(04-26-2015 08:27 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Fitbud is not capable of understanding that Brown attacked Wilson, punched him and tried to take his gun.
He literally can't understand the facts.

He understands them, just chooses to ignore them because they don't fit the narrative he's been told to support.

He doesn't understand that a person doesn't have to be armed to be a threat to someone else's life.

(04-26-2015 08:27 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Fitbud is not capable of understanding that Brown attacked Wilson, punched him and tried to take his gun.
He literally can't understand the facts.

Do I think Wilson could have handled the situation better?...Yes. Does that matter to me?..Not really. The actions of Brown started this debacle. Actions have consequences and often not good.

(04-26-2015 11:03 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 08:27 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Fitbud is not capable of understanding that Brown attacked Wilson, punched him and tried to take his gun.
He literally can't understand the facts.

Do I think Wilson could have handled the situation better?...Yes. Does that matter to me?..Not really. The actions of Brown started this debacle. Actions have consequences and often not good.

I've agreed multiples times that I think the Federal Commission got this one right, but that line of reasoning is what leads to shooting people in the back for running away. People breaking the law don't just immediately become a canvas for a cop to vent all his frustration on, and the force should at least attempt to match force. An unarmed person running away should not be treated as a person who has already assaulted you running back at you, even if they are both resisting arrest.

(04-26-2015 11:32 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I've agreed multiples times that I think the Federal Commission got this one right, but that line of reasoning is what leads to shooting people in the back for running away.

Was Brown shot in the back while running away?

You have to decide each case based upon the specific elements of the specific situation.

(04-26-2015 11:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 11:32 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I've agreed multiples times that I think the Federal Commission got this one right, but that line of reasoning is what leads to shooting people in the back for running away.

Was Brown shot in the back while running away?

You have to decide each case based upon the specific elements of the specific situation.

Oh, yeah I agree. I was just lazily referring to the south carolina incident which was absurd.

(04-26-2015 11:39 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 11:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 11:32 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I've agreed multiples times that I think the Federal Commission got this one right, but that line of reasoning is what leads to shooting people in the back for running away.

Was Brown shot in the back while running away?
You have to decide each case based upon the specific elements of the specific situation.

Oh, yeah I agree. I was just lazily referring to the south carolina incident which was absurd.

Based upon all information available at this point, absurd is a reasonable word to describe the South Carolina incident. Fortunately, charges have been filed and we can hope that the appropriate message will be sent there.

(04-26-2015 11:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 11:39 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 11:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 11:32 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I've agreed multiples times that I think the Federal Commission got this one right, but that line of reasoning is what leads to shooting people in the back for running away.

Was Brown shot in the back while running away?
You have to decide each case based upon the specific elements of the specific situation.

Oh, yeah I agree. I was just lazily referring to the south carolina incident which was absurd.

Based upon all information available at this point, absurd is a reasonable word to describe the South Carolina incident. Fortunately, charges have been filed and we can hope that the appropriate message will be sent there.

Yeah, I know, I was just stating I disagree with thinking 'well he was resisting arrest, what did he think was going to happen' as if that fleeing gives police carte blanche to play tapdance on your skull or something. I agree that the incident in charleston seems to be moving along properly, as is the one in Tulsa involving the older volunteer deputy.

(04-26-2015 11:54 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Yeah, I know, I was just stating I disagree with thinking 'well he was resisting arrest, what did he think was going to happen' as if that fleeing gives police carte blanche to play tapdance on your skull or something. I agree that the incident in charleston seems to be moving along properly, as is the one in Tulsa involving the older volunteer deputy.

The Staten Island one is the only one that I think has not moved along properly, and that remains a head scratcher.

(04-26-2015 11:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 11:54 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Yeah, I know, I was just stating I disagree with thinking 'well he was resisting arrest, what did he think was going to happen' as if that fleeing gives police carte blanche to play tapdance on your skull or something. I agree that the incident in charleston seems to be moving along properly, as is the one in Tulsa involving the older volunteer deputy.

The Staten Island one is the only one that I think has not moved along properly, and that remains a head scratcher.

I hadn't even heard about that one, but this one is looking awful locally.

Which started as a case in which a cop kneed a handcuffed suspect so hard he ruptured his spleen, which was then followed by video evidence of the suspect asking more than 20 times for a doctor after the officer in question testified to internal affairs 'the suspect refused medical attention'. The guy almost died and is suing the OPD. He'll win.

(04-26-2015 02:16 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 09:49 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 09:26 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 09:24 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Does anyone care about unarmed people getting shot by cops?

100% irrelevant.

Really? He could, and perhaps should, have been lawfully shot right there.
'Pears this "gentle giant" wasn't quite so gentle after all.

eff him. Don't be a dick, life will be better for you.

Lawfully shot for strong arming a man? Really? LMFAO

I think he means that shop owner had every right to shoot him, which he absolutely did.

(04-26-2015 12:57 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I think he means that shop owner had every right to shoot him, which he absolutely did.

Actually I seriously doubt the shop owner had the right to shoot him. His life wasn't threatened, Brown took what he wanted and left with what was a minor altercation. (Not excusing Brown at all, but it's not as it he beat the shop owner severely or did anything to threaten his life.) I don't know about MO, but in NC petty theft like that is not an offense the shop owner would have been justified in shooting the perpetrator.

