If you miss targets as easily as you miss points, you should not have a gun.
The cops roll up to point blank range.
The shooter draws his weapon as he is exiting the vehicle.
Based on their positioning and actions, the officers seem intent on shooting the kid from before they enter stage right.
The appearance of justice is not served by taking people to court when there’s no likelihood of conviction. That is using the law to harass innocent people to get revenge.
Yes. So what? It also shows the shooter running to hide behind the car, not something he would have done were he not in fear of being shot.
Because, as has been stated countless times, they need to be in reasonable fear of imminent danger. Someone standing minding their own business does not, absent further information, provide that. Someone facing the police and reaching for a gun definitely does.
In between those, there are many grey areas. But when you’re in one of those grey areas, when you have a video that’s consistent with someone reaching for a gun but doesn’t prove it, you don’t get to use that video as proof of guilt.
It’s almost like you’re intentionally ignoring or misunderstanding this argument.
According to Judge Adrine, there is sufficient evidence to charge the shooter with multiple crimes (including murder, negligent homicide, and more). Looking at everything available (the video plus statements by the shooter) the only evidence that Rice was reaching for his gun comes from the assertions by the shooter. Since we know that the shooter made false statements about multiple aspects of the shooting, and since the video doesn’t show any gun-reaching at all, I think that the shooter’s assertions are not credible. Thus, I agree with Judge Adrine.
The prosecutor cannot reach that conclusion when he is biased by a conflict of interest.
The staff, who locked themselves in a saferoom, and the customers, who were evacuated.
No, if they think I have a gun, they could order me to raise my hands, and, like you seem to have missed me saying, I can’t do that. This is hardly impossible, is it, given the number of cases in this thread alone? It would behoove me to be very wary of going near the police.
Police in Nottingham aren’t routinely armed. And I live in inner East London (Bethnal Green/Hackney borders, on what is called the Murder Mile) so wow, I’m so impressed by your big city hardman talk. I mean, seriously dude, that is funny.
I also am not anti-cop, just anti bad cops. There seem to be too many of them at present.
What I’ve described is the natural result of your argument, reinforced every time you and your buddy Smapti act all indignant and start accusing opponents of wanting to see cops die.
And the video isn’t clear about this alleged reach. A generous interpretation of events is that the cops CREATED the dangerous situation where none existed and had decided, consciously or not, to be hair-trigger sensitive to any perceived hostile movement.
No, it isn’t.
So the DOJ has determined that while the shooting in Ferguson might have been justified (and it probably was). The Police response to the demonstrations was not justified.
This leads me to believe that while Brown might have been lawfully shot, the response to the shooting was the result of a long history of police abuse of local residents.
Imminent. Look it up, since you clearly don’t know what it means.
As I said, if that makes you wary of going near the police, then you and your idiotic paranoia are part of the problem
Not all of them, there are routinely some armed police around. Have been for at least 15 years.
How many times have you had to stay in your house because there was an armed siege on your road? I’ve had to. Fortunately, the competent, armed, police dealt with it relatively quickly. And non-violently, as far as I can tell.
Everybody is anti-bad-cop, except some of the bad cops. The problem is you are assuming that all of them are bad.
Not only can he reach it, but if the evidence is not strong enough to show a likelihood of success he must reach it. He can’t attempt to prosecute the case despite a lack of evidence just to prove to you that he’s not biased, that would be a breach of the defendant’s rights, and a breach of his duty to the public.
You seem to want a trial no matter what. Which is disturbing, frankly.
Those horrible policemen, protecting the law abiding residents of Ferguson from looters, vandals, and arsonists. With dogs, the horror!
The cops literally never do anything wrong in Steophan’s eyes. This is why he gets called a fascist and sycophantic cop-slobber.
Shame on those police for enforcing the law with appropriate force. Next thing you know they’re going to start writing speeding tickets!
Clearly, they should have just stood there with their hands behind their backs and politely asked the criminal mobs burning down the city around them to please not set fires and steal things.
(post shortened)
Who ordered the staff into the safe room? The store manager? The police? The shotgun toter?
At what point in time were they ordered into the safe room? After the shotgun toter had left the store? Before the shotgun toter had left the store?
Who ordered the evacuation of the customers? SWAT? They didn’t arrive until after the shotgun toter had left the store. Was it the store manager?
Why did the shotgun toter rack the shotgun? Did the shotgun toter actually rack the shotgun? Did someone ask the shotgun toter, “Is that thing loaded”, and the shotgun toter responded by opening the breech to show them it wasn’t loaded?
So many questions, so few answers.
According to your linked article:
*The report, which has not yet been issued, says the use of dogs, snipers, and tactical vehicles designed for the military “served to escalate rather than de-escalate the overall situation,” NBC News has learned.
The office “will release the final after-action assessment in the coming weeks, which will convey the findings and lessons learned, following review by the agencies that are involved,” said a Justice Department spokesman, who declined further comment on the initial findings.*
According to Pete Williams of NBC News, an unnamed source leaked unofficial information about a pending DOJ report. It doesn’t get any better than that. :rolleyes:
Your posts are my cite.
So they lied.
Yes, possibly, or he’s just trying to put the car between himself and the results of his actions - it looks more like he’s leaning on it at one point. Probably trying to hold down his gorge.
As some asshole once said - ‘So what?’ That’s after Tamir’s shot (and at the same time as his companion is poking the prone Tamir with his boot, I might add, so clearly one of them was in no fear)