Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, August 01, 2014

OT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video

As Gov. Chris Christie prepares to cap off his trip to New Hampshire tonight with a fundraiser at a minor-league baseball game, the Democratic National Committee has released a online video taking a swing at the Republican governor’s handling of New Jersey’s economy.

The clip is modeled after an old-time newsreel — the kind that would have been shown in movie houses when Babe Ruth ruled the baseball diamond in the 1920s.

It notes that under Christie — a possible candidate for the Republican nomination for president in 2016 — New Jersey has among the highest property taxes and slowest job growth in the U.S.

“On his economic record, Chris Christie strikes out,” the video’s narrator says.

Bitter Mouse Posted: August 01, 2014 at 09:10 AM | 6359 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: new jersey, politics, video

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 56 of 64 pages ‹ First  < 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 >  Last ›
   5501. Group Captain Mandrake Posted: August 26, 2014 at 02:48 PM (#4779438)
#5373 I stopped driving decades ago, but I stopped making left turns before that. Just seemed so much easier.


Where I live, there is literally only one road (and a crowded one at that), aside from residential streets in neighborhoods connected by only that one road. Thus, every round trip from home requires 2 left turns. It's a real pain sometimes.
   5502. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 26, 2014 at 02:54 PM (#4779441)
Are people for real that they avoid left turns? I don't know whether to take this seriously.
   5503. Ron J2 Posted: August 26, 2014 at 03:01 PM (#4779451)
#5502. Well for me it was more like a general rule than an absolute. More like no left turns where there's any kind of traffic.

There's a Mythbusters segment on this.

Here

No left turns took longer but saved fuel.
   5504. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 26, 2014 at 03:07 PM (#4779452)
No left turns took longer but saved fuel.


I don't think that would work with my Hybrid*. it doesn't really idle, it mostly just shuts down when I am sitting waiting at a light or wherever.

* Yes, I drive a hybrid. Shocking I know. I bought it in 2006, before any of the recent and good electric cars. Take a wild guess what I will buy next.
   5505. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: August 26, 2014 at 03:08 PM (#4779455)
Take a wild guess what I will buy next.


A bicycle?
   5506. Howie Menckel Posted: August 26, 2014 at 03:11 PM (#4779457)
A new residence in the inner city?

#crosstopic
#ikid
   5507. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: August 26, 2014 at 03:18 PM (#4779461)
I can't imagine the beaches in Hawaii are that much better than the beaches in the Caribbean, so, pass.


I freely admit that they are not collectively better beaches than the better beaches in the Carribean. Some are quite good, or at least acceptable, but if forced to rank best beaches I've been to, Hawaii wouldn't scratch top 10. (I'm sorry Waikiki is simply a really nice postcard, Orient Beach by comparison in St. Martin is a much better scene for that kind of busy beach crowd.)

It's still in the U.S., so that's a draw to some, and certainly those on the west coast who merely have to fly 4 ish hours on the way out, a little faster on the way back. Hawaii has many other draws than the beaches though. Many non-beach features of carribean islands include total crap holes with faux shopping and one casino after another. I love Hawaii (the four islands I've visited), but certainly wouldn't go back again w/o business/first from the eastern half of the U.S.
   5508. bunyon Posted: August 26, 2014 at 03:20 PM (#4779464)
I know flying can be a pain, but jeez, you guys really like to complain a lot. When the revolution or zombie apocalypse or whatever comes, I'm not sure any of you are going to be the ones to populate the post-apocalypse.

If I survive the initial apocalypse, I plan on going out on an orgy of chocolate, waffles and beer. I pity the folks lacking a chronic condition that will give them a speedy exit.
   5509. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 26, 2014 at 03:45 PM (#4779477)
Hawaii has many other draws than the beaches though.


I am going to Hawaii in October (first time ever) for a family wedding. I will be spending a week, Oahu and Maui. So what should I see and do? Pearl harbor and such are on the list (of course).
   5510. Lassus Posted: August 26, 2014 at 03:46 PM (#4779478)
Calling Srul, Srul, please come to the thread.
   5511. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 26, 2014 at 03:47 PM (#4779480)
A bicycle?


Funny.

A new residence in the inner city?


Much funnier. An actual laugh out loud in fact.
   5512. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 26, 2014 at 03:47 PM (#4779481)
Anytime I have the time to spare I'm driving, I hate the airline experience that much.

Get something like this, and driving becomes an even better experience.
   5513. Group Captain Mandrake Posted: August 26, 2014 at 03:52 PM (#4779482)
There's a Mythbusters segment on this.

Here

No left turns took longer but saved fuel.


Yeah, I'm not sure how that works. If the trip took more time, that means the engine was running longer. And the trip was also longer in terms of distance driven, so the engine was propelling the vehicle more distance. So how exactly does running your engine longer and harder save gas? The episode didn't explain.
   5514. Howie Menckel Posted: August 26, 2014 at 03:59 PM (#4779486)
"An actual laugh out loud in fact."

thanks. can be tough to convey nuance on the internet. clearer with a wink emoticon, but funnier when it's deadpan and properly taken that way.
:)

"I will be spending a week, Oahu and Maui. So what should I see and do?"

Maui has volcano Haleakala. You're supposed to leave at like 4 a.m. to see the sunrise at the top, but who wants to do THAT on their honeymoon? On the other hand, at sunset it felt like one was walking on the moon, with fog so thick you couldn't see your own feet.

The Road to Hana on Maui is a scenic drive that is partly lessened by the honking and frowning of the locals, who don't take so kindly to dopey tourists. The flea market is fun - it's just a big flea market, but you have all the great scenery around.
   5515. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 26, 2014 at 04:06 PM (#4779490)
Can someone explain to me how that's exculpatory, though? He's firing at a fleeing, unarmed man. How is that okay?
Police cannot shoot someone just because they are running away, but they can shoot a fleeing felon who poses a danger to the public. If he punched a cop in the face and tried to grab the cop's gun, as Wilson is going to claim, then Wilson could arguably be justified in using deadly force to stop him from escaping. But my point isn't that the tape exonerates Wilson; my point is that the tape doesn't affect his story. If one thinks it unjustified to shoot Brown based on the circumstances, the tape won't help him -- but if one thinks he was justified, the tape won't hurt him.
   5516. bunyon Posted: August 26, 2014 at 04:06 PM (#4779492)
You can also backpack through Haleakala, or bike down it (rent a bike, they drive you to the top and you ride to the coast).

Of course, my advice would be to see sunrise from Haleakala and then catch the next flight to the Big Island.
   5517. Ron J2 Posted: August 26, 2014 at 04:08 PM (#4779493)
#5513 I'm guessing that it's because there's less changes of speed. (UPS says it's mostly about avoiding idling, which makes Mouse's comment on point)

UPS claims that in the past decade they've saved, "nearly 38 million litres of gasoline in North America". And they're not the only company to try and avoid left turns. Canada Post designs their routes to minimize left turns. So does FedEx. (neither has a hard and fast rule like UPS. And even UPS does some left turns, just as few as is possible in high traffic situations.
   5518. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 26, 2014 at 04:14 PM (#4779495)
Did you notice how CNN's account of the autopsy findings in that story are biased in favor of the officer? It doesn't explain that Baden said Brown could have been shot while fleeing:

Dorian Johnson, a friend of Brown's who was walking with him at the time of the shooting, said the officer shot Brown once by the police car and again as he ran away.

According to Johnson, Brown was struck in the back and then turned around and put his arms up as the officer kept shooting.

But a friend of Wilson said Brown mocked the officer and charged at him before the shooting began.
Really? That's what you complain about? Here's what I'd complain about in that excerpt: on the one hand, it quotes an eyewitness describing Wilson doing something wrong. But then it sets that off against a "friend of Wilson" who very clearly is not an eyewitness. Why would we care what a "friend of Wilson" said?
   5519. BDC Posted: August 26, 2014 at 04:18 PM (#4779500)
I'm no fanatic, but I have several regular routes where I go a bit further to avoid a left turn. I didn't realize I was saving the planet in the bargain, though. I thought I was a wimp, but come to find I'm a genius.
   5520. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 26, 2014 at 04:19 PM (#4779502)
Police cannot shoot someone just because they are running away, but they can shoot a fleeing felon who poses a danger to the public. If he punched a cop in the face and tried to grab the cop's gun, as Wilson is going to claim, then Wilson could arguably be justified in using deadly force to stop him from escaping.


I've been quoting from Paul Cassell of Volokh and he explains that here:

So the officer seems to have knowingly shot and killed Brown. Would this automatically be second-degree murder?

Of course not, because not every police killing is second-degree murder. Police are authorized to use force, including deadly force, in appropriate situations. As I discussed two days ago, Missouri has a broad statute authorizing police officers to use force when making arrests, including deadly force. The statute provides (in relevant part):

3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only
. . .
(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested
(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or
(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or
(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.

As I also discussed two days ago, this statute is patently unconstitutional, at least to the extent that it purports to authorize deadly force to apprehend any fleeing felon regardless of the danger of that felon. While interesting issues can arise about the extent to which a criminal defendant can rely on an unconstitutional statute, my sense (without having researched the issue in detail) is that the statute will be construed to authorize deadly force only to the extent consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Tennessee v. Garner, that is, deadly force is permissible when the fleeing suspect posed “a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others.”


There's more to his piece that is relevant, but I don't want to lift the whole thing. If the people screaming murderer bloody murderer here (TShipman, Sam, Misirlou, BrianBenson, etc.) are actually interested in the legal issues involved in prosecuting Wilson, I suggest they take a look at what Cassell has written about the case.
   5521. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 26, 2014 at 04:35 PM (#4779513)
Really? That's what you complain about? Here's what I'd complain about in that excerpt: on the one hand, it quotes an eyewitness describing Wilson doing something wrong. But then it sets that off against a "friend of Wilson" who very clearly is not an eyewitness. Why would we care what a "friend of Wilson" said?


Well, yeah, the entire article was a mess. I thought of highlighting other issues but I was lazy.

TShipman should note, however, that if there was no isolated "first shot" at the car (as the audio recording if authentic seems to indicate) then it calls into question Dorian Johnson's account. Johnson said:

"The officer is approaching us and as he pulled up on the side of us, he didn't say freeze, halt or anything like we were committing a crime. He said, 'Get the F on the sidewalk.'

After Johnson said the officer thrust open the door of his patrol car, hitting the pair, Johnson said the officer grabbed Brown around the neck and tried to pull him through the window. He said Brown never tried to reach for the officer's weapon.

"The second time he says, 'I'll shoot,' a second later the gun went off and he let go," Johnson said. "That's how we were able to run at the same time. The first car I see, I ducked behind for because I fear for my life. I'm scared. I don't know what's going on. I don't understand why this officer is shooting his weapon at us."


