An inconvenient truth

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Photizo, Nov 29, 2014.

  1. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Extortion tax... that's a new one...

    As for your claims the Republican party is the "anti-slavery" and "equal rights" party... that is true - equal rights for all... so long as by "all" you mean "anyone making over $100,000 a year or more"... the republican party is the "lets lay the burden on the lower and middle class and give our rich buddies tax breaks" party.

    Granted, I think the two party system is fundamentally flawed anyway... but yeah...

    EDIT - not to mention they (Republicans) are the "We will shut the government down and cost us billions of dollars for no gain" party... the only ones losing money in a government shutdown are the blue and white collar workers... the government officials still get their paychecks, despite not doing any work... *shrugs* Seems like a real "equalist" party to me...
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bells Staff Member

    What is it with people like you and your ridiculous stereotypes? Nazi democrats now? Really?

    There was no evidence that he was illegally selling cigarettes.

    And the choke hold that the police used is actually banned by the NYPD. In short, the officer used a banned procedure which resulted in a man dying. Not only that, but as the dying man told them he could not breath, the officer maintained the banned choke hold, even after Garner had lost consciousness.

    Just so you are aware, Republicans and Democrats alike find this case to be galling, because the officer broke the rules by which he is meant to perform his duties, on camera, and killed someone because of it. Even your former President commented on the fact that this ruling made no sense and how sad it was that race still played such a big part in life in the US. The reason the choke hold is banned is because police officers had murdered people with it in the past because the maneuver cuts blood and oxygen to the brain, resulting in victims asphyxiating. Hence why it was banned back in the 90's. Which begs the question, why are officers still using it and still killing people with it?

    In the last five years, complaints that an officer used the banned restraint have been concentrated in primarily black neighborhoods. The CCRB says it "is not in a position to further explain how these factors could be determinant," but their report recommends a task force or study group be created to look specifically at information from precincts with a higher number of chokehold complaints.

    Pantaleo had been on the force for eight years when he put Garner in a chokehold -- the average length of time an officer has served when involved in a chokehold complaint is 7.9 years. The data indicate officers who are less experienced and male are more likely to be involved in excessive force complaints.

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    1,519 are all these protests predicated on lies ... ruthless individuals (from the top down) exploiting ignorant and emotionally unstable people to bring about social anarchy. Yea, that's justice alright.

    As I said, I stand by what I wrote and the links posted--and, both Brown and Garner received justice.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    You've got worse since you got that hat.
  8. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    You should talk--that coat your wearing looks like your grandma's housecoat. Some pirate. Try donning a towel instead and pretend your superman.
  9. Bells Staff Member

    I take it the shiny bits in your hat is tin foil? Because your conspiracy theory woo is ridiculous.

    Justice for what? Being black?

    They weren't arrested or tried. And sorry to have to inform you of this, but the police do not count as judge, jury and executioner.
  10. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    The Brown case... I'm on the fence on - from what I understand, there was evidence the officer was struck; from the officers testimony, he fired several bursts and he kept coming at the officer. The fact that all the entry wounds are on the front of Brown also corroborate the idea that Officer Wilson was firing in self defense.

    People claiming that Brown was surrendering... if this was the case, why did he not get on the ground with his hands up? Or better yet, turn around and go prostrate? That's about as "submissive" a position as you can assume... then there is also the video of him robbing a convenience store...

    I dunno. I think that perhaps Officer Wilson could have handled things better, and that the department as a whole, if it had better funding and more equipment (a taser for ever officer, for example), could have prevented this to a degree.


    If Officer Wilson was, as he said, struck several times (which photographs seem to indicate)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Then... well, honestly, I can't say I would have acted much different... especially when you consider:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Officer Wilson - tall, lanky, doesn't appear very physically intimidating nor overly muscular.

    Now... consider Michael Brown

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I would guess around a hundred pounds heavier, much broader and more built

    If he had struck me hard two or three times about the head, I very much doubt I would be in any frame of mind other than "protect myself" mode...

