• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Ferguson: Moving on..why none of this will mater...

s2a

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
...well in short, all the protests, violence, vandalism in the wake of the shooting of Michael Brown.

In short, it was completely lawful under Missouri code to shoot an unarmed man in the street at mid day, so long as the officer can testify (not even proven mind you) that he may have felt himself to be threatened. or even harmed by any attacking individual.This is no special exemption mind you. This is the reality of Missouri state law...yet another "stand your ground" state.

Section 563-031 Use of force in defense of persons.

Expanded self-defense laws

Missouri House passes change in self-defense 'castle doctrine' law | KMOV.com St. Louis

Agree or disagree, this is LAW. Period, End of rebuttal. If you disagree with such, then um, write your congressman and senators that voted in favor.

Note that within that law, a police officers testimony counts just as much, if not more, than even 100 others that may testify otherwise, Again, it's current law.

Courts are FORCED to do so. This is not an option.

Even in cases such as this, even jury nullification CAN NOT apply. The "prosecution must not only "Prove" that a suspect had no reasonable expectation of harm, but must also "prove" beyond any reasonable doubt that the "victim" made NO actions to cause the victim to fear for ("their") life. NONE.

Good luck with that. It ain't gonna happen, and it's the law,

Only changing the consequences of gun violence will alter these laws.

*sigh*
 

Alceste

Vagabond
Yeah, it's completely absurd to make the legal standard for whether or not you "feel threatened". I can't think of a stupider law, given our mammalian predisposition to "feel threatened" with little or no provocation.

Case in point...

mouse.jpg
 

s2a

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
Indeed. I don't craft the laws in Missouri, or any other state.

Speak up against "stupid" gun laws where you live, or just accept them.

Your call. :)
 

Alceste

Vagabond
Indeed. I don't craft the laws in Missouri, or any other state.

Speak up against "stupid" gun laws where you live, or just accept them.

Your call. :)

We have great gun laws where I live already. :) Still have some work to do on police brutality though. This city is notorious for cop-on-civilian violence - the punching and kicking kind.
 

s2a

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
We have great gun laws where I live already. :) Still have some work to do on police brutality though. This city is notorious for cop-on-civilian violence - the punching and kicking kind.

Cool.

If you support "shoot anybody for good cause" laws, then back em up! Vote your heart.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
So what if it's the law? Executive order 44, or the Extermination Act, also used to be the law in that state.
Missouri Executive Order 44 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Missouri Executive Order 44, also known as the Extermination Order in Latter Day Saint history,[1][2] was an executive order issued on October 27, 1838 by the governor of Missouri, Lilburn Boggs. It was issued in the aftermath of the Battle of Crooked River, a clash between Mormons and a unit of the Missouri State Guard in northern Ray County, Missouri, during the Mormon War of 1838. Claiming that the Mormons had committed "open and avowed defiance of the laws", and had "made war upon the people of this State," Boggs directed that "the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary for the public peace—their outrages are beyond all description".[2]
While Executive Order 44 is often referred to as the "Mormon Extermination Order" due to the phrasing used by Boggs, no one is known to have been killed by the militia or anyone else specifically because of it. There were, however, other associated deaths: the militia and other state authorities used Boggs' missive as a pretext to expel the Mormons from their lands in the state, and force them to migrate to Illinois. This forced expulsion in difficult, wintry conditions posed a substantial threat to the health and safety of the affected Mormons, and an unknown number died from hardship and exposure. Furthermore, a group of men and boys were killed by Livingston County militia in the Haun's Mill massacre three days after the order was issued; however, there is no evidence that the militiamen had any knowledge of it, nor did they ever use the order to justify their actions.
Mormons did not begin to return to Missouri until 25 years later, when they found a more welcoming environment and were able to establish homes there once more. In 1976, citing the unconstitutional nature of Boggs' directive, Missouri Governor Kit Bond formally rescinded it.[3]

 

s2a

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
So what if it's the law? Executive order 44, or the Extermination Act, also used to be the law in that state.
Missouri Executive Order 44 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Good luck with that.

Ya never know...

After all, who ever heard of politicians EVER rejecting an even 90% American populace approval of any universal "background check" laws?

90%?

Um, Congress?

Well...Ya never know...

Sign up for your NRA lobby membership pin right here...
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
...well in short, all the protests, violence, vandalism in the wake of the shooting of Michael Brown.

Good luck with that. It ain't gonna happen, and it's the law,

Only changing the consequences of gun violence will alter these laws.

*sigh*

The problem is so huge in the US that action has to be taken, but where, how, when, by whom....? It's almost political suicide to act for more gun legislation, isn't it?

I thought Britain was bad..... Whereas from 1920 - 1977 we did not have a single incident where police killed anybody, from then until now incidents have escalated up to 22 deaths.

