don't think that really is a good defense of the shooting. No one would reasonably think that a person standing with a gun like object in a store that has absolutely no sign of panic or anything is using or threatening to use a weapon. I think it lends more credence that officer discretion is supposed to be taken into account in dealing with situations like that which is why this isn't a common everyday occurrence in an area with open carry. Even with the scary phone call there was no reason to believe that Crawford was dangerous and there were no "wounded persons or suspicious items". Yes, I think that the key point here is that the uncorroborated 911 call does not provide probable cause to believe that a crime was in progress. The number one priority for officers on the scene responding to 911 dispatch of a single report of a black male with a gun is to establish the facts, not prevent a massacre.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Actually, yes. If you want your mind really blown, they thought they were arresting Kanye West.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Brown's blood on the gun and inside the vehicle corroborate the story that there was some kind of struggle inside the vehicle, but don't say anything about the character of the struggle or who initiated it. Yeah if anything the fact that Brown was already wounded supports the case that Wilson used excessive force after Brown left the vehicle, since Wilson must have known he was shooting a wounded man.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
Mavric posted:This kinda what I'm getting from reading all these accounts. Like he rolled up to Brown, grabbed at him with one hand while pulling out his gun with the other (because I guess that's a totally non-over the top way to begin an encounter) at which point Brown could have reflexively pushed back causing Wilson to himself reflexively start firing. "Going for his gun" could be anything from reaching for it to just trying to swat at it because holy poo poo this guy is aiming a gun at me. Either way I just can't imagine someone diving into the cops open window to grab his gun across his body, it just seem like such a bizarre thing to do. The whole thing seems consistent with the idea that Wilson surprised Brown with gun drawn at close range. Brown reacts with some hits/grapples, during which the gun goes off. Brown, wounded, starts to flee. At this point, there are a few things that may have motivated Wilson to fire at Brown: 1. Brown got some hits in during the struggle and/or touched the gun, angering Wilson. 2. Wilson was aware that he had already wounded Brown. 3. Wilson believed that Brown was about to go on a weed-fueled murder rampage. 4. Wilson thought that Brown needed 30 feet of running distance to get to the ramming speed necessary to make him impervious to bullets. #1 is terrible, #2 is worse, but #3 or #4 are the most likely because
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:I think this is it, Wilson remembered that he is not supposed to shoot to wound because it's not safe or whatever so he went after Brown to finish the job. To be charitable to Wilson, I am willing to believe it was 1 and 2, and I think it would be reasonable to plead him out to Murder 2. That is, I think, the minimum bar for wrongdoing here.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2014 14:43
|
|
|
Lemming posted:My understanding is that the indictment process is not normally meant to be a real trial, it's there so that you can't, say, accuse a political opponent with something to tie them up in court or whatever. It's a screening process that is meant to decide whether or not there's enough evidence to go to trial, that is, there's enough there to say that it's not a bogus charge. Yes, the Grand Jury process is there to prevent frivolous or obviously bogus indictments, although in practice it often fails to do even that. The system assumes that prosecutors will always attempt to bring indictments when they have strong evidence of a crime, so the Grand Jury process does not have any structures designed to prevent prosecutors from intentionally torpedoing indictments they want to prevent.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:
Wilson did not shoot Brown because he was black (because even phrasing that way sets up a "premeditation" straw man), but I think that the bar for lethal force against a white suspect is significantly higher than for a black suspect. LEOs consistently give the benefit of the doubt to white suspects in use of force decision making that they do not give to black suspects. The death of Brown is the result of poor decision making by Wilson, and those poor decisions were escalated by racial profiling.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:We know that it's a poo poo gun because it's a MAC-10. But, the MAC-10 flex white cats like Windex. How could it fail?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:*chants to self* You know it's a troll, don't respond, you know it's a troll, don't respond. I disagree, there is no way that the account registered on November 2 is a troll account. amanasleep fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Nov 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
SolarFire2 posted:"White folks was [sic] in caves while we were building empires…. We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and those Greek homos ever got around to it." That was just part of his vintage mid 90's Apollo comedy routine. "White people develop cultural and intellectual hegemony like this, but Black people develop cultural and intellectual hegemony like this."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
Apthous posted:The US has all white presidents except one, all white supreme court justices except three, all white attorneys general except one, and many many other highly successful white people. One would say that the KKK is doing a very good job of being racist. If their job is to terrorize random black people, then mission accomplished. Here, FTFY.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
twodot posted:Not that this matters, but technically you are forgetting the AGAG, which is completely appropriate. It's true, both Amalekite Kings were black.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Caliph206 posted:They both killed a black legally, but that doesn't mean that the law is wrong. Contrary to what most believe here there is no evidence to support your theory that George Zimmerman started out trying to assassinate Trayvon Martin. All evidence backed up Zimmerman's claims, therefor he was let off, therefor the law was working as designed. The reason he wasn't initially arrested was because the initial investigation, which did happen because it came out during the trial, could not disprove Zimmerman's versions of events. I was right with you until the end. "Chasing shadows" is racist.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
Sir John Falstaff posted:From this: The fact that he's worried enough about the possibility of an indictment to float stories about his resignation indicates that the indictment may be somewhat more likely than I gave it credit for.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 07:10
|
|
|
Another brilliant confusion of "evidence sufficient to convict" and "evidence sufficient to indict". edit: Also a legit concern troll. Posters who shout down people for calling out concern trolling should at least understand what it is. amanasleep fucked around with this message at 08:18 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 08:16
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Not only did he leave the SUV, but he chased Brown for nearly 100 feet, with Brown nearly 150 feet away from the SUV when he died. According to DailyKos it was 148 Feet away.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Thats not what that article says Does the prosecutor have to give the Grand Jury these instructions?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I agree, but that all happens real fast so I can't really blame him for going for the gun instead of going for putting the car in reverse. If Wilson had shot Brown during the struggle at the car nobody would be talking about this now. One of the basic questions to answer is: Does the struggle at the car have any bearing on Wilson's culpability in shooting Brown later?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Asians work hard and if they do drugs it makes them lazy. Blacks and mexicans are lazy and if they do drugs it make the raping & killing machines that are neigh unstoppable. Clearly if we can precisely control and regulate the drug flows into our minorities, we can instantly achieve racial harmony.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 09:59 |
|
|
If the GJ had returned an indictment they would be announcing arraignment right now.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 00:38
|
|