    Does this excuse him being killed? I dont' know... I wasn't there, I wasn't the one in fear for my life. I DO know that if someone larger than me, who had just physically attacked me, started walking towards me while I had a gun pointed at them... yes, I would most likely fire. If they continued coming towards me? Yes, I would probably keep firing until they stopped.
  11. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    That is a cruel thing to say.
    You've only been a Mexican for five minutes, and now you are full of big talk.
    I am a better Pirate than you are a Mexican.
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2014
  12. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    No wonder that there are so many deaths.
    Can't you think of something better to do than pumping bullets into people?
    How about:
    1. Warning him.
    2. If you are a policeman, use something less deadly to stun him.
    3. Fire a warning shot.
    4. Shoot at some part of his body that wouldn't kill him.
    5. If you are not a policeman, why not try running away.
  13. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Wild guess:
    Wilson panicked.
    Perhaps, with better training and comprehension of situational awareness, his reactions could have been less deadly.
    He most likely reacted in panic without a trained path of action.

    Brown was a strongarm thug who pushed his luck too far and had a bad day.

    The braying jackass ghouls who chose to feast on this tragedy for their own ego farts are completely reprehensible miscreants who should be forever ignored.
    And yet, they get exactly what they want from the media who always push for violence so they can line up advertisers to sell everything from soap to luxury cruises.
  14. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member


    Fueling chaos and anarchy through twisted sympathy for those who are lawbreakers and resisting police is downright nuts; such lunacy will never be recognized by me as just. My tolerance for such crap is ZERO! The rap sheet on Garner was extensive...his habitual disregard/disrespect of the law and those charged with enforcing laws resulted in his unnecessary and unfortunate death. That is justice. That none of the so called black 'leaders' attempt to use it as a teachable moment for their 'followers' speaks volumes about the lot of them both leaders and followers. Wake up should be calling them on the carpet...insisting they deal with the problem as it is in truth rather than falling for their BS. They are dishonest race baiters bent on revenge for imagined/manufactured wrongs. Talk about delusional it abounds among this mob...
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2014
  15. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Calling me a mexican tells me you're a tad prejudiced pilgrim, I mean, pirate.
    It prain as day I'm anglo radio personawity. Maybe you change avatar to mister magOO--kindry incrude chinese chauffeur, prease or I consider you white supramacist.
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2014
  16. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member


    First on the list of what to do when dealing with a super-obese man who has lost his temper,
    is to keep out of mangling distance.
  17. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    I like your new look.
    Wearing a Sombrero is not particularly offensive I think.
    Do Mexicans take offence if they see someone wearing one?
    I bet that if you go over the border, the first thing you will see, apart from drug runners shooting each other,
    is shops selling big hats and blankets to tourists.
    Could be wrong.

    Here. A Mexican shop in Mexico.
    With Mexican people wearing Sombreros because people like the costumes.
    If it was offensive they wouldn't sell them.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    How many shops are there selling Nazi Memorabilia in Tel Aviv?
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2014
  18. Bells Staff Member

    Of course you read Jim Hoft. Of course. I should not be surprised.

    Once again, the police are not meant to be judge, jury and executioner. That is not their job. Strangling someone to death is also not their job. They are not allowed to use choke holds and it is banned because it has killed so many people in the past. You are literally defending police strangling someone to death.

    In case you weren't aware, the New York Medical Examiner, ruled that Garner's death was a homicide.

    Pantaleo contends that he didn’t use a chokehold—he says it was a takedown maneuver he was taught by the police department. With the exception of the police union, no one seems to have bought that claim. “It looked like a chokehold to me,” New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio told reporters this summer after viewing the video. The coroner’s report came to the same conclusion, ruling that Garner’s death was a homicide caused by “compression of neck (chokehold), compression of chest, and prone positioning during physical restraint by police.” That’s important. NYPD officers have broad authority to use force to apprehend a suspect, but the department explicitly bars officers from using chokeholds, which have been blamed for the deaths of untold suspects over the past several decades.​

    Worse still, the NYPD lied in its internal report on the incident, leaving out that there had been a choke hold used on Garner and the police also lied and claimed that Garner had not been in any distress during the arrest. It wasn't until someone released the video footage that the truth saw the light of day.

    “I can't breathe!” Garner could be heard screaming. “I can’t breathe!”

    But Pantaleo did not let go. He was seen forcing Garner’s face into the concrete. Four minutes into a seven-minute video clip, four EMTs arrived. But neither they — nor the eight cops standing around as Garner lay on the sidewalk — could be seen trying to help the unconscious man.