I thought I would check before pointing this out, only to discover that in the US since 2001 there have been over 5000 incidents in your country. I find it hard to believe.... or take in.
US Police Have Killed Over 5,000 Civilians Since 9/11
US Police Have Killed Over 5,000 Civilians Since 9/11
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Indeed. I don't craft the laws in Missouri, or any other state.

We are thankful for that.



Speak up against "stupid" gun laws where you live, or just accept them.

Your call. :)




What is stupid is people that don't want cops to protect themselves from criminals.


If a dumb person goes up to someone with gun and assaults them, they are going to get shot, badge or no badge.



it IS completely lawful under any USA code to shoot an unarmed man in the street at mid day, if said person resists arrest while assaulting an officer


:slap:
 

outhouse

Atheistically
The problem is so huge in the US



:biglaugh:




Though the U.S. government does not have a database collecting information about the total number of police involved shootings each year, it’s estimated that between 500 and 1,000 Americans are killed by police officers each year.


And I will bet 99.9% were criminals that deserved it.


That is not a huge problem, its a huge solution to crime
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
:biglaugh:

Though the U.S. government does not have a database collecting information about the total number of police involved shootings each year, it’s estimated that between 500 and 1,000 Americans are killed by police officers each year.

And I will bet 99.9% were criminals that deserved it.

That is not a huge problem, its a huge solution to crime

You may think that 5000 deaths by police gunshot in America since 2001 is a big laugh, but for residents of countries where 22 such incidents have happened since 1977 it is quite a sad surprise.

Your post is obviously ignorant about levels of stress during crime confrontations, although that does not surprise me.
What you can't understand is how I don't believe in your 99.9% figure of acceptable kills.

1. What is the stress threshold of the average serving Law Enforcer?
2. How often are Law Enforcers subjected to counselling and stress threshold assessment?
3. Who trains the counselors and assessors?
4. How much does over-reaction increase in stress-spent officers?
5. How often are officers retrained and tested in gun response situations?
6. What are the safety-catch, 1st pressure, 2nd pressure (fire) weights of police standard issue handguns?
7. Is handgun type consistent throughout a force or State?
8. Have other means of control (such as taser-guns) been thoroughly investigated assessed and, if necessary, funded?
9. Is the Police Complaints force (Internal Affairs) thorough, fair and lawful?
10. Whilst genuine mistakes should always be given maximum understanding, are Police Forces honest and open with their investigation findings after these incidents?
11. Are grossly negligent, reckless or criminal law enforcement officers dealt with openly and fairly for all to see?

That's just a start...... you best stick to what you do, because constant everyday arrest incidents eat away at a person't nerve and balance. I think I know more about this than you do.....
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
...well in short, all the protests, violence, vandalism in the wake of the shooting of Michael Brown.

In short, it was completely lawful under Missouri code to shoot an unarmed man in the street at mid day, so long as the officer can testify (not even proven mind you) that he may have felt himself to be threatened. or even harmed by any attacking individual.This is no special exemption mind you. This is the reality of Missouri state law...yet another "stand your ground" state.

Hi again........ :)

I get all the above.
But countries can never do enough to vet and select operatives such as Police Officers.
I know a bit about this because I used to train CVIT, security, store detective and door supervisors, and over the years a percentage overacted and thus used unreasonable force or made serious mistakes during high conflict incidents. The problem was (is) that when a person becomes excited, frightened or put under severe stress that they 'fill' with adrenalin and other hormones which significantly alter their ability to react within their training.
I have known ops to use far too much force, to kick assailants vehicles, throw radios at them(!).... all manner of crazy reactions which in the classroom they would never ever believe that they could do!

So, imagine a Police Officer approaching a suspect and pointing his handgun, and then something happens which floods him with adrenalin....... a pistol's first pressure and second pressure which might seem very 'certain' in training are passed before the brain can think. An officer might even later discover that he/she shot a suspect five times when he only remembered firing once.....

Police officers should be 'incident' trained when under all kinds of extra influences and stresses, and the courses should have a very hard pass-level.

THis does not mean to criticise the officer in the Ferguson incident....... I have no clear idea about what happened.....
 

Alceste

Vagabond
:biglaugh:




Though the U.S. government does not have a database collecting information about the total number of police involved shootings each year, it’s estimated that between 500 and 1,000 Americans are killed by police officers each year.


And I will bet 99.9% were criminals that deserved it.


That is not a huge problem, its a huge solution to crime

That is 500 people per year with only four percent of law enforcement agencies reporting. So, a very low estimate. Very.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
We are thankful for that.








What is stupid is people that don't want cops to protect themselves from criminals.


