They didn’t even remove Brown’s *body *for four hours.
Yes, but I don’t agree that I was ignoring it. My point was that the value of the life of a criminal should not be part of the calculation.
True, but irrelevant. The discussion is about what the desirable goal is. If criminals respond to different tactics by becoming more violent, then police would also need to respond to better protect themselves.
There were several audio experts involved in the Martin/Zimmerman debacle. They’re main claim was that the other audio experts didn’t know what they were talking about. The Florida court didn’t accept their claims as evidence. Maybe the Missouri court is more tolerant of self-proclaimed experts and audio evidence? Maybe the FBI can prove that this “breaking” evidence is actually legitimate evidence?
Which implies what, specifically?
In my opinion, a lack of respect for they life that was taken.
No. No one is saying any of those things.
The point is that there are two versions of the world being discussed here. The more law-and-order types are saying, among lots of other things, that when you are the kind of person, like Michael Brown, who commits crimes, then when you get killed by the police you’ve gotten no more and no less than what you’ve bargained for. If you don’t fuck with the bull, you don’t get the horns, more or less. Shodan said that the reason he hasn’t been arrested for a felony is that he doesn’t commit felonies. In other words, he’s categorically excluded from the kind of person who might get killed by the police: there’s criminals and then there’s us. In that version of the world, every person has a choice: be a criminal, and possibly get killed by the police if things go badly for you, or don’t be a criminal, and thus have no reason to fear. If you’re a criminal, these rules apply; if not, don’t worry about it. If a person who gets killed by the police then turns out, when you check the label, to have been a criminal, well there you have it. The wages of sin is death, sort of thing.
In the other view of the world, whether or not you’re fucking with the bull has a lot to do with circumstances that are not your own to control. Whether you’re a “criminal,” and what kind of criminal you are, is often more a matter of somebody’s opinion than concrete fact, and has only partial influence over whether you find yourself confronted with police officers. Being in a car with alcohol and marijuana, for instance, can either be interpreted as youthful hijinks, or as part of a criminal enterprise, depending on what the car is, where it is, and who you’re in it with, and depending on those things you can be either much more likely or less likely to ever be in a position to find out what the police think. Teenagers leaving a store with the store owner’s property might need a good talking to, or they might be hardened thugs, depending on what they look like, where the store’s located, and how the proprietor treated them. Moreover, some people will be called criminals even though they aren’t, and many people will not be called criminals even though they are! And some people are much more likely to be called criminals when they aren’t, and some people are much more likely not to be called criminals even though they are. In this version of the world, the label criminal has a lot more fluid meaning, and is a much less concrete grounds to base any significant differences on.
Lots of people do shitty, inexcusable things. All, in fact. Most do things that are actually criminal offenses or would be charged as criminal offenses in different circumstances. Only some of them are, by virtue of the shitty things they do, classified as shitty and irredeemable people. That kind of system of categorization can cause all kinds of problems down the line when you’re treating one category of people one way, and another category a different way, when you don’t have legitimate reasons for drawing the distinctions in the first place.
And when you look at the world as being one of those versions as compared to the other, you’re going to have a very different idea about what’s an acceptable amount of accidentally-dead criminals.
Are you deliberately misrepresenting Holder’s words to score some bullshit point?
(Hint: the answer is yes. Yes, you are.)
Yes, both before and after the fact. A lack of respect so profound that they didn’t even consider it a human life.
What does it imply to you, doorhinge? Since you asked the question.
When did the coroner’s office authorize the removal of the body from the crime scene?
Did the coroner arrive later that expected? Was there some medical evidence question that needed to be answered BEFORE the body could be removed? Do you suspect that the coroner was sampling the stolen cigars for taste and smoothness instead of clearing the body for removal?
You asked a question and then you answered your question. You don’t need my participation to talk to yourself.
Please answer the question.
How did you address the other aspect? I must have missed it.
I don’t follow this. If police are constrained from shooting criminals until it becomes more apparent that these people intend to shoot the police, this would seem to give the criminals something of an edge. Are you just speculating about some hypothetical method for the police to “better protect themselves” that you expect someone else to come up with, or do you have something specific in mind?
[This is besides for my other point that you did not respond to.]
RE: Recently released audio of 10 shots
Serious study of the techniques employed by this Major Playa to get his groove on is warranted. We can learn a lot from his calm and thoughtful phrasing and his ability to focus on the end game, keeping his eyes on the prize despite a major discharge of gunfire seemingly outside his window. Didn’t miss a beat!
Daaaamn! You know he tapped dat!
The coroner’s office has the authority to remove the body from a crime scene, not the police dept. The police would have waited for the coroner’s permission to remove the body. Which I alluded to in my other post.
Questions as to why it took four hours should be directed to the coroner’s office. Are they overworked, understaffed, were there medical evidence questions that required more time to answer? Should a plastic sheet have been used to cover the body even if there were a risk that it would disturb evidence, remove GSR, or contaminate the crime scene by adding foreign matter?
Please answer the question.
It was a crime scene. The State Attorney’s office wants to minimize the possibility of someone altering, removing, or adding to the evidence that the SA may need to prosecute, if a prosecution is warranted. Don’t move the body until the coroner has authorized its removal.
Please refer to the earlier posts describing their indifference toward doing anything of the kind.
Then please answer the question about what that implies.
Please restate the question.
You asked it, you interpret it. What does leaving Brown’s body to lie there for hours imply to you?
Assuming the audio is legit a pause could also be a jam or misfire, in my competition handgun shooting days I had a couple and only takes a second or two to clear