    One emergency worker checked Garner’s pulse and told the apparently lifeless man that help had arrived. Then the cops and the worker lifted Garner onto a stretcher and he was driven to a Staten Island hospital.

    The NYPD’s internal report prepared right after Garner died didn’t mention a chokehold and insisted he had not been in “great distress.”

    But the video told a different story

    And you think Garner being strangled to death by the police is justice? By a police officer who had been sued twice before for unlawful arrest and violating police procedures and by a police department that lied in its own internal reports immediately after Garner's death?

    Of course you do.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  19. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    1) he was warned, several times
    2) the policeman in question didn't have anything less deadly - pepper spray has a very limited range (and isn't always effective), and he didn't have a taser (not to mention he just got the loving shit knocked out of him)
    3) warning shot? You obviously know NOTHING about firearms... you don't fire a show PERIOD unless you know where the bullet is going to go - doing so on a street where a random passerby could end up intercepting the bullet is about the dumbest thing you could POSSIBLY do.
    4) Shoot to not kill - from the evidence, he was shot, several times... he KEPT ADVANCING even after being hit... and thus was shot again, and again
    5) Why? Several reasons spring to mind:
    a) you are intervening in someone getting attacked
    b) your family is behind you and you are the only thing between them and the threat
    c) you have already tried retreating, and they followed you
    d) you do not have anywhere to retreat to

    But honestly, points 3 and 5 are moot - 3 is ill-advised in any situation, and 5, well, he was an officer
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    They also corroborate the claim that Brown was surrendering, and that the first burst of missed shots after the two from the car (at least five, probably six) were at a retreating Brown - remember that Brown ended up a fair distance from the car where any actual attack on Wilson took place.
    Here is where we needed a trial - there are several far more plausible scenarios, with corroborating eyewitness testimony as well as agreement with fact, than a bizarrely single-minded and suicidal thug attacking into a firing gun until killed.

    Here's one: if Brown did indeed turn and attempt to surrender, then the pause in the firing makes sense: if Wilson then resumed firing and shot him anyway, even after he had stopped and turned to surrender, Brown's behavior suddenly makes sense - attacking Wilson would have been his only option. He was being shot, and had nowhere to hide.

    Here's another: Wilson had lost it - being winded from chasing Brown, having missed so many shots, angered from being hit (if he was), he unloaded on Brown simply because Brown was nearby and walking.

    And a passing comment:
    Photos indicate bruising to the right side of the jaw and back of the head. That coupled with Wilson's claim that Brown had attempted to take his gun, makes the events of the car fight mysterious - Wilson is inside the car, Brown is outside it. The left side of Wilson's face is toward Brown, and the gun is on the other side of Wilson initially. So what exactly happened? So how does he get bruised on the right side of his face, and how does Brown get any chance at that gun?

    One take on the initial fight, that fits the evidence: Wilson was getting out of the car with his gun drawn, and Brown slammed the car door on him, Wilson tried to shoot Brown and then Brown went for the gun.

    That is also my first guess. That would be a crime, of course.

    We need a trial.
  21. Bells Staff Member


    Let's see how it all adds up.

    Let's look at Darren Wilson's account of that final encounter. On the day of the shooting, Wilson gave a statement about what happened; the statement can be found in this document. Wilson later gave a statement to the grand jury. Certain details differed between the two statements, but the broad strokes of what he described were the same. Because the initial statement was given when the event was fresh in Wilson's memory, it should be more reliable.

    According to Wilson, after Brown began to "charge" toward him in the street,

    P.O. Darren Wilson continued to give Brown commands to stop; however, Brown ignored them. Once Brown got within approximately 15 feet of him, P.O. Darren Wilson indicated he discharged five rounds to stop the threat. According to P.O. Darren Wilson, this did not slow Brown down and he continued to advance. P.O. Darren Wilson discharged two additional rounds; however, Brown continued to advance.
    P.O. Darren Wilson stated Brown then leaned forward and appeared as if he (Brown) was attempting to "tackle" him. P.O. Darren Wilson then discharged one additional round to stop the threat. Brown then fell to the ground, ending the threat.
    To summarize: Wilson claims that Brown was charging toward him, that Wilson began to fire his gun when Brown was about 15 feet away, and that Brown continued to advance without slowing down until the final gunshot stopped him.

