So your argument is that a cop can’t use his firearm until after the suspect has been tried and convicted?
That same presumption you are utterly failing to give Wilson? The person who is actually entitled to it in this discussion? You fucking moron.
We have evidence that could show either a shooting in self defence or a callous murder. So, we presume innocence. Or at least, we should.
The protests in Ferguson continue. One was held at a 24 hour Walmart, to draw parallels with the killing of John Crawford in Ohio. The police arranged for the Walmart to be closed without warning, then made arrests for trespassing.
Four observers from the National Lawyers Guild witnessed the proceedings. One of them happened to be black. He was a law professor from a nearby college. He wore a blue button down shirt and a bright green hat that said, “Legal observer.” His name was Justin Hansford. He was the first to be cuffed and arrested: he had never before seen the inside of a prison cell.
We are all diminished.
I thought presumption of innocence dealt with whether the accused committed the crime at all, not whether it was justified? I didn’t think there was a question that Wilson DID it, factually. I mean, why couldn’t one argue that we should presume the victim innocent first?
And as opined in another thread, the police have sort of wasted a lot of goodwill and presumption of trust by their own actions these past few decades.
If it was justified, there was no crime. If someone kills in justified self defence, they have done nothing illegal. As I’ve pointed out in other threads, killing someone is not a crime, there have to be other elements satisfied as well. That the vast majority of intentional killings, and a significant amount of unintentional ones, are in fact criminal doesn’t mean you can presume that any given one is.
And OK, presume the victim innocent if you like. That doesn’t change anything. What matters for self defence is whether a reasonable person would have been in fear of death or serious injury at the point of using deadly force, not whether the threat was real. So, even if Brown was innocent, and his actions blameless, if they nonetheless provoked such fear, and such fear was reasonable, Wilson’s actions in killing him were legal.
I was not aware that being a lawyer exempted you from trespassing laws or allowed you to disrupt business on private property with impunity.
You should presume the victim is innocent only until you have evidence to the contrary. And we have evidence to the contrary. We have video evidence that proves Michael Brown will physically assault people to get away with committing a crime, which makes the police officer’s claim that he was trying to physically assault someone to get away with committing a crime much more credible.
I have never once on any forum EVER hated or been annoyed by a poster, not once before today. I have found even trolls are often amusing or occasionally add to a conversation.
But you, you’re like a bot. You’re useless junk cluttering up conversations.
I think you will inspire me to investigate the ignore feature.
I suppose sticking your fingers in your ears is easier than trying to defend an unruly mob chanting and disrupting business inside a crowded store and refusing to leave to the point that the police had to be called.
Yeah, we really need to do away with that stupid right to peaceably assemble.
Since when is the pet food aisle of a grocery store an appropriate venue for a protest?
And you have the right to keep people off your property. WalMart isn’t a public square, it’s a private business and if they don’t want you on their property, they’re well within their rights to have you removed.
I don’t even care, I know nothing about the particular protest or the particular guy arrested. I’m not an expert on Ferguson, or that Walmart.
I’m just sick of your bot like defense of any police action, enough! We get it, you like cops. I like cops too that aren’t jackasses.
Hell I felt in the picture in the article was manipulative and unfair, crop a picture and you can show white cops leveling off with black protestors. Maybe Ferguson only has white cops on the force, a million other reasons etc I actually liked your posts in my cop bashing thread.
If by your own admission you “know nothing of Ferguson or that WalMart” then why were you upset by what happened and why did you get angry at Smapti for asking a legitimate question.
FTR, I’m not a fan of him.
I don’t recall defending the cop that started shooting at a guy reaching for his ID about 2 seconds after first talking to him. Or the cops that were pulling women over for sex. I don’t want to see the police abusing their power or turning to violence too readily.
That’s not the case here. These protestors are essentially trolling the police, knowing that the media and a lot of people on the left will take their side immediately if they’re arrested and decry the “abuse of police power” without knowing the facts. The protest described above happened in the pet food aisle of a crowded grocery store, which is neither a public place where people have the right to assemble nor an appropriate venue for a protest - they were intentionally disrupting business and making a scene in the hopes of getting the police involved, and by the author’s own account, he was an active participant in the disruption, not just some impartial bystander. His putting on a special hat and acting indignant that the police would dare to arrest a “legal observer” (which, IANAL, but I’m pretty sure that’s not a thing) is yet another attempt at creating a scandal where none exists. This is Propaganda 101, plain and simple.
Business was not disrupted: it was a 24 hour Walmart: police apparently persuaded managers to close it. When the protestors were told to leave, they headed towards the door. Then they joined hands. Then the black legal observer was apprehended, without warning. The four white legal observers were not.
Eyewitness testimony: [INDENT]Customers began gathering and taking pictures with their cell phones. The clapping and chanting continued: “Hands up! Don’t shoot!” Meanwhile, the police wanted the protesters to leave. They waved their arms toward the door, and the protesters complied, making their way to the front of the store. I followed close behind. The protesters then locked arms and continued to chant. As I stood about 5 or 10 feet away, trying to not get in the way, my arm was suddenly twisted. I was being handcuffed.
Without warning and before I could think, I was led away with both hands behind my back. It was surreal. I was the first person arrested. The protesters were chanting and singing and making noise, and the police walked right past them to arrest me first. The only thing that differentiated me from a random customer standing and watching and taking pictures was my green legal observer hat. And there were four other legal observers there. The police walked right past them and arrested me. The only thing that differentiated me from the other observers was the fact that I was black.[/INDENT]
Let me interpret this charitably as indicating you have not read the article. Or perhaps you read a different article. Where did you get the idea that protesters refused instructions by Walmart staff?
We know you’re an asshole, but you manage that quite nicely even when dealing with the facts. Try not to exacerbate it by lying, or failing to read the document that you claim to be referencing.
It does give me a great idea for this year’s Halloween costume, though.
I’m going as :
The Inside of Smapti’s Head
Imagine the horrors, the craven fears, the night terrors that lurk within!
Either that or Princess Ariel. I mean, I was in the Navy.
What does that have to do with anything? Are you under some illusion that you can only kick a disruptive crowd out of a store if it’s closed? Or that being open for business means you’re allowed to do whatever you want and the property owners can’t do anything about it?
In other words, they did not leave and took an action indicating that they had no intention of leaving.
Notwithstanding the fact that “legal observer” is not s thing, I’d say he had ample warning.