Missouri Police Officer guns down unarmed 18 year old

Page 172 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Yes, if we were videotaped doing that, we would be charged with assault. As for going to jail, well, that would be determined by our prior record and what kind of deal our lawyer could work out, if we opted to take a plea as opposed to going to trial.

The difference here is that since the officer was working in their capacity of being an officer, it is not criminal. It was determined that she did resist and the officer was justified in using force in taking her into custody. The problem was that he then used excessive force to do so. It IS NOT CRIMINAL. While we might not like that, that is what the courts have stated. Since it is not criminal, he cannot be charged with assaulting her.
You have proof of that right? You know it wasn't just determined that he was a cop, so we will let him resign in lieu of charges? So basically rules are different for cops, they have more leeway to beat up people for no reason. Wow. And if they get caught, they get the option to resign, and face no punishment. Man, I wish I had a deal like that. I screw up in my job, viedotape or not, I just get fired. I don't get to resign. Cushy gig you all got.


With officers resigning for the good of the department, I'm sure that does happen. Obviously, it would prevent internal punishment and it would save them their contributions that they've made towards retirement. As for avoiding criminal charges, I suppose it's possible that it has happened before, but I'm sure it's happened in all sorts of professions where the government states that it will not come after a company as long as they pay a fine and the offender resigns.

- Merg
(bold mine for emphasis)

There you go...all the trolls can now troll Merg, he admits it can and does happen, which is all I claimed.
 

The Merg

Golden Member
Feb 25, 2009
1,210
34
91
Yes, if we were videotaped doing that, we would be charged with assault. As for going to jail, well, that would be determined by our prior record and what kind of deal our lawyer could work out, if we opted to take a plea as opposed to going to trial.

The difference here is that since the officer was working in their capacity of being an officer, it is not criminal. It was determined that she did resist and the officer was justified in using force in taking her into custody. The problem was that he then used excessive force to do so. It IS NOT CRIMINAL. While we might not like that, that is what the courts have stated. Since it is not criminal, he cannot be charged with assaulting her.

You have proof of that right? You know it wasn't just determined that he was a cop, so we will let him resign in lieu of charges? So basically rules are different for cops, they have more leeway to beat up people for no reason. Wow. And if they get caught, they get the option to resign, and face no punishment. Man, I wish I had a deal like that. I screw up in my job, viedotape or not, I just get fired. I don't get to resign. Cushy gig you all got.


(bold mine for emphasis)

There you go...all the trolls can now troll Merg, he admits it can and does happen, which is all I claimed.

Once again, there were no criminal charges to place. It is a civil rights issue. The only thing that can be done is for the civil suit to be filed, which the woman's family did. He didn't resign in leiu of charges being placed since there were no charges to file.

If you want to view it that they get more leeway to beat people up, then sure, yes they do. The original logic behind it was that a cop uses force on someone, but later that force is deemed excessive. At the time the cop used the force, they believed the force they were using was necessary. The courts ruled that this hindsight evaluation for determining if the officer broke a law was not valid. For whatever reason, the courts even said that the mindset of the officer doesn't matter. All that matters is what force was used and what was appropriate. If the force was inappropriate, it is not a criminal offense if the officer was acting within their capacity of a law enforcement officer.

As for resigning for the good of the department, I also stated that it happens in all professions though and not just law enforcement.

- Merg
 

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,235
136
Let me help you out troll, since you can't read. IF you bothered to read anything at all about this, inclluding ALL my posts, you would have read that his alleged resignation was contingent on NOT being indicted. I stated it clear in my post.

Can you not read? don't know why you are going off on something I didn't even say. I posted it several times.

Your refusal to say anything logical at all, and instead to intentionally derail this with comments that are 100% speaks volumes about what you think.

I explained *why* it's contingent. It's not a bargaining chip. He and the department are challenging the accusations. The department is behind him and doesn't want him to resign now because people like you would mischaracterize it ("Why would he resign if he's innocent?" [ignoring the obvious threats to his life and productivity]). In the other case, the department wanted the CHP officer to resign for obvious reasons. They would lose that case and they were doing everything they could to appease the family and minimize the payout. If the CHP fought the charges and lost instead of making a deal, they would have paid a lot more than $1.5mil.

His reasoning of when to resign is totally "no-duh" obvious. Only an idiot would think there's anything notable about it.
 
Last edited:

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,235
136
It's impressive at the amount of vitriol that 4-5 posters will throw at me, all the while refusing to admit that it is possible.

You all could just say.."it's possible, but I think highly unlikely" that would have been a reasonable response. Indeed, I said possible, I didn't say it had to be true, or even probable.