So:

1. Johnson says there was an isolated first shot.

2. Johnson said Brown never reached for the cop's gun; Brown's fingerprints on the gun would disprove that.

Continuing:

According to Johnson, the officer pursued Brown and fired another shot. which struck Brown in the back. He said Brown turned and faced the officer with his hands raised.


As noted, and already discussed, no shot struck Brown in the back. Could be sloppy reporting of what Johnson said, on USA Today's part. Could be that Johnson just meant that Wilson was shooting at Brown while running away. But it's an issue to be dealt with.

"My friend started to tell the officer that he was unarmed and that he could stop shooting (him)," Johnson said. "Before he could get his second sentence out, the officer fired several more shots into his head and chest area. He fell dramatically into the fatal position. I did not hear once he yell freeze, stop or halt. it was just horrible to watch."


So this part would support the "pause" on the audio. Of course, the cop will claim that the pause was just before Brown started charging at him.

(I won't quibble with the "into the chest area." Brown was not shot in the chest, but no reasonable person could expect Johnson to really know that one way or the other. This is distinct from the "in the back" issue. Someone was either shot in the back, or he wasn't. If he wasn't then he still could have been shot from behind while running away. But "in the head and chest" encompasses shot from the front, so the same issue is not present.)

Johnson said he could tell Brown was in pain after the shooting.

"It hurt him a lot," he said. "I could see it in his eyes. It was definitely like being shot like an animal.

"I definitely think (the officer) is guilty of murder."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/13/ferguson-missouri-teen-shooting-witness/13992387/
   5522. Srul Itza Posted: August 26, 2014 at 04:35 PM (#4779514)
Sunrise on Haleakala is a big tourist thing, but what they don't tell you is that it is damn cold until the sun comes up and warms things up. Even in summer, after all night up high, if you go for sunrise on Haleakala you should bring some winter clothes with you, or at least take a blanket from your hotel. There are a number of tours that will take you up and bring you down, so you are not driving that road in the dark. There are excursions into the crater, by horse. There is bike riding down the hill, for the brave.

The Hana Highway is absolutely gorgeous. I have driven it and biked it. The red sand beach in Hana tends to be clothing optional. The idea that the locals are mad and honk at you is garbage. But if you go, pack a picnic lunch and drive down to the Keanae Peninsula, to the end of the road to eat it. This is a lovely volcanic outcropping with taro patches and churches. At the end of the road, you come to an area where you can park, look back at the Maui coastline with watching the waves break against the lava rocks in front of you.

If you like scuba or snorkeling, plan to take an excursion out to Molokini, the top of a submerged crater.

If you are interested in good, local, lesser known restaurants on Maui, here are my standard recommendations:

1. Tiffany’s, Wailuku; sports bar/local food. $$.
2. Da Kitchen, Kahului; local food/big portions. $$.
3. Star Noodle, Lahaina; Contemporary noodle dishes. $$.
4. Quatros, Kihei; Asian/Hispanic/Euro fusion. $$$
5. Ichiban Restaurant, Kahului; local/Japanese/sushi. $$.



There are four main attractions at Pearl Harbor -- the Arizona Memorial, the Bowfin Submarine Museum, the USS Missouri, and the Pacific Aviation Museum. The Arizona is like a pilgrimage; the Missouri is a fascinating place to visit. I recommend the Bowfin only for submarine freaks like me.

The walk up Diamondhead is fairly easy, and has a nice view.

For restaurants on Oahu, the best and the most insanely expensive is Alan Wong's. Hanauma Bay is the main snorkeling spot. You should rent a car at least one day and plan on a drive.

If you get to Oahu, send me an e-mail. The only problem is that I will be in California at a 4 day seminar late in the month.

   5523. Group Captain Mandrake Posted: August 26, 2014 at 04:37 PM (#4779516)
Thanks Ray. I read the linked article, and while it seems mostly fair and balanced, I couldn't help but get annoyed by this:

And, of course, if it turns out that Michael Brown was in fact charging directly towards the officer (as recent reports have suggested), the officer’s actions will have been justified under state law and no charges should be filed.


The bolded part was a hyperlink in the article. I clicked on it, and the "recent reports" were nothing more than a link to the CNN story about the officer's friend "Josie's" call to a talk radio station. That he gave unwarranted credence to that nonsense is troubling.
   5524. Srul Itza Posted: August 26, 2014 at 04:38 PM (#4779518)
Following up: The drive to take on Oahua is to go around the island, counter-clockwise, stopping at various scenic points. When you get up to the north shore, you stop at one of the shrimp wagons for lunch -- Giovanni's is my favorite. When you get to Haleiwa town, you go to Matsumoto's for shave ice, then drive back through the middle of the island.
   5525. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: August 26, 2014 at 04:42 PM (#4779523)
The drive to take on Oahua is to go around the island, counter-clockwise, stopping at various scenic points.


Are left turns involved?
   5526. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 26, 2014 at 04:44 PM (#4779525)
Thanks Srul!
   5527. Howie Menckel Posted: August 26, 2014 at 04:49 PM (#4779530)

"The idea that the locals are mad and honk at you is garbage."

Maybe I caught them on a bad day? I found it a little amusing to realize that if you live in paradise, after a while it becomes just background to you, and you're trying more to get from A to B. But it wasn't just one or two drivers; it was quite a few of them.
   5528. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 26, 2014 at 04:51 PM (#4779533)
The bolded part was a hyperlink in the article. I clicked on it, and the "recent reports" were nothing more than a link to the CNN story about the officer's friend "Josie's" call to a talk radio station. That he gave unwarranted credence to that nonsense is troubling.


Fair enough, but I think you're missing the point of his post, which was not to take a side, but rather to explain how the various fact patterns would affect the analysis.

   5529. Group Captain Mandrake Posted: August 26, 2014 at 05:01 PM (#4779537)
Fair enough, but I think you're missing the point of his post, which was not to take a side, but rather to explain how the various fact patterns would affect the analysis.


Yeah, no, I got it. And it was informative. I couldn't figure out what would prompt him to link to a story about unsubstantiated hearsay reported by an anonymous person to a talk radio show and give it the weight of "reports show...". he had to know what he was linking to. It calls to question either his competency or his biases.
   5530. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 26, 2014 at 05:03 PM (#4779539)
Probably because everyone to a person expects Wilson to claim that Brown was charging at him.
   5531. tshipman Posted: August 26, 2014 at 05:20 PM (#4779549)
If the people screaming murderer bloody murderer here (TShipman, Sam, Misirlou, BrianBenson, etc.) are actually interested in the legal issues involved in prosecuting Wilson, I suggest they take a look at what Cassell has written about the case.


I read the whole piece. Cassell says that the case hinges on whether or not the cop had a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary. I don't see how that squares with shooting after a fleeing, unarmed 18 year old.

The fleeing, unarmed 18 year old was exactly the scenario presented in TENNESSEE v. GARNER, the case cited. The Supremes held that in that exact situation, deadly force was not appropriate.

From the wiki summary of the case:
The use of deadly force against a subject is the most intrusive type of seizure possible, because it deprives the suspect of his life, and White held that the state failed to present evidence that its interest in shooting unarmed fleeing suspects outweighs the suspect's interest in his own survival.


Further:
The court then found that based on the facts in this case, the Tennessee statute failed to properly limit the use of deadly force by reference to the seriousness of the felony.


I struggle to see how shooting after a fleeing, unarmed 18 year old--even if he punched the cop, which I find unlikely--could possibly be justified by a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary to apprehend the suspect. Even if Brown later charged the cop, you can't justify shooting after a fleeing, unarmed man.
   5532. Group Captain Mandrake Posted: August 26, 2014 at 05:27 PM (#4779552)
I read the whole piece. Cassell says that the case hinges on whether or not the cop had a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary. I don't see how that squares with shooting after a fleeing, unarmed 18 year old.

The fleeing, unarmed 18 year old was exactly the scenario presented in TENNESSEE v. GARNER, the case cited. The Supremes held that in that exact situation, deadly force was not appropriate.


Here's the problem as I see it. Cassell says the Missouri law is unconstitutional. But if Wilson is acquitted due to an unconstitutional law, it's not like the state can appeal and have a higher court overturn it.
   5533. tshipman Posted: August 26, 2014 at 05:29 PM (#4779554)
Here's the problem as I see it. Cassell says the Missouri law is unconstitutional. But if Wilson is acquitted due to an unconstitutional law, it's not like the state can appeal and have a higher court overturn it.


States cannot continue to enforce laws that have been ruled unconstitutional.

Cassell talks about that, and links at the bottom to a piece that describes jury instructions.

Edit:
Here's the relevant text of the jury instructions:
First, the Law Enforcement officer is making or attempting to make a lawful arrest or what he reasonably believed to be a lawful arrest and the law enforcement officer reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape of the offender, and
Second, the LEO reasonably believed that the offender was attempting to escape by the use of a deadly weapon or would endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay and the LEO reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was immediately necessary to effect the arrest of the offender.
   5534. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 26, 2014 at 05:48 PM (#4779559)
I read the whole piece. Cassell says that the case hinges on whether or not the cop had a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary. I don't see how that squares with shooting after a fleeing, unarmed 18 year old.

The fleeing, unarmed 18 year old was exactly the scenario presented in TENNESSEE v. GARNER, the case cited. The Supremes held that in that exact situation, deadly force was not appropriate.


Yes, and that's why the cop's story will be different from the facts of Garner - and it's why the cop's legal team will work hard to try to show that the facts are not as you have summarized them above -- if the cop wants to have any chance of avoiding a murder conviction. That's why the cop will claim that Brown attacked him and then went for his gun before fleeing. (Presuming the evidence will show that Brown was fleeing.)

Mind you I agree that even if the cop were to get a jury to believe that Brown attacked him and then went for his gun, if the jury nevertheless finds that Brown was shot at while fleeing, it's going to be difficult for the cop to escape a murder charge. If the cop shot at Brown while Brown was fleeing and the cop had no (quoting from Garner) "articulable basis to think" that Brown was armed -- as it seems he does not -- then that is a very big factor and it's going to be hard for the cop to justify the shooting.
   5535. tshipman Posted: August 26, 2014 at 05:52 PM (#4779561)
If the cop shot at Brown while Brown was fleeing and the cop had no (quoting from Garner) "articulable basis to think" that Brown was armed -- as it seems he does not -- then that is a very big factor and it's going to be hard for the cop to justify the shooting.


This is why it confuses me so much that people are talking about Brown charging or surrendering. It pretty much shouldn't matter legally (except unless the DA wanted to make a charge of 1st degree murder, which seems unlikely).

The key issue is whether Wilson shot after a fleeing, unarmed man. From what I've seen, this appears to be undisputed. The NYT, for example, implied that the stories were similar up to that point.

