I wasn't looking to pick an argument with you, just pointing out that you were, in this case, assuming facts not in evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spafranco
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Can you prove that? That's a bold claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roamy
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roamy
http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/...4/315990_1.jpg
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Does the American justice system actually do justice?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
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.
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! :dozey: :angel:
hey some gay San Diegoan is calling me a Degenerate - :):)
:angel: Actually it was a backhanded compliment dukie, knowing that you and I share at least one passion other than F1. We are both brothers of that angle, and as you know we catch some big Bucket-mouths in S.D. County. In case you've been neglecting your favorite recreation, I suggest you get a massage to hold you over.....mate ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Roamy
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1978/9.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Starter
In my opinion there is a real distinction in the degree of culpability of an accused who has killed having formed the requisite intention without any mitigating circumstance, and an accused who, in response to a real or a reasonably apprehended attack, strikes a blow in order to defend himself, but uses force beyond that required by the occasion and thereby kills the attacker.
- Viro v The Queen (1978)
A person who is subjected to a violent and felonious attack and who, in endeavouring, by way of self-defence, to prevent the consummation of that attack by force exercises more force than a reasonable man would consider necessary in the circumstances, but no more than what he honestly believed to be necessary in the circumstances, is guilty of manslaughter and not of murder.
- R v McKay (1957) (sorry, still looking for a link)
In Australian law, there is no point when killing someone doesn't warrant charges as killing someone is always an excessive use of force in common law. And because Australia is a Federal Commonwealth, common law applies across all of it.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
- Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1788)
America is a big place, but:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
- Article Six, Clause Two of the United States Constitution
The Supremacy clause provides that Federal law is the highest law of the land. Violation of someone's "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" which is precisely what happened with Michael Brown by virtue of the fact that no criminal proceedings will take place, is quite frankly, horrible.
[QUOTE=Rollo;1028978}The Supremacy clause provides that Federal law is the highest law of the land. Violation of someone's "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" which is precisely what happened with Michael Brown by virtue of the fact that no criminal proceedings will take place, is quite frankly, horrible.[/QUOTE]
That's a very nice try at obfuscating. A literal reading of this - "violating someone's life, liberty, or property without due process of law" could be interpreted to mean that to one can be arrested or detained until proven guilty in court. This is obviously not the case anywhere in the world.
The first four words of the amendment are:Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
"No person shall be"...
The thing about reading a sentence is that you need to read the whole sentence.
Brown was killed before proven guilty in court. That is entire unambiguous and still horrible.
.... and the matter with citing law is that you have to understand the law. You are citing constitutional reference that regards the rights of the accused, and that the [i]government[/b] may not violate their rights under due process. The constitutional law exists to protect the rights of all the accused within the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
The law that applies to Brown and the cop is Missouri law, not US code. Being that the physical evidence of both the state and Browns family show that the cops version was correct and that he was backing away from a criminal continuing to charge him, the state found the action of the cop legal and did not charge the cop.
You can't twist constitutional rights and apply them in a form they are not intended for. But by all means, continue acting as if others can't understand a sentence. ;)
:cornfused: Brown was never charged and was never on trial.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Taz I knew that - my post was a joke too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tazio
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by schmenke
He was "deprived of life"; "without due process of law". That is a violation of the Fifth Amendment.
What part of Airshifter's post (#55) did you not understand?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Sorry I'm late to this party, but I will chime in.
The grand jury decision was the correct one. Now to the bafflement on this board that the jury was 75% white, St. Louis county (where the incident took place) is 75% white. That's how they choose grand jurors.
Michael Brown shoudn't have died, but he is largely responsible for his own death. Let's get this clear: this 6-4, 290 pound, 18 year-old adult (not 16 as someone else mentioned) was clearly engaged in thug-ish behavior before and during his encounter with Officer Wilson. Stealing from a convenience store and shoving aside the storekeeper, then walking down the middle of the road in his drug-induced state (THC was in his system), Brown then proceeded to disobey Officer Wilson directive to get out of the street.
This is Darren Wilson's testimony:
After Wilson pulled his car to the side of the road, Brown then punched Wilson while the police officer was still in his car, and tried to grab for his gun. Only after Wilson fired a shot (which hit him in the hand) did Brown start to run. Wilson then exits his squad car and goes after him, ordering Brown to stop. Brown turns around, and with his hand inside his pants (did he have a weapon?), starts to rush Wilson. Wilson, still urging Brown to stop, shoots and hits Brown, who continues to run toward Wilson, who even backpeddles in order to avoid the now significantly wounded Brown. Still moving forward, Brown begins to fall forward as Wilson fires the fatal head shot.
There were a number of conflicting eyewitness accounts, but the THREE coroner examiners corroborated Wilson's testimony. (There was Brown's DNA on Wilson's gun)
Brown's stepfather (you know, the one who in the aftermath of the decision was shouting, "Burn this b#$%* down"!) had served a 5 year sentence for cocaine (or heroine) distribution. I mean, what chance did the young Michael Brown have with that kind of role model around the house?
It's awful that Brown died. And the cops get things wrong sometimes. But the grand jury decision was the only logical one.
Now the Garner case in NYC, that non-indictment was perplexing.
This bit:Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
It's not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
Notwithstanding the fact Cohens v. Virginia (1821) also upholds the fact that state law does not override federal law; certainly not rights.
Brown was deprived of life when he chose to assault a cop who, by law, had a legal right to protect himself and the community.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
The fifth exists to protect citizens against unwarranted prosecution. Had Brown intentionally killed by a cop (or other government authority) without arrest, trial, etc, that would be a violation of the fifth.
In this instance, the right to self preservation would have existed even if Wilson had not been a cop. It's part of that inherent right to life you claim doesn't exist within US law. Based on your attempts to twist the fifth to find fault in the US system, no person would have such right to self preservation. A court would decide if they had that right after they were possibly dead.
You may want to better inform yourself about the facts. Wilson's case was handled by a state court and was not a federal proceeding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo