Racism on parade part 2- cops, thugs, looting, Obama,& more

[Virgil Showlion]

EVT, I have to wonder why you have so much faith an autopsy will yield any conclusive evidence as to what happened.

If Brown was shot in the back or from a steep downward angle, I can see that controverting a claim that the shooting happened during a struggle, but aside from that, what? During a struggle, the shot could go into his leg, his arm, his face--anywhere, at a wide range of angles. He's going to have gunpowder residue all over him unless he was shot from a good distance. And supposing the officer is lying about the shooting, if he isn't an idiot he's going to have a narrative consistent with how Brown was shot. He knows where and how the bullet went in. As long as it wasn't somewhere outlandish like in the middle of Brown's back, coming up with a version of events to explain it wouldn't be difficult.

I give the coroner's report a 95% chance of turning up a big fat goose egg with anything that could definitively convict or exonerate the officer.

[EVT1]

So far 3 witnesses have stated he was running away from the officer when shot a second time after the incident at the car, turned around with hands up and was shot more. I would assume an autopsy would show an entry wound in the back and would show at least a range of distances as well.  That would be damning evidence supporting the witnesses' version of events.  Guess we will see what it turns up.

If it is a fat goose egg then it is the cop vs. the witnesses- or one liar vs. three if you will.  Either party could have lost their cool if not both.  Cops lose it sometimes- that is a fact- doesn't have to be a shred of racism involved for it to happen either.

[Deleted]

Aug 16, 2014 23:22:44 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Aug 16, 2014 20:20:32 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

It means (pretty clearly) that intent is only relevant if a weapon is used.

If one brings a weapon to shoplift they didn't MEAN to shoplift. They MEANT to rob. That's where the relevance of a weapon comes in to play between the two. If they shoplift without a weapon, then they shoplifted. Period.

Robbery is robbery. Whether there was a weapon or not is irrelevant when comparing it to shoplifting. A weapon in robbery just escalates it to "armed robbery". Lack of a weapon doesn't decrease it to shoplifting.

I repeat- what the heck are you talking about?

I could shoplift while armed all day and it is still shoplifting unless I display that weapon or threaten someone with it- and it is irrelevant to my point anyway- in the real world intentions matter- and on a first offense he isn't going down for a felony robbery whether or not that the act may qualify.   That was my point, I do not believe this incident had any bearing on what happened, as he had no reason to fear jail time over $50 worth of crap and a shove.  I think it is much more likely he would fight with a cop because he got pissed off.  So which way you gonna go on this? 

But that's just it... it's not "$50 worth of crap and a shove, it IS (contrary to what you want to believe) JAIL TIME. Something most criminals desire to avoid.

Robbery gets you JAIL TIME (if convicted). Why are you having so much trouble comprehending that?

Missouri Revised Statutes

Chapter 569
Robbery, Arson, Burglary and Related Offenses
Section 569.030

569.030.

1. A person commits the crime of robbery in the second degree when he forcibly steals property.

2. Robbery in the second degree is a class B felony.

SOURCE

Missouri Felony Crimes by Class and Sentences

Class B felony
For a Class B felony, the court can impose a minimum of 5 years in prison and maximum of 15 years.

SOURCE

The stuff he stole is "property"... him shoving the clerk out of the way is "forcibly"... ergo: Robbery.

[marvholly]

I was in high school & college during the civil rights protests and anti-Vietnam demos of the 60's. This is SOOO much like those & what have we learned in hindsight - the protesters were RIGHT!

[Virgil Showlion]

Aug 17, 2014 3:39:20 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

So far 3 witnesses have stated he was running away from the officer when shot a second time after the incident at the car, turned around with hands up and was shot more. I would assume an autopsy would show an entry wound in the back and would show at least a range of distances as well.  That would be damning evidence supporting the witnesses' version of events.  Guess we will see what it turns up.

If it is a fat goose egg then it is the cop vs. the witnesses- or one liar vs. three if you will.  Either party could have lost their cool if not both.  Cops lose it sometimes- that is a fact- doesn't have to be a shred of racism involved for it to happen either.

Aren't there also several witnesses who support the police's version of events?

[zibazinski]

Well, you can't have that, can you? What happens if all this rioting and cop hate was for nothing? That the darling teenager really was a thug? Oh, my.

[The Captain]

Aug 16, 2014 13:17:26 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Shoved- not a punch thrown. So you think it is likely he would attack a cop and try for a gun?  Doesn't make a lot of sense. For what reason? Just because he's a 'thug' and that's what 'thugs' do according to you?  Guess we shall find out soon enough.

You've obviously never watched an episode of cops  .

Comon,   EVT1 - do you honestly think most criminals do things that make sense to rational people?