The cop's story has to be that he did not shoot until Brown charged him. That doesn't appear to be supported by any of the eyewitnesses.
   5536. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 26, 2014 at 05:57 PM (#4779566)
Aside: So on the way home i got caught behind a UPS truck which turned left to end up in front of me.
   5537. zenbitz Posted: August 26, 2014 at 06:00 PM (#4779567)
Take a wild guess what I will buy next.


Elevator shoes?
   5538. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 26, 2014 at 06:05 PM (#4779569)
This is why it confuses me so much that people are talking about Brown charging or surrendering. It pretty much shouldn't matter legally (except unless the DA wanted to make a charge of 1st degree murder, which seems unlikely).


I just explained how Brown attacking Wilson and going for his gun plays in to what Wilson has to show. As I said, I'm not convinced it would be enough for a jury to acquit on murder, but it's not a frivolous argument either. Going for a cop's gun is not a small matter that a jury is likely to just brush off.

The key issue is whether Wilson shot after a fleeing, unarmed man. From what I've seen, this appears to be undisputed.


"Josie" disputes it. :P

I say that sarcastically. Obviously whatever this Josie said doesn't count for anything in trying to figure out what happened. But I do think her comments are relevant in that I expect the cop's story to basically align with them.

In any event, Josie says that there was an isolated first shot as Brown went for Wilson's gun (again, running counter to the audio of the shots) and that Wilson pursued Brown but yelled freeze (I don't recall any other witness supporting that he yelled freeze) and then shot at Brown after Brown charged him.

The NYT, for example, implied that the stories were similar up to that point.

The cop's story has to be that he did not shoot until Brown charged him. That doesn't appear to be supported by any of the eyewitnesses.


Wilson is an eye witness.

I say that seriously. His statement/report would be evidence.
   5539. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 26, 2014 at 06:10 PM (#4779573)
Maybe the cop's story will be that he was following behind Brown trying to apprehend him non-violently when Brown turned around at him. It will be interesting to see where the shell casings are and thus where Wilson was when he shot at Brown relative to where Brown was.
   5540. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 26, 2014 at 06:16 PM (#4779577)
A worthwhile timeline of how a bit of make believe got reported on Fox News as "fact." Righties should hold their noses and read it even though it's Salon. It's about the "broken eye socket" lie.
   5541. tshipman Posted: August 26, 2014 at 06:17 PM (#4779579)
I say that sarcastically. Obviously whatever this Josie said doesn't count for anything in trying to figure out what happened. But I do think her comments are relevant in that I expect the cop's story to basically align with them.

In any event, Josie says that there was an isolated first shot as Brown went for Wilson's gun (again, running counter to the audio of the shots) and that Wilson pursued Brown but yelled freeze (I don't recall any other witness supporting that he yelled freeze) and then shot at Brown after Brown charged him.


Here's the NYT summary I keep referring to:

Some of the accounts seem to agree on how the fatal altercation initially unfolded: with a struggle between the officer, Darren Wilson, and the teenager, Michael Brown. Officer Wilson was inside his patrol car at the time, while Mr. Brown, who was unarmed, was leaning in through an open window.

Many witnesses also agreed on what happened next: Officer Wilson’s firearm went off inside the car, Mr. Brown ran away, the officer got out of his car and began firing toward Mr. Brown, and then Mr. Brown stopped, turned around and faced the officer.


If that is accurate, I don't see how Wilson isn't guilty.
   5542. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 26, 2014 at 06:25 PM (#4779581)
A worthwhile timeline of how a bit of make believe got reported on Fox News as "fact." Righties should hold their noses and read it even though it's Salon. It's about the "broken eye socket" lie.


I started reading that piece but the piece is a train wreck.

The "broken eye socket" story was from "anonymous police sources." Anonymous sources shouldn't be taken seriously. No actual person (not the police chief, not Wilson, not a witness who would be identified) claimed that Wilson had a broken eye socket -- indeed the piece you link to even concedes that the police chief only said "swelling" -- and so there was no "lie." You're pretending that an actual person in the cop's camp publicly lied, when in actuality some right wing hacks ran with something. Yawn.
   5543. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 26, 2014 at 06:26 PM (#4779582)
If that is accurate, I don't see how Wilson isn't guilty.


The Wilsonite play from the start has been to present "nigga bum rushed me." Their entire strategy from the point where Wilson's name was released has been to turn Micheal Brown into a violent street thug. That's the point of the video. That's the point of everything they've done to date. They want a cop said/angry black gangsta said narrative.
   5544. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 26, 2014 at 06:27 PM (#4779584)
You're pretending that an actual person in the cop's camp publicly lied, when in actuality some right wing hacks ran with something.


No. This is not posted as an indictment of the cops. This is an indictment of the Wilsonite defense league on the right.
   5545. Group Captain Mandrake Posted: August 26, 2014 at 06:27 PM (#4779586)
Maybe the cop's story will be that he was following behind Brown trying to apprehend him non-violently when Brown turned around at him. It will be interesting to see where the shell casings are and thus where Wilson was when he shot at Brown relative to where Brown was.


From the audio tape of the shooting, about 6.5 seconds from first shot to last. If that story is to be believed, it was either a very slow "bum rush", or the cop was over 100 feet away when he started shooting. If he was moving as slow as 10 MPH, which would be a pretty slow "charge" (14.4 feet/sec), that covers over 90 feet in 6.5 seconds.
   5546. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 26, 2014 at 06:32 PM (#4779590)
Here's the NYT summary I keep referring to:

"Some of the accounts seem to agree on how the fatal altercation initially unfolded: with a struggle between the officer, Darren Wilson, and the teenager, Michael Brown. Officer Wilson was inside his patrol car at the time, while Mr. Brown, who was unarmed, was leaning in through an open window.

"Many witnesses also agreed on what happened next: Officer Wilson’s firearm went off inside the car, Mr. Brown ran away, the officer got out of his car and began firing toward Mr. Brown, and then Mr. Brown stopped, turned around and faced the officer."

If that is accurate, I don't see how Wilson isn't guilty.


Because the cop would have reason to believe that a huge man who had just attacked him and grabbed for his gun would pose a threat to the cop or to others if allowed to escape.

Would that be enough for the cop? I don't know. But I don't know why you're trumpeting that NYT snippet. The snippet doesn't tell us who was doing the attacking. Did Brown slam the door on the cop and then grab for his gun? Or did the cop try to pull Brown through the window and shoot him?
   5547. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 26, 2014 at 06:34 PM (#4779592)
The Wilsonite play from the start has been to present "nigga bum rushed me."


Didn't you tell me a few pages ago, Sam, that nobody was claiming that the cop killed Brown because the cop was a racist?

Do you want to retract that, or do I have to go back and dig the conversation up?
   5548. Srul Itza Posted: August 26, 2014 at 06:35 PM (#4779595)
Maybe I caught them on a bad day? I found it a little amusing to realize that if you live in paradise, after a while it becomes just background to you, and you're trying more to get from A to B. But it wasn't just one or two drivers; it was quite a few of them.


I have done the Hana highway more than once, and never had that happen.

It must have been you. ;-)
   5549. tshipman Posted: August 26, 2014 at 06:44 PM (#4779598)
But I don't know why you're trumpeting that NYT snippet. The snippet doesn't tell us who was doing the attacking. Did Brown slam the door on the cop and then grab for his gun? Or did the cop try to pull Brown through the window and shoot him?


I'm highlighting that snippet because there's a consensus among witnesses that Wilson fired on a fleeing suspect, which is what we were talking about.

It's possible that Wilson's defense will be that: a) He didn't shoot until Brown charged, and b) even if he did shoot, it was totally justified because Brown punched him earlier.

I think B will be a tough sell, but maybe I'm wrong.
   5550. Group Captain Mandrake Posted: August 26, 2014 at 06:49 PM (#4779602)
It's possible that Wilson's defense will be that: a) He didn't shoot until Brown charged, and b) even if he did shoot, it was totally justified because Brown punched him earlier.

I think B will be a tough sell, but maybe I'm wrong.


As will a, given the length of time the cop was shooting. 100 feet away is too far to justify shooting an unarmed man. Much closer and there's no way he could have been advancing for over 6 seconds at any pace faster than a brisk walk. And if Brown was within say 50 feet and advancing slowly, how is the jury to believe than none of the first 6 shots incapacitated Brown? Is "I'm really a terrible shot" to be part of the defense, that he couldn't hit a large slowly moving target from 50 feet away?
   5551. BDC Posted: August 26, 2014 at 06:56 PM (#4779604)
It's possible to CSI Brown's death to bits, but I think the central point is that we, their employers, would like to see cops shoot us less often.
   5552. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 26, 2014 at 06:57 PM (#4779605)
I'm highlighting that snippet because there's a consensus among witnesses that Wilson fired on a fleeing suspect, which is what we were talking about.


But as I've been trying to explain, the fact that Wilson fired on a fleeing suspect does not necessarily make him guilty of murder. You keep announcing that he fired on a fleeing suspect as if it ends the ballgame. If Wilson had probable cause to believe that Brown posed a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others and the shooting was necessary to prevent Brown's escape, it's not murder. Garner held:

"We conclude that [the use of deadly] force [to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon] may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

I note that in the Garner case the suspect was simply breaking into a home and then tried to escape, and there was no indication that he was a threat to do violence to anyone. (The Court found that simply breaking into a home even at night was not enough to say that the suspect was a significant threat to anyone.) That's why Wilson will try to claim here that Brown attacked him and went for his gun. That raises the threat above the level of the Garner suspect. Is it enough for Wilson? I don't know. I suspect not.
   5553. Howie Menckel Posted: August 26, 2014 at 07:02 PM (#4779609)

"I have done the Hana highway more than once, and never had that happen.

It must have been you. ;-) "

I would cop to that as a Jersey guy, except the angry locals weren't directing their ire at me.
:)

Plus let's just say I was in a pretty good mood that week and have been ever since, airline-seat comments notwithstanding!

   5554. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 26, 2014 at 07:08 PM (#4779611)
I think if there's a reasonable basis to believe that Brown attacked Wilson, punched him, and then went for Wilson's gun before attempting to flee, the state would be trying for too much with a second degree murder charge. I think a jury would be more comfortable with manslaughter. This is why I wonder whether Missouri would allow a jury to consider both second degree murder _and_ manslaughter, or if the prosecution would have to pick.

On the other hand if every witness says "Wilson attacked Brown first and tried to pull him into the car and shoot him, and then shot at him after he fled" then a murder charge would be fine.

That's why I say that your NYT snippet outlining the "agreement" doesn't resolve anything. It's significant exactly how the initial contact escalated into a fight.
   5555. tshipman Posted: August 26, 2014 at 07:12 PM (#4779617)
If Wilson had probable cause to believe that Brown posed a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others and the shooting was necessary to prevent Brown's escape, it's not murder.


Yes, I agree that is correct.