If a dumb person goes up to someone with gun and assaults them, they are going to get shot, badge or no badge.

it IS completely lawful under any USA code to shoot an unarmed man in the street at mid day, if said person resists arrest while assaulting an officer

:slap:
So what of an incident here a few years ago in which a cop tased a non-compliant elderly man with advanced Alzheimer's? What of police killings that don't involve guns, such as the recent NYPD cop who killed a man by applying a choke hold? What of police who have emptied their clips into innocent people because they felt threatened and the person resisted arrest? Especially when this innocent person was the victim of mistaken identity, guilty by association, or at the wrong place at the wrong time? Sometimes a police killing someone is justified, but they must be made to realize they are police officers, not judge, jury, and executioner.
 
So what of an incident here a few years ago in which a cop tased a non-compliant elderly man with advanced Alzheimer's? What of police killings that don't involve guns, such as the recent NYPD cop who killed a man by applying a choke hold? What of police who have emptied their clips into innocent people because they felt threatened and the person resisted arrest? Especially when this innocent person was the victim of mistaken identity, guilty by association, or at the wrong place at the wrong time? Sometimes a police killing someone is justified, but they must be made to realize they are police officers, not judge, jury, and executioner.

Outhouse (forum member) mentioned a specific scenario so bringing up a different scenario(s) doesn't refute his point. It is justifiable for anyone to shoot another person if they are being physically assaulted or are under threat of bodily harm. This is what some witnesses reported in the Michael Brown case.
 
Last edited:

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Outhouse (forum member) mentioned a specific scenario so bringing up a different scenario(s) doesn't refute his point. It is justifiable for anyone to shoot another person if they are being physically assaulted or are under threat of bodily harm. This is what some witnesses reported in the Michael Brown case.
I do not believe in killing in self defense unless the situation is very dire. If at all possible, I would rather shoot a knee out or shoot a shoulder thank shoot-to-kill. As for the incident in question, there are still too many questions, and many of them come from sloppy police work and what seems to be attempts to sway "justice" in there favor. It also seems there was no struggle:
Independent Autopsy Finds 'No Signs of Struggle' in Michael Brown Death - The Wire
The Brown family's attorneys hosted a press conference Monday to discuss the latest preliminary autopsy findings for Michael Brown, alongside medical examiner Dr. Michael Baden and forensics pathologist assistant Prof. Shawn Parcells.
Baden and Parcells conducted the independent autopsy, and confirmed that six bullets entered Brown's body, with one having entered "back to front," and that there were no signs of struggle in Brown's shooting death. Baden added he had told Brown's mother her son did not suffer from the shots because there is "immediate loss of consciousness" following a bullet wound to the brain.

 

Mycroft

Ministry of Serendipity
Nothing ever, really, came of the Death of Mark Duggan. Which is an almost identical case. Except that it didn't have a bunch of paranoid Israeli's crying about ISIS.
 
I do not believe in killing in self defense unless the situation is very dire. If at all possible, I would rather shoot a knee out or shoot a shoulder thank shoot-to-kill. As for the incident in question, there are still too many questions, and many of them come from sloppy police work and what seems to be attempts to sway "justice" in there favor. It also seems there was no struggle:
Independent Autopsy Finds 'No Signs of Struggle' in Michael Brown Death - The Wire


Some on both sides of the issue are trying to sway justice by trying the matter in the court of public opinion and by rushing to judgement. The article you posted says no evidence of a struggle but the independent examiners did not have access to the victim's clothing - it was a basic preliminary autopsy afterall.. Also, it could be that only the officer was hurt.

Your comment on self defence is reasonable assuming that that will be enough to stop the suspect from causing bodily harm to others. It may not be enough in all cases (suspect may have a gun, may have hostages, etc.) nor is it always possible to stop and think when you have a split second to act, assuming that you're not already in a physical confrontation or being shot at.
 
Last edited:

outhouse

Atheistically
That is 500 people per year with only four percent of law enforcement agencies reporting. So, a very low estimate. Very.

Again it Is a good start.

The USA has a terrible crime problem, and we are to lenient with criminals.

That does not mean I say we kill them all, Im saying if criminals get in shoot outs with the cops OR assaults, then they are cleaning up the streets.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
So what of an incident here a few years ago in which a cop tased a non-compliant elderly man with advanced Alzheimer's? What of police killings that don't involve guns, such as the recent NYPD cop who killed a man by applying a choke hold? What of police who have emptied their clips into innocent people because they felt threatened and the person resisted arrest? Especially when this innocent person was the victim of mistaken identity, guilty by association, or at the wrong place at the wrong time? Sometimes a police killing someone is justified, but they must be made to realize they are police officers, not judge, jury, and executioner.

You want there job?

I don't.
 
Top