Really? I thought he grabbed the guy and threw him down. I might be thinking of another video though?

(04-26-2015 01:32 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Really? I thought he grabbed the guy and threw him down. I might be thinking of another video though?

I'd be very skeptical getting thrown down would constitute the use of that level of force. I know I would not brandish my firearm for simply that on purpose. Im not going to pull my weapon unless I feel my life is in danger. This is why I do not carry concealed that often. I am always afraid I might misjudge the intent of someone in the heat of battle. You can not put bullets back in the weapon. It is the question ever firearm carrier should ask themselves. "Are you totally prepared for the consequences of pulling that trigger?"

(04-26-2015 01:52 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 01:32 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Really? I thought he grabbed the guy and threw him down. I might be thinking of another video though?

I'd be very skeptical getting thrown down would constitute the use of that level of force. I know I would not brandish my firearm for simply that on purpose. Im not going to pull my weapon unless I feel my life is in danger. This is why I do not carry concealed that often. I am always afraid I might misjudge the intent of someone in the heat of battle. You can not put bullets back in the weapon. It is the question ever firearm carrier should ask themselves. "Are you totally prepared for the consequences of pulling that trigger?"

Oh, I'm not saying he *should* shoot him or even saying I would, I most definitely wouldn't. But realistically, if we're going to allow shopkeepers or property owners at all to use deadly force, I think the scenario that occurred would at worst fall into a grey area. I guess it's hard to hypothetically add that in though, because if Brown just continues to turn and walk out the door, the shopowner still shoots him, my opinion changes. It's just, you threaten someone and lay your hands on them in that manner, I think it probably grants you the right as an average citizen to defend yourself in that manner. I think you shouldn't, but I think you should probably have that right.

But I think we're in pretty much agreement, and I like gun owners to view shooting someone like you do.

(04-26-2015 02:00 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 01:52 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 01:32 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Really? I thought he grabbed the guy and threw him down. I might be thinking of another video though?

I'd be very skeptical getting thrown down would constitute the use of that level of force. I know I would not brandish my firearm for simply that on purpose. Im not going to pull my weapon unless I feel my life is in danger. This is why I do not carry concealed that often. I am always afraid I might misjudge the intent of someone in the heat of battle. You can not put bullets back in the weapon. It is the question ever firearm carrier should ask themselves. "Are you totally prepared for the consequences of pulling that trigger?"

Oh, I'm not saying he *should* shoot him or even saying I would, I most definitely wouldn't. But realistically, if we're going to allow shopkeepers or property owners at all to use deadly force, I think the scenario that occurred would at worst fall into a grey area. I guess it's hard to hypothetically add that in though, because if Brown just continues to turn and walk out the door, the shopowner still shoots him, my opinion changes. It's just, you threaten someone and lay your hands on them in that manner, I think it probably grants you the right as an average citizen to defend yourself in that manner. I think you shouldn't, but I think you should probably have that right.

But I think we're in pretty much agreement, and I like gun owners to view shooting someone like you do.

I hope like hell I never have to fire my weapon at anyone. I have absolutely zero qualms about killing someone in self defense...but...I can not say that it would not be a mentally traumatic experience to deal with.

(04-26-2015 01:32 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Really? I thought he grabbed the guy and threw him down. I might be thinking of another video though?

Doesn't matter, Brown didn't do anything to threaten the shop owner's life during the altercation. (Unless it was communicated verbally and there's no audio if I recall.)

The laws can be a little funny, but for the most part make sense. Example, in NC if someone breaks into your house and is holding a knife more than arm's length away from you, legally you can't shoot them because you are beyond the threat. Now if they are in the act of breaking into your house and holding a knife, pull the trigger. Basically even the aggressor of a crime has the right to retreat unless he poses a direct and immediate threat to the victim's life.

In the video had Brown dropped down on top of the shop owner and started beating him it would have constituted a direct threat to his life and he would have been justified in shooting Brown.

(04-26-2015 02:00 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 01:52 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 01:32 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Really? I thought he grabbed the guy and threw him down. I might be thinking of another video though?

I'd be very skeptical getting thrown down would constitute the use of that level of force. I know I would not brandish my firearm for simply that on purpose. Im not going to pull my weapon unless I feel my life is in danger. This is why I do not carry concealed that often. I am always afraid I might misjudge the intent of someone in the heat of battle. You can not put bullets back in the weapon. It is the question ever firearm carrier should ask themselves. "Are you totally prepared for the consequences of pulling that trigger?"

Oh, I'm not saying he *should* shoot him or even saying I would, I most definitely wouldn't. But realistically, if we're going to allow shopkeepers or property owners at all to use deadly force, I think the scenario that occurred would at worst fall into a grey area. I guess it's hard to hypothetically add that in though, because if Brown just continues to turn and walk out the door, the shopowner still shoots him, my opinion changes. It's just, you threaten someone and lay your hands on them in that manner, I think it probably grants you the right as an average citizen to defend yourself in that manner. I think you shouldn't, but I think you should probably have that right.

But I think we're in pretty much agreement, and I like gun owners to view shooting someone like you do.

It's called equal force in NC. If someone threatens you with a baseball bat, you can certainly pull you weapon in defense, but must give the aggressor the opportunity to retreat. It's the 'bring a knife to a gunfight' scenario.