Obviously you all aren't reasonable. It's like the ZImmerman case..logical thought went out the window, and all the bigots came in outright claiming "good shoot" with religious fervor before they even knew the facts. Something you are repeating right now.

But this out right trolling and insulting when you have no logical basis to deny it just shows your outright bias in the case. We don't even know the full evidence, and yet y'all are outright saying it is impossible he did anything wrong, and there is no way this possibility could happen. How do you figure that? I don't think anyone posting here is able to listen to the GJ when they are working.

If I changed Officer Wilson to a Bank CEO, and death of a teenager to a insider trading, and a report came out that the CEO resigned and then the SEC announced no charges would be filed, you all would totally be saying he resigned to avoid charges. This happens all the time. No one denies this.

But a white cop? And a black kid? Hmm......All of a sudden it's impossible that he did anything wrong, it was totally OK, no problems, and you still don't know the evidence. Hmmmmmmmmm.

I've shown that it can and does happen. Fact. So it is possible.

THERE IS NO WAY THAT RESIGNING WILL AVOID CHARGES IN THIS CASE.

Resigning might avoid charges if his defenders were negotiating some other form of compensation (example: financial). The department doesn't plan to pay jack shit because the physical evidence we've seen supports DW's story.

It's also interesting how you pretend the GJ has evidence that we haven't seen. While that's possible in some cases, it's extremely unlikely in this one. Any evidence that might support Darren Wilson's story would be made public immediately because no one wants public unrest and riots.

If they had any physical evidence supporting Michael Brown and his family, the police department would immediately start trying to cut a deal with Michael Brown's family and they'd ask DW to resign.

...and he would do it.

You don't seem to realize the current state of this case.
 

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,235
136
... You know it wasn't just determined that he was a cop, so we will let him resign in lieu of charges?

Again: In cases like the CHP case, the resignation was not in lieu of charges. The cash payout was. The victims agreed to it. Period. If the victims are owed much more compensation than the offending officer losing his job, they would be stupid to drop everything just because the officer resigns.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
I have to wonder if the prosecution is currently redacting names from statements/testimony so they can be released immediately after the public learns of the grand jury's decision on the case.
 

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,574
7,671
136
Read this

A lie in the Darren Wilson defense in the shooting death of Mike Brown that just won't go away

"Mike Brown was not killed 35 feet away from Darren Wilson's SUV.

His final fall was at least 108 feet away from Darren Wilson's SUV. This 300 percent difference is actually a very big deal and is a significant part of Darren Wilson's defense. The St. Louis-area police have continued to advance this lie for over 103 days since Mike Brown was killed on Canfield Drive on the afternoon of August 9 in Ferguson, Missouri. Here we will methodically expose this lie and examine just why it's so important."


Photo6.png
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
Read this

A lie in the Darren Wilson defense in the shooting death of Mike Brown that just won't go away

"Mike Brown was not killed 35 feet away from Darren Wilson's SUV.

His final fall was at least 108 feet away from Darren Wilson's SUV. This 300 percent difference is actually a very big deal and is a significant part of Darren Wilson's defense. The St. Louis-area police have continued to advance this lie for over 103 days since Mike Brown was killed on Canfield Drive on the afternoon of August 9 in Ferguson, Missouri. Here we will methodically expose this lie and examine just why it's so important."

Debunked

shooting-scene-apx-2.png
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
I'm still waiting for anyone to prove me wrong....I've seen a lot of trolling, outright lies, and misinformation, but no one has bothered to refute my statement.

Again, IF Wilson is not indicted and resigns, IT IS TOTALLY POSSIBLE that this could be an informal plea deal or some other form of "you screwed up, but we will let you disappear to save everyone pain and suffering of continued TV coverage".

We have seen this with other police cases (like the one I linked), and we have seen it with plenty of other instances. CEO's resign for wrong/illegal activity all the time, and indicted citizens enter into plea deals all the time too. Many times companies will settle with fines while admitting no wrong doing. Anyone want to claim that this never happens? Be my guest, I'll be waiting to see your evidence.

That is a 100% valid POSSIBILITY. I never claimed it a 100% fact, I said it was possible.

It boggles the mind that certain posters are so attached to Officer Wilson (without even knowing the facts from the GJ ey no less) that they refuse to even consider this is possible. I wonder why? Some other non-logical reason perhaps? Perhaps people can't admit white cops can be wrong whne policing thugs? Hmmm.

Since I haven't really been following this case and I consider myself fairly unbiased, my unbiased opinion is:

1. What you described above is a possibility.


2. If the cop is 100% innocent and followed every single procedure and law down to the letter and is not indicted he will no longer be able to adequately do his job. Since employers generally don't like employees that can not possibly do their jobs and employees generally don't like a workplace that is 1,000 times more hostile than normal, it would be in the best interests of BOTH parties for him to resign even if he is not indicted.

The second one is at the very least equally as possible as the first.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
How is this debunked? Seems to me that your photo clearly shows the body more than a hundred feet from Wilson's SUV. (Though I'm not sure if that matters - my understanding has always been that Brown ran, Wilson pursued, then Wilson shot Brown either charging him or surrendering, depending on whose testimony and leaked evidence one believes.)

Since I haven't really been following this case and I consider myself fairly unbiased, my unbiased opinion is:

1. What you described above is a possibility.


2. If the cop is 100% innocent and followed every single procedure and law down to the letter and is not indicted he will no longer be able to adequately do his job. Since employers generally don't like employees that can not possibly do their jobs and employees generally don't like a workplace that is 1,000 times more hostile than normal, it would be in the best interests of BOTH parties for him to resign even if he is not indicted.

The second one is at the very least equally as possible as the first.
#1 is NOT a possibility. This is in front of the Grand Jury; offering to resign is not possible as the Grand Jury neither tries cases nor decides punishment and by law cannot consider any plea bargain.


At first I believed that the long Grand Jury silence was to allow time for the city and state to prepare. Now I'm believing that the Grand Jury has a serious division between those who wish to return a true bill and those who wish not. This MIGHT be due to bshole's logic that for all our sakes we need to punish Wilson regardless of guilt or lack thereof; since people tend to be more principled when they are actually responsible for others' lives, I'm assuming there are some with a real belief that Wilson should stand trial. What we don't know is whether it's a minority trying to convince the majority to bring him to trial, or the majority trying to convince a minority that Wilson should stand trial. Given the length of their deliberations, I don't think it's safe to assume one way or another, but it's worth pointing out that there are (apparently) reasonable people on the Grand Jury on each side of this issue. Given that they are seeing all the facts as would a trial jury, that shows that we should be respectful of dissenting views on this issue, as it's obviously not an open and shut case either way.
 

Blanky

Platinum Member
Oct 18, 2014
2,457
12
46
Has anyone looked into the other murders this thug with a badge has been in. I doubt this is his first kill.
You know so little about this guy that you don't even know the answer to that question, which is public knowledge. Yet despite knowing very little about Wilson you still believe you know better than the grand jury and support violence against him if acquitted. I advised you earlier to leave the thread for your own good but now I want to see what other stupid nonsense you can post.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
You know so little about this guy that you don't even know the answer to that question, which is public knowledge. Yet despite knowing very little about Wilson you still believe you know better than the grand jury and support violence against him if acquitted. I advised you earlier to leave the thread for your own good but now I want to see what other stupid nonsense you can post.
Now I'm imagining a mother perplexed at why a squeaky voice just screamed "challenge accepted" from her basement . . .
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
How is this debunked? Seems to me that your photo clearly shows the body more than a hundred feet from Wilson's SUV. (Though I'm not sure if that matters - my understanding has always been that Brown ran, Wilson pursued, then Wilson shot Brown either charging him or surrendering, depending on whose testimony and leaked evidence one believes.)

It doesn't matter. The SUV was stopped and as I read it the initial shots were fired 35 feet from it. After that Wilson and Brown moved and the end result would be the greater distance. Since the SUV didn't shoot nor did it care it's ultimate distance was any particular value.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
I was skeptical when it was announced last week that the verdict would come on Friday. Gee, if you really want to see riots (which will happen whether or not there's an indictment) why not do it right after Happy Hour is over?

A Friday announcement is just begging for trouble. Monday seems a lot wiser. Next Monday would be even better.

Fern
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Giuliani says it is all Black People's fault.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/rudy-giuliani-former-mayor-black-violence-reason-white-cops-ferguson

Black culture definitely has problems. Our liberal culture today where everyone is lying cheating and stealing and then going to violence then they dont get their way is definitely a problem. The way I look at it is some people choose to be violent criminals and they desreve what they get when someone is forced to call the police. So dont complain when the cops have to shoot criminals. Criminals cause their own deaths by the violence they choose to live by. The bigger they are the harder they fall.

Violence and social problems exist everywhere. It is part of the human conditon to rise above our animalisitic natures and live as human beings. It is called civilization and humanity.
 
Last edited:

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
857
126
When? How? By who?