Hell, I know a white bread college boy who got his ass thrown out of school for throwing a punch at a cop.  He was going to be arrested for underage drinking but what he did made things sooo much better...

People just don't think a lot of the time, THAT's the problem here in so many ways.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 17, 2014 9:10:16 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Aug 16, 2014 13:17:26 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Shoved- not a punch thrown. So you think it is likely he would attack a cop and try for a gun?  Doesn't make a lot of sense. For what reason? Just because he's a 'thug' and that's what 'thugs' do according to you?  Guess we shall find out soon enough.

You've obviously never watched an episode of cops  .

Comon,   EVT1 - do you honestly think most criminals do things that make sense to rational people?.

i think most crime is 100% rational.  they just have a different view of risk, reward, and morality than you.

ie- if i know that i can walk right into my neighbor's house and steal their jewelry, and pawn it for cash so that i can buy drugs or something far more useful, and i have no feeling for my neighbors or their property, and i don't think the risk of doing it is very high, i would go ahead and do that.  now that might seem totally irrational to YOU because of your moral compass, your sense of risk and reward, and your altruism, but those are qualities a criminal doesn't have.  so, from HIS perspective burglary is totally rational.  from yours, it is utterly bizarrely outside of your norms.

terrorism is another example.  it is stone cold rational, though very few Americans believe it, because they are constantly told that it is pure madness.  it isn't.  for more information, see Pape's "the strategic logic of suicide terrorism".

[djAdvocate]

Aug 17, 2014 9:10:16 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Hell, I know a white bread college boy who got his ass thrown out of school for throwing a punch at a cop.  He was going to be arrested for underage drinking but what he did made things sooo much better...

People just don't think a lot of the time, THAT's the problem here in so many ways.

incidentally, crimes of passion like this are totally different.  an otherwise rational person does stupid things that are criminal all the time, as well.  i am talking about crimes that are planned, not spur of the moment.  i am thinking MOST are planned.  don't you?

edit: the crime of passion has a lot of opportunity for remorse and redemption.  such a person is way less of a threat than the sociopath described in my previous quote, who is probably beyond reform.

[EVT1]

Aug 17, 2014 4:40:10 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Aug 16, 2014 23:22:44 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

 

But that's just it... it's not "$50 worth of crap and a shove, it IS (contrary to what you want to believe) JAIL TIME. Something most criminals desire to avoid.

Robbery gets you JAIL TIME (if convicted). Why are you having so much trouble comprehending that?

The stuff he stole is "property"... him shoving the clerk out of the way is "forcibly"... ergo: Robbery.

And?  Why are you posting statutes?  The prosecutor looks at what actually happened, what he wants to prosecute for, what plea deal would be offered, etc.  In the real world an 18yo first offender that by the book commits a robbery but does so under the facts present- i.e $50 and a shove is not likely to end up with a felony- no matter what you think should happen- but given the choice what would you do?  Offer an 18yo 5 years with a felony record that will likely ruin any chance they have at being a productive member of society or do you offer a misdemeanor with the ability to have the record expunged down the road if they stay out of trouble?

[zibazinski]

He's not a first offender and the fact that he has a criminal record, even as a juvenile, would have been brought up. Crimes committed as juveniles are brought up again if they do criminal acts again. This thug obviously thought he could "get away with it" but didnt when he was caught for doing something else. Only when he was caught did it occur to him that he was in deep shit now, hence his behavior. I'm grateful to the cop and sorry he will be abused for it. Who knows how many crimes he prevented by killing this thug. I do not imagine what you hope to gain by trying to garner sympathy for this person. Because the history always plays out differently once it's known. Talk about racism. But it's different when its against a white person, isn't it?

[EVT1]

Aug 17, 2014 9:10:16 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Aug 16, 2014 13:17:26 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

 

You've obviously never watched an episode of cops  .

Comon,   EVT1 - do you honestly think most criminals do things that make sense to rational people?


Hell, I know a white bread college boy who got his ass thrown out of school for throwing a punch at a cop.  He was going to be arrested for underage drinking but what he did made things sooo much better...

People just don't think a lot of the time, THAT's the problem here in so many ways.

I also said not likely- was the white bread college boy shot dead btw?   One of them or both lost it and let anger get the better of them- not going to give the cop a pass just because they are a cop, and not going to assume the victim is at fault, just because he was shot by a cop or has a video of him shoving a clerk.    

[EVT1]

Aug 17, 2014 16:30:00 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

He's not a first offender and the fact that he has a criminal record, even as a juvenile, would have been brought up. Crimes committed as juveniles are brought up again if they do criminal acts again. This thug obviously thought he could "get away with it" but didnt when he was caught for doing something else. Only when he was caught did it occur to him that he was in deep shit now, hence his behavior. I'm grateful to the cop and sorry he will be abused for it. Who knows how many crimes he prevented by killing this thug. I do not imagine what you hope to gain by trying to garner sympathy for this person. Because the history always plays out differently once it's known. Talk about racism. But it's different when its against a white person, isn't it?