    Is there an objective timeline of these gunshots? Fortunately for us (and unfortunately for Wilson, had the prosecution actually been interested in prosecuting the case), there is. A nearby resident who was in an online voice chat at the time obtained audio of all the gunshots fired in the street (that is, the two gunshots that occurred at Wilson's SUV were not included). Here is a visualization of the recording:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    We can see that six shots (marked in red) were fired within a span of approximately two seconds. There was then a three second pause before the seventh shot was fired. The eighth shot came one second later, followed quickly by shot 9 and then shot 10. The total time was 6.572 seconds.
    To reiterate, Wilson claims that Brown was charging toward Wilson throughout the time that Wilson fired these shots. It seems a fair assumption that Wilson's use of the word "charge" would mean that Brown was sprinting. How much ground can a sprinting human cover in 6.572 seconds?

    Let's start, just for curiosity's sake, with the fastest speed ever recorded for a human on foot: 27.44 mph by Usain Bolt. At that speed, Bolt would cover 264 feet in 6.572 seconds.

    Obviously, Brown wasn't an elite sprinter; he doesn't look to have been much of an athlete, period. So let's try to get a more realistic estimate. Your average human isn't going to have a record of their sprinting speed available. One place where humans are regularly recorded sprinting short distances is the NFL combine's 40 yard dash. In 2014, the fastest 40 yard dash time was running back Dri Archer's 4.26 seconds; the slowest was offensive lineman Cyrus Kouandjio's 5.59 seconds. Kouandjio's listed measurements are 6'6", 311 pounds, so he's of similar proportions to Michael Brown's 6'4", 292. Still, Kouandjio is an athlete, unlike Brown.

    Every year at the combine ESPN's Rich Eisen also runs the 40 just for fun, wearing a full suit. This year he ran it in 5.98 seconds.

    The average speeds: a really fast NFL player, 19.2 mph. A really slow NFL player, 14.6 mph. A 45-year-old non-athlete, 13.7 mph. Because these dashes came from stationary starts, these are lower than the top sustained speeds, but I'm more interested in a low-end estimate, so that's okay. Additionally, the National Council on Strength & Fitness says that "the average man can run about 15 mph for short periods."

    Let's be really conservative and say that Michael Brown could only sprint at 10 mph. (For another point of reference to how slow of a "sprint" this would be, world-class marathoners can maintain 12 mph for two hours.) Even at 10 mph, he could have covered 96 feet in 6.572 seconds.

    To summarize: Darren Wilson claims that he started shooting at Michael Brown when Brown was 15 feet away and charging toward him, and that Brown continued to advance without slowing until the final shot was fired. A conservative estimate of the distance Brown would have covered if he was continuously charging for the duration of the shots is more than 90 feet.

    The bottom line: Wilson's description of the events is simply impossible given the physical evidence

    Now, to reiterate, this is based solely off Wilson's own words. One could argue that perhaps Brown was walking towards him when he said "charge". But this was not what Wilson testified to. In fact, Wilson was very clear in describing Brown's movements. In testifying about the sequence of events, from when both he and Brown had stopped running (after the scuffle in the car), here is how Wilson described Brown running towards him. Not walking, but running towards him and how Brown did not stop even after he shot him. 15 feet, running without stopping. This is what Wilson testified to:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Now, unless Brown was taking little baby steps in his "running" towards Wilson, he'd have not only gone past Wilson, but would have been several dozens of feet past Wilson if he was running as Wilson described.

    And this is where the lies gets even more pathetic. Wilson testified that he had backpedaled (apparently he can run backwards that fast) and that Wilson had been charging/running at him as though to tackle him. He testified that he had shot "a series of shots" at Brown and then he had backpedaled when Brown did not stop running at him and then shot him again.

    The audio obtained of that particular shooting incident? Here is what they found from the audio recording of those few seconds when Wilson testified he was shooting at Brown when Brown was apparently running at him and not stopping over those 15 feet and that he had backpedaled while Brown was charging him:

    Clark said the recording has a three-second pause after the first six shots before the final four shots. His experts were also able to confirm that the shots were all taken from within a three-foot radius – there was only one shooter and that person was not moving.
    Inconvenient truth indeed.
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2014
  22. Bells Staff Member

    One other thing as well, regarding the struggle and the fight in the police car. Wilson testified that he was fighting for his life and that he drew his weapon because he was being punched hard enough to make him feel concerned that he would pass out on the next punch:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Wilson explains that he couldn't protect himself while reaching for his mace or a blunt object like his flashlight, so instead he reached for his gun.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Upon further questioning, Wilson says he was afraid Brown was about to punch him to death.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Here is a photo of Officer Wilson, taken shortly after the altercation with Brown. You know, the altercation where he testified he was being punched so hard that he thought he would pass out...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    This was interesting.