However, articles/summaries are not taking that position. The Cassell article, for example, says, "And, of course, if it turns out that Michael Brown was in fact charging directly towards the officer (as recent reports have suggested), the officer’s actions will have been justified under state law and no charges should be filed."

That's not correct. Brown's charge or non-charge is largely immaterial except in the degree of the offense if Wilson shot after the fleeing suspect. Indeed, Brown charging the officer might have been the only possibility for him to prevent his own death.

If Wilson shot after the fleeing suspect, as apparently eyewitnesses agree on, he needs to show that it was reasonable for Brown to be considered a threat to others or himself. A threat to Wilson is a tough sell, given that Brown had run away from him. A threat to others would be sort of a leap, but maybe cops can get away with that nonsense.
   5556. tshipman Posted: August 26, 2014 at 07:20 PM (#4779622)
I think if there's a reasonable basis to believe that Brown attacked Wilson, punched him, and then went for Wilson's gun before attempting to flee, the state would be trying for too much with a second degree murder charge. I think a jury would be more comfortable with manslaughter.


Sure, I agree with this. It might even get down to involuntary manslaughter. But that hasn't been the discussion. The discussion has been whether Wilson will be convicted of *anything*.
   5557. greenback calls it soccer Posted: August 26, 2014 at 07:20 PM (#4779623)
A threat to Wilson is a tough sell, given that Brown had run away from him.

Is this something that a jury would have difficulty keeping straight? Brown wasn't charging at the time the first six shots were fired, and he wasn't grabbing at a gun, and he wasn't strong-arming anybody, but could the defense torture some logic and claim he is a charger/gun-grabber/strong-armer by nature? Certainly Rickey's favorite right-wing hacks would buy into this idea.
   5558. Howie Menckel Posted: August 26, 2014 at 07:23 PM (#4779625)
I would think there would be a lot of pressure all around for a plea deal unless the cop has evidence on his side we don't know about yet, correct?

If we don't get much more evidence than we have now (but we might), then either a not guilty verdict or a 2nd-degree murder conviction, for example, both seem like powder kegs (the former even more so, of course - only one person died here).

   5559. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 26, 2014 at 07:47 PM (#4779632)
Yes, I agree that is correct.

However, articles/summaries are not taking that position. The Cassell article, for example, says, "And, of course, if it turns out that Michael Brown was in fact charging directly towards the officer (as recent reports have suggested), the officer’s actions will have been justified under state law and no charges should be filed."

That's not correct. Brown's charge or non-charge is largely immaterial except in the degree of the offense if Wilson shot after the fleeing suspect. Indeed, Brown charging the officer might have been the only possibility for him to prevent his own death.


I agree that Wilson has to show that he was justified in shooting at a fleeing Brown (presuming that's what happened) and if he wasn't justified in shooting at a fleeing Brown then he wouldn't be justified in later shooting at a charging Brown. For one thing, Wilson would lose his self-defense claim if it were found that he was the aggressor or instigator and had provoked Brown into charging him.

(And not that this is relevant, but I've never heard of a person being shot at from a distance deciding that his only hope was to *charge* the shooter from that distance; it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. But, whatever.)

If Wilson shot after the fleeing suspect, as apparently eyewitnesses agree on, he needs to show that it was reasonable for Brown to be considered a threat to others or himself. A threat to Wilson is a tough sell, given that Brown had run away from him. A threat to others would be sort of a leap, but maybe cops can get away with that nonsense.


I think the threat to others would have to be an immediate threat.

Actually, though, from re-reading Garner I think I underestimated above the strength of Wilson's argument if it were found that Brown attacked him and went for his gun before fleeing. That alone would seem to justify shooting at a fleeing Brown, per Garner. Garner says this:

"Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where [471 U.S. 1, 12] feasible, some warning has been given."

(And thus we can see why "Josie" claims that Wilson shouted Freeze.)
   5560. tshipman Posted: August 26, 2014 at 07:57 PM (#4779635)
(And not that this is relevant, but I've never heard of a person being shot at from a distance deciding that his only hope was to *charge* the shooter from that distance; it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. But, whatever.)


If you're 10 feet away from a cop, and he's already shot at you while you were running away, you at least have a shot at charging and disarming. Standing still just means you die. Corpses can't file complaints.

(And thus we can see why "Josie" claims that Wilson shouted Freeze.)


Also explains the changing stories on the "armed robbery." First Wilson knew about it, then he didn't know about it, then he suspected it in between calling the two young men over and shooting at Brown.
   5561. Srul Itza Posted: August 26, 2014 at 08:24 PM (#4779646)
I would cop to that as a Jersey guy, except the angry locals weren't directing their ire at me.
:)


Thing is, everyone here knows what the Hana Highway is like. It is a long, winding road, filled with one lane bridges and tourists gawking and stopping to take pictures. You can't really make time on it, and nobody expects to unless they are going really, really early in the morning or late at night -- i.e., in the dark when you can't see anything.

If you have a good car with high clearance, or a four wheeler, you are better off going around Kaupo side (if the road is not completely washed out).

And a huge percentage of Hana makes what living they can off the tourists, renting cabins, etc. So they don't look to piss them off.
   5562. Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos Posted: August 26, 2014 at 08:36 PM (#4779648)
It's possible to CSI Brown's death to bits, but I think the central point is that we, their employers, would like to see cops shoot us less often.

I would also like to see someone besides the local police force investigating cases where one of their colleagues kills someone.
   5563. Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos Posted: August 26, 2014 at 09:01 PM (#4779658)
In the past month, then, we've had

1) Michael Brown. Y'all know this one.

