What are your thoughts on the failure to indict the police officer in Ferguson MO

[Starter]

Starter, do not assume that what you say about my thoughts and beliefs is something that you have any comprehension of. If you do not see the racially charged, although probably not intentional opening remark by Roamy, then you just skipped everything that was said to find a reason, once more, as is your wont to make a misguided assumption and have a jab at me.

I wasn't looking to pick an argument with you, just pointing out that you were, in this case, assuming facts not in evidence.

[Spafranco]

I wasn't looking to pick an argument with you, just pointing out that you were, in this case, assuming facts not in evidence.

I stand by what I said pertaining my post even if the statement made by the poster was innocent. I believe we can agree to disagree on this one.

[Rollo]

so why are we beating this dead horse. He was killed legally and scumbags went shopping

Can you prove that? That's a bold claim.

The problem with US law is that there is no inherent right to life (unless it's covered by the tenth amendment or possibly the fifth) and so consequently, the only directives you have to play with are the rulings of the Supreme Court; thus:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...71/1/case.html
Apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement. To determine whether such a seizure is reasonable, the extent of the intrusion on the suspect's rights under that Amendment must be balanced against the governmental interests in effective law enforcement. This balancing process demonstrates that, notwithstanding probable cause to seize a suspect, an officer may not always do so by killing him. The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable.
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)

Is something which might be "constitutionally unreasonable", legal?

[Starter]

Can you prove that? That's a bold claim.

The problem with US law is that there is no inherent right to life (unless it's covered by the tenth amendment or possibly the fifth) and so consequently, the only directives you have to play with are the rulings of the Supreme Court; thus:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...71/1/case.html
Apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement. To determine whether such a seizure is reasonable, the extent of the intrusion on the suspect's rights under that Amendment must be balanced against the governmental interests in effective law enforcement. This balancing process demonstrates that, notwithstanding probable cause to seize a suspect, an officer may not always do so by killing him. The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable.
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)

Is something which might be "constitutionally unreasonable", legal?

Could be, but the (alleged) facts in this case are that the suspect was in the act of assaulting the arresting officer and not just trying to escape. So this example isn't a good comparison to your quote above.

[Roamy]

with the evidence this case was a no brainer but everyone wants to beat it to death. It went through the lawful course and a decision has been made. But WTF lets create anarchy to keep things exciting.

[Rollo]

with the evidence this case was a no brainer but everyone wants to beat it to death. It went through the lawful course and a decision has been made. But WTF lets create anarchy to keep things exciting.

Yes, it went through the lawful course and that must make it right.




http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30323750
In isolation, the decision of the grand jury in Staten Island not to indict the white NYPD officer Daniel Pantaleo would have sparked anger.
The fact that it came less than 10 days after a grand jury in Missouri decided that the white officer involved in the shooting of Michael Brown should not face criminal charges has amplified the sense of racial injustice felt by those who believe the decision is inexplicable.
In contrast to Ferguson, there is video evidence showing what happened in Staten Island. New York's medical examiner had already ruled that the death of Eric Garner was a homicide, and that the chokehold contributed to it.
- BBC News, 4th Dec 2014

The fact that this happened once might be seen as unfortunate but the case of Brown appears not to be isolated. If this is a systemic issue then there is a more serious issue at hand.
This become less of an issue about "saying police shouldn't be allowed to kill anyone ever" but rather, what is the excuse being used to hide behind when they do.

Would you be happy for instance if the police killed someone whom the government deemed "undesirable" and then got off because a grand jury didn't indict them? That sort of circumstance isn't that far removed from either of these two cases.

The message which is being sent by the justice system at the moment is that it does not black lives as it does white lives.
Whilst it might be true that black men commit criminal offences at a higher rate than other Americans, the justice system apparently allows absolution for law officers to kill them.

Does the American justice system actually do justice?

[Starter]

Yes, it went through the lawful course and that must make it right.




http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30323750
In isolation, the decision of the grand jury in Staten Island not to indict the white NYPD officer Daniel Pantaleo would have sparked anger.
The fact that it came less than 10 days after a grand jury in Missouri decided that the white officer involved in the shooting of Michael Brown should not face criminal charges has amplified the sense of racial injustice felt by those who believe the decision is inexplicable.
In contrast to Ferguson, there is video evidence showing what happened in Staten Island. New York's medical examiner had already ruled that the death of Eric Garner was a homicide, and that the chokehold contributed to it.
- BBC News, 4th Dec 2014

The fact that this happened once might be seen as unfortunate but the case of Brown appears not to be isolated. If this is a systemic issue then there is a more serious issue at hand.
This become less of an issue about "saying police shouldn't be allowed to kill anyone ever" but rather, what is the excuse being used to hide behind when they do.

You are talking about two different places about a thousand miles apart in distance. America is a big place, much like Australia. It would be less than intellectual rigor to lump these cases as the same, based on only a vague similarity. Not to excuse the police when they step over the bounds of their legal duties (me being someone who has experience with that), but its a tough job and their decisions sometimes must be made in split seconds under stressful conditions - no malice intended.

Would you be happy for instance if the police killed someone whom the government deemed "undesirable" and then got off because a grand jury didn't indict them? That sort of circumstance isn't that far removed from either of these two cases.

No I would not be happy about that. The government, as an entity, does not deem anyone "undesirable" though individual agents of the government sometime do.

The message which is being sent by the justice system at the moment is that it does not black lives as it does white lives.
Whilst it might be true that black men commit criminal offences at a higher rate than other Americans, the justice system apparently allows absolution for law officers to kill them.

As I said, its a big place and that probably does happen from time to time somewhere, but it is not the system which does it, its the acts of individual officers of the law or in some cases a local mind set of the police.

Does the American justice system actually do justice?

For the most part yes. Much more so than a lot of places in the world. Some places it depends on how big a bribe you can afford. Almost everywhere, if you are well connected, it goes somewhat easier on you. I'll take the system here as opposed to say Sharia law or Putin's Russia for two examples. No place is perfect and no justice system is perfect. The American one is most definitely above average.

[airshifter]

Can you prove that? That's a bold claim.

The problem with US law is that there is no inherent right to life (unless it's covered by the tenth amendment or possibly the fifth) and so consequently, the only directives you have to play with are the rulings of the Supreme Court; thus:

The inherent right to life is assumed in all US law, and was a part of the Declaration of Independence. Other than the controversial subjects such as abortion (where the definition of "life" is at question), euthanasia, etc, laws assume right to life. That right may be lost in the case where any individual is reasonably thought to be imposing on another persons right to life with threat of gross injury or death.

Even in other controversial laws such as the castle laws, the basis is that if someone forces entry, they are a threat that may inflict gross bodily harm upon the occupants.


I would suggest that any laws by any nation that give right to life without exception have allowed that someone could blatantly take that right from someone else without any fear of just consequence.

[Tazio]

I'm actually really glad I don't live in in NYC or South St. Lou, or any other place on gods green earth like them. Degenerates like Roamy! fish there!

[Roamy]

hey some gay San Diegoan is calling me a Degenerate -