    Wilson testified that in the scuffle in his car, he shot his gun and that shot went through the door and window. The scuffle through his car window continued. After the initial shock of the first shot wore off, he testified that Brown came at him again, with his hands and his face through the car window. He then testifies that he shielded his face with his arm and fired his gun without looking.. Literally..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    So much for as long as you know where the bullet is going to go, you don't shoot, huh? He not only had his face and his eyes shielded, but he openly admitted to shooting his gun without looking where it was pointing at...

    It was at that point that Brown ran away from the car and Wilson gave chase.
  23. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Indeed a possibility - without any actual recording of it, though, we just have what we are being told, both by Officer Wilson and by bystanders.

    Again, a possibility, and one I won't discount since we don't have video evidence to show us what happened.

    Easy enough - I would presume Wilson would turn to look at Brown as he is talking to him - if Brown leads with a sucker punch from his left fist, he could easily impact the right side of Wilsons head. If he grabs at the gun and at Wilson, he could easily pull his head down and strike the back of the head (and odd maneuver for sure) or grab his head to slam it against something in the car. As for getting at the gun - assuming it is in a hip-holster, one could conceivably reach across the officers lap and make a grab at it. Now, granted, my instinct as soon as an apparently hostile person attempted to lean into the car would be to put her in gear and take off - he'd either be knocked off or so busy hanging on he couldn't do much else.

    Which makes sense - if he had just been struck repeatedly, he would be getting out with the gun drawn.

    Possible - these are police officers, not soldiers. They are given training, yes, but it is not drilled into them the way a soldiers is - for soldiers, it becomes almost muscle memory and instinct... police (even State Troopers) don't often get that kind of intensity.

    (I had to cut your quote... this goddamn 10k character limit SUUUUCKS)

    To the first points Bells:

    This is something that having the video cameras on officers would help to mitigate - doing math and figures to find out how much ground someone can cover is great - how fast can someone "run" backwards? I dunno... I know I myself can move at a pretty good clip backwards just for shits and giggles... if my life were to be on the line, I'm sure I could kick it up a few gears. Actual speed? No idea... none whatsoever, as I've never bothered to check it - maybe tomorrow I'll go to our gym and test myself on the treadmill (assuming I dont' bust my ass doing so) and let you know.

    I would ask, though... if it was Wilson's intention to murder Brown regardless after the initial confrontation at the vehicle... wouldn't he have shot Brown in the back, especially if he was that "scared" or "enraged"?

    As for the timing - if Brown was hit with one of the initial volley, is it not possible he slowed down or staggered? Now, yes, if that is the case, Wilson most likely WOULD have paused to re-evaluate... if he still felt threatened, he should have fired again. Again, this is a time where having cameras on an officer to record what is going on would be very useful.

    Additionally, it is possible Wilsons perception of distance and time was off (especially if he "tunnel visioned", which is a common issue when under stress - soldiers, especially, have to be trained NOT to do this and keep their "head on a swivel" as it were) - not saying this would invalidate anything per say, just throwing it out there (remember, he says he felt fearful enough for his life to warrant ending another life... adrenaline would be pretty well peaked at this point)

    (again, quote cut due to character limit)

    Indeed - you should not fire unless you know what is beyond your target... the risk of hitting something, or worse, someone, are too great. Unfortunately, this is something many forget in the heat of the moment - it's why hunters accidentally shoot their buddies (too focused on their target to look around (tunnel vision)), it's how blue on blue can occur in warfare, and it's how people accidentally hurt others at shooting ranges. In this case - I would say at the absolute least, he should be reprimanded for firing wildly.

    To be clear - I'm not saying what Wilson did was necessarily right or wrong - I'm just trying to look at the potentially big picture and think of how I would react in such a situation; after all, officer or not, he's still just a man, and is just as fallible as you or I.

Share This Page