I listened to the videos in that article and the official said that the entire shooting scene took place 35 feet away from the vehicle, not that the entire scene was 35 feet including the vehicle. You have to deliberately interpret that wrong to distort their claim in order to call them liars. They are saying that Wilson was about 35 feet from the vehicle and Brown was an unspecified distance further, so the entire scene of the shooting was about 35 feet away (obviously ignoring the encounter and discharge while he was in the vehicle). They weren't wrong.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,565
15,449
136
I listened to the videos in that article and the official said that the entire shooting scene took place 35 feet away from the vehicle, not that the entire scene was 35 feet including the vehicle. You have to deliberately interpret that wrong to distort their claim in order to call them liars. They are saying that Wilson was about 35 feet from the vehicle and Brown was an unspecified distance further, so the entire scene of the shooting was about 35 feet away (obviously ignoring the encounter and discharge while he was in the vehicle). They weren't wrong.

Did you bother reading the posts Victorian was responding to? A poster claimed brown was about 100 feet from wilson, another poster said, "debunked", clearly based on the picture posted and your own hearing of the account, the claim was not debunked.
 

The Merg

Golden Member
Feb 25, 2009
1,210
34
91
Did you bother reading the posts Victorian was responding to? A poster claimed brown was about 100 feet from wilson, another poster said, "debunked", clearly based on the picture posted and your own hearing of the account, the claim was not debunked.


Actually, the claim was that Brown was not shot 35 feet from the SUV, but was over 100 feet from the SUV.

- Merg
 

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
857
126
Did you bother reading the posts Victorian was responding to? A poster claimed brown was about 100 feet from wilson, another poster said, "debunked", clearly based on the picture posted and your own hearing of the account, the claim was not debunked.

If you read what I wrote (your favorite/only way to reply, it seems) I didn't answer to that. I answered to the very premise of the claim that would need to be debunked if the premise were valid to begin with.

Actually, the claim was that Brown was not shot 35 feet from the SUV, but was over 100 feet from the SUV.

- Merg

Which is perfectly in line with what the official said. The article mischaracterized what he said to pretend that we were lied to. The news anchor got it wrong, but the official source didn't. To stoop to such lows is worse than scraping the bottom of the barrel and grasping at straws to support the story they WISH were true. The comments section of that article shows just how many will willingly delude themselves to share this baloney. I am sad to see one here because it means that our community is tainted by that kind of "thinking."
 
Last edited:

The Merg

Golden Member
Feb 25, 2009
1,210
34
91
Which is perfectly in line with what the official said. The article mischaracterized what he said to pretend that we were lied to. The news anchor got it wrong, but the official source didn't. To stoop to such lows is worse than scraping the bottom of the barrel and grasping at straws to support the story they WISH were true. The comments section of that article shows just how many will willingly delude themselves to share this baloney. I am sad to see one here because it means that our community is tainted by that kind of "thinking."


Yup.

- Merg
 

mizzou

Diamond Member
Jan 2, 2008
9,734
54
91
Giuliani says it is all Black People's fault.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/rudy-giuliani-former-mayor-black-violence-reason-white-cops-ferguson

Black culture definitely has problems. Our liberal culture today where everyone is lying cheating and stealing and then going to violence then they dont get their way is definitely a problem. The way I look at it is some people choose to be violent criminals and they desreve what they get when someone is forced to call the police. So dont complain when the cops have to shoot criminals. Criminals cause their own deaths by the violence they choose to live by. The bigger they are the harder they fall.

Violence and social problems exist everywhere. It is part of the human conditon to rise above our animalisitic natures and live as human beings. It is called civilization and humanity.


American's have glorified "thug" culture for generations. We want to be Billy the Kid, Machine Gun Kelly, Scarface, etc..... Black artists have made $$$$$ off banking "thug" culture and spreading it's popularity in new forms of media. "thug" culture will always remain popular in this country, it's just a fact of life we have to deal with.

The biggest problem with "black culture" at the moment is that it popularizes and perpetuates ties to economic poverty. Normalizing poverty and the socio-economic effects poverty people are exposed to, can create a self-perpetuating system where people subconsciously REMAIN in poverty.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,764
28,977
136
Giuliani says it is all Black People's fault.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/rudy-giuliani-former-mayor-black-violence-reason-white-cops-ferguson

Black culture definitely has problems. Our liberal culture today where everyone is lying cheating and stealing and then going to violence then they dont get their way is definitely a problem. The way I look at it is some people choose to be violent criminals and they desreve what they get when someone is forced to call the police. So dont complain when the cops have to shoot criminals. Criminals cause their own deaths by the violence they choose to live by. The bigger they are the harder they fall.

Violence and social problems exist everywhere. It is part of the human conditon to rise above our animalisitic natures and live as human beings. It is called civilization and humanity.

I believe conservatives call this second amendment remedies