Nope- has no record. And no it would not- and if he did you wouldn't know. So I guess you are on team thug before the evidence comes out- big shocker.

[OldCoyote]

Do they really know it was him in the security video,  to me it's some big black guy and it's blurry.

[EVT1]

Aug 17, 2014 8:30:18 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Aug 17, 2014 3:39:20 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Aren't there also several witnesses who support the police's version of events?

Have not heard that- although they all support the version as far as a scuffle at the car window.

Cop says he reached for his weapon, witnesses say the cop grabbed him by the neck/shirt.

Seems to me if he was going for a gun he would have to have his arm and head pretty far in the window- depending of course which side he carried his weapon.  Doubt he could get a pistol out of a retention holster of a seated cop- that would take some real talent.

The only way I could see him grabbing for a gun is if it was already out- and obviously it was since he shot him once from inside the car.  I don't buy that bullshit at all- more likely the cop shot because he was facing a hulking person at the door fighting him- but what happens after that is the crux of the biscuit.

[EVT1]

Aug 17, 2014 16:37:29 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Do they really know it was him in the security video,  to me it's some big black guy and it's blurry.

The guy with him admitted it to the investigators

[Tennesseer]

There are going to be many unhappy people with the outcome of this investigation and possible criminal charges. Some non-black citizens will be angry if the officer is charged and convicted of a crime claiming the conviction was to appease the black communities of the country.

Many black (and non-black) citizens will be unhappy if the officer is not charged and convicted of a crime. Black communities will continue to distrust the justice system and the police.

[EVT1]

This is a good argument for civilian review boards, and of course dash cams/lapel cams.

What is not ok is letting the same agency investigate its own actions- which luckily is not the case here.

And really the only people that are going to be angry are those that have already made their minds up and the facts show otherwise.  But I understand the anger and frustration- when something so minor as walking in the street in a neighborhood ends up in a shooting there is a much larger underlying problem.  

 

[Deleted]

Aug 17, 2014 16:24:20 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Aug 17, 2014 4:40:10 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

But that's just it... it's not "$50 worth of crap and a shove, it IS (contrary to what you want to believe) JAIL TIME. Something most criminals desire to avoid.

Robbery gets you JAIL TIME (if convicted). Why are you having so much trouble comprehending that?



The stuff he stole is "property"... him shoving the clerk out of the way is "forcibly"... ergo: Robbery.

And?  Why are you posting statutes?  The prosecutor looks at what actually happened, what he wants to prosecute for, what plea deal would be offered, etc.  In the real world an 18yo first offender that by the book commits a robbery but does so under the facts present- i.e $50 and a shove is not likely to end up with a felony- no matter what you think should happen- but given the choice what would you do?  Offer an 18yo 5 years with a felony record that will likely ruin any chance they have at being a productive member of society or do you offer a misdemeanor with the ability to have the record expunged down the road if they stay out of trouble?

Again... you are missing the point. The robber knows that JAIL is a possibility. He doesn't know what the DA will do. He just knows that he's breaking the law, and could go to JAIL.

So... to avoid going to JAIL he fights apprehension.

[resolution]

I thought this was an interesting article on the difference in the police response to the Bundy ranch protesters in Nevada compared to the response in Ferguson.  www.gq.com/blogs/the-feed/2014/08/ferguson-missouri-protests-bunkerville.html

Anyway it does raise the question if it would be better to be in a group of armed protesters rather than unarmed, because the armed group retained all of their rights while the unarmed group's rights were infringed quite a bit.

[Deleted]

Aug 17, 2014 17:20:54 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

This is a good argument for civilian review boards, and of course dash cams/lapel cams.

What is not ok is letting the same agency investigate its own actions- which luckily is not the case here.

And really the only people that are going to be angry are those that have already made their minds up and the facts show otherwise.  But I understand the anger and frustration- when something so minor as walking in the street in a neighborhood ends up in a shooting there is a much larger underlying problem.  

The bolded I wholeheartedly agree with.

[EVT1]

Aug 17, 2014 18:00:15 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Aug 17, 2014 16:24:20 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

 

Again... you are missing the point. The robber knows that JAIL is a possibility. He doesn't know what the DA will do. He just knows that he's breaking the law, and could go to JAIL.

So... to avoid going to JAIL he fights apprehension.

No I am not- I am telling you that it is the rare case that someone fights the cops over petty bullshit.  If you think I am wrong then by all means show me the incredible stats of people fighting the police and grabbing guns over an arrest.  You are arguing that the exception is the norm.  It is not. 

What you and others are doing is attempting to provide a motive for an attack and therefore a reason that the cop is justified before the facts have been released.  Are you on team thug as well- or are you going to wait on the evidence?  Have you automatically discounted 3 witnesses?  Why?

 

[EVT1]

Aug 17, 2014 18:00:28 GMT -5 resolution said:

I thought this was an interesting article on the difference in the police response to the Bundy ranch protesters in Nevada compared to the response in Ferguson.  www.gq.com/blogs/the-feed/2014/08/ferguson-missouri-protests-bunkerville.html

Anyway it does raise the question if it would be better to be in a group of armed protesters rather than unarmed, because the armed group retained all of their rights while the unarmed group's rights were infringed quite a bit.

Bundy is a criminal- and all of his supporters pointing guns at law enforcement are criminals as well.  But I think I have the answer:

Thug:

Second amendment supporters:

[Deleted]

Aug 17, 2014 20:23:58 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Aug 17, 2014 18:00:15 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Again... you are missing the point. The robber knows that JAIL is a possibility. He doesn't know what the DA will do. He just knows that he's breaking the law, and could go to JAIL.

So... to avoid going to JAIL he fights apprehension.

No I am not- I am telling you that it is the rare case that someone fights the cops over petty bullshit.  If you think I am wrong then by all means show me the incredible stats of people fighting the police and grabbing guns over an arrest.  You are arguing that the exception is the norm.  It is not. 

What you and others are doing is attempting to provide a motive for an attack and therefore a reason that the cop is justified before the facts have been released.  Are you on team thug as well- or are you going to wait on the evidence?  Have you automatically discounted 3 witnesses?  Why?

I always "discount" witnesses.

I know how unreliable "eye witness accounts" are. But, in fairness, I discount them across the board... no matter WHICH side they are on.

Show me camera footage. Let me listen to audio tapes. Show me fingerprints or other biological evidence.

[Deleted]

Aug 17, 2014 20:34:44 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Aug 17, 2014 18:00:28 GMT -5 resolution said:

I thought this was an interesting article on the difference in the police response to the Bundy ranch protesters in Nevada compared to the response in Ferguson.  www.gq.com/blogs/the-feed/2014/08/ferguson-missouri-protests-bunkerville.html

Anyway it does raise the question if it would be better to be in a group of armed protesters rather than unarmed, because the armed group retained all of their rights while the unarmed group's rights were infringed quite a bit.

Bundy is a criminal- and all of his supporters pointing guns at law enforcement are criminals as well.  But I think I have the answer:

Thug:

Second amendment supporters:

Notice your "Second Amendment Supporters" all have their guns pointed towards the ground AND their fingers off the triggers?

Notice where your "thug" has his gun pointed? Notice where his finger is?

[EVT1]

Aug 17, 2014 20:52:27 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Aug 17, 2014 20:23:58 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

No I am not- I am telling you that it is the rare case that someone fights the cops over petty bullshit.  If you think I am wrong then by all means show me the incredible stats of people fighting the police and grabbing guns over an arrest.  You are arguing that the exception is the norm.  It is not. 

What you and others are doing is attempting to provide a motive for an attack and therefore a reason that the cop is justified before the facts have been released.  Are you on team thug as well- or are you going to wait on the evidence?  Have you automatically discounted 3 witnesses?  Why?

I always "discount" witnesses.

I know how unreliable "eye witness accounts" are. But, in fairness, I discount them across the board... no matter WHICH side they are on.

Show me camera footage. Let me listen to audio tapes. Show me fingerprints or other biological evidence.

Eyewitness testimony is very unreliable when it comes to ID.  That's not at issue here.

[Deleted]

Aug 17, 2014 20:57:31 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Aug 17, 2014 20:52:27 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I always "discount" witnesses.

I know how unreliable "eye witness accounts" are. But, in fairness, I discount them across the board... no matter WHICH side they are on.

Show me camera footage. Let me listen to audio tapes. Show me fingerprints or other biological evidence.

Eyewitness testimony is very unreliable when it comes to ID.  That's not at issue here.

If it's "not at issue" then why did you ask?

ETA: eyewitness accounts are flawed at more that JUST ID. They are also flawed at what actually happened. The whole ""who did what with what, and where they did it".

[EVT1]

Well so far it is three flawed accounts vs. one- and the only one with a motive to lie is the cop. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Aug 17, 2014 21:06:40 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Well so far it is three flawed accounts vs. one- and the only one with a motive to lie is the cop. 

The neighbourhood sticks together against the police. There's motive enough to lie there.

[Malarky]

Aug 17, 2014 21:06:40 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Well so far it is three flawed accounts vs. one- and the only one with a motive to lie is the cop. 

You really believe this?  Again, I don't have all the facts and am not willing to jump to any conclusions.  

I see that as flawed reasoning.  Both sides could potentially protect themselves by lying.