2) Eric Garner. Y'all know this one too (though it may perhaps be news that the guy who took the video tape and his wife have each since been arrested.)

3) Dillon Taylor. The unarmed kid in Utah who was killed by a cop. This one happened in a city where cops are equipped with cameras...however, the police department is refusing to release it, despite protests.

4) Victor White. I guess this one was from March 3rd, but the autopsy results are back. The headline--Handcuffed Black Youth Shot Himself to Death, Says Coroner--says it all. (Though it leaves out that the police officers on seen initially said that he shot himself in the back while handcuffed in the back of the cop car after being frisked; the coroner's report reveals he was shot in the chest.)

5) Armond Bennett. Also Louisiana. A couple weeks ago, was pulled over in a traffic stop by a police officer and wound up getting shot in the head. (He somehow survived, but upon release from the hospital he was sent to jail for marijuana possession.)

Fortunately, this incident took place in a city where police officers are required to wear cameras. Unfortunately, this police officer forgot to turn hers on during this stop (despite the fact that she was stopping a suspect who had successfully resisted arrest and escaped during their last confrontation.) Tough luck!

....Am I missing any others?
   5564. Group Captain Mandrake Posted: August 26, 2014 at 09:07 PM (#4779662)
....Am I missing any others?


That other guy in St Louis about a week after the Brown shooting. Robbed a convenience store at knifepoint and was filmed standing around eating his ill gotten snacks when the cops show up and blow him away 15 seconds later.

edit: A link to the video of the shooting is on post 4504.
   5565. Kiko Sakata Posted: August 26, 2014 at 09:09 PM (#4779666)
Am I missing any others?


There was one in Chicago over the weekend. Sadly, officer-involved shootings are fairly common here.
   5566. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: August 26, 2014 at 09:41 PM (#4779678)
   5567. Srul Itza Posted: August 26, 2014 at 10:55 PM (#4779718)
Robbed a convenience store at knifepoint and was filmed standing around eating his ill gotten snacks when the cops show up and blow him away 15 seconds later.


Outlaw life is hard, ain't it.
   5568. bobm Posted: August 26, 2014 at 11:19 PM (#4779727)
[5513]

[U.P.S.] employs what it calls a “package flow” software program, which among other hyperefficient practices involving the packing and sorting of its cargo, maps out routes for every one of its drivers, drastically reducing the number of left-hand turns they make (taking into consideration, of course, those instances where not to make the left-hand turn would result in a ridiculously circuitous route).

Last year, according to Heather Robinson, a U.P.S. spokeswoman, the software helped the company shave 28.5 million miles off its delivery routes, which has resulted in savings of roughly three million gallons of gas and has reduced CO2 emissions by 31,000 metric tons.


NYT 12/07: Left-Hand-Turn Elimination
   5569. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 26, 2014 at 11:20 PM (#4779728)
Ray,

I have not argued that Wilson shot brown due to racial animus. I have argued that he got his dick stepped on and lost his ####. The only racism of note in the stop is the systemic racism of the police department (which seems deep and pervasive.)

I hVe argued that the coverup / defense of Wilson post shooting is racist.
   5570. Howie Menckel Posted: August 26, 2014 at 11:26 PM (#4779730)

"taking into consideration, of course, those instances where not to make the left-hand turn would result in a ridiculously circuitous route."

i.e., Manhattan
   5571. bobm Posted: August 26, 2014 at 11:29 PM (#4779731)
http://www.cnet.com/news/ups-turns-data-analysis-into-big-savings/

The biggest example of how this is working is found in the aggregate daily idling time of the thousands of trucks in the UPS fleet, Levis explained. By mining the data, the company was able to determine that drivers tended to leave their trucks idling for about 15 minutes longer per day than is necessary. According to the company, that equates to 25 gallons of fuel per driver per year, and about 1.4 million gallons per year in the United States alone.


http://www.autonews.com/article/20080616/OEM/306169916/ups-gas-saving-creed:-drive-right-never-idle

But the benefits are real. Idling the engine of a UPS vehicle is the cardinal sin. The company has determined that just 10 seconds of idling uses more fuel than stopping and restarting the engine on a delivery and that saving minutes of idling time brings immediate cost savings. For over-the-road vehicles, UPS has installed governors that shut down the engine after five minutes' idle time.

Right turns involve less idling time for vehicles and, in general, don't require rapid-acceleration starts, also known as jackrabbit starts, to take advantage of a scant gap in traffic. For a delivery fleet, another benefit of right turns is that they leave the vehicle on the right-hand side of the road, where most delivery stops are made.

Branch notes that there's nothing particularly magic about the right turn for fuel saving. Instead, she says, it's the use of advanced route planning coupled with bar-code logistics technology that allows UPS to know where every package in its system is, where the package needs to be, and how to load and handle packages for maximum efficiency.
   5572. bobm Posted: August 26, 2014 at 11:52 PM (#4779739)
   5573. Shredder Posted: August 27, 2014 at 12:46 AM (#4779759)
You forgot the guy who was shot at Wal Mart while holding a BB Gun that he picked at the Wal Mart in question.
   5574. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: August 27, 2014 at 01:14 AM (#4779766)
And a huge percentage of Hana makes what living they can off the tourists, renting cabins, etc. So they don't look to piss them off.


I too endorse driving through to the 'other side'. It definitely helped to have a bit higher clearance on the vehicle. I remember noticing gas prices over a $1 higher than I had ever seen in the mainland. I'd put the drive up there with just about any other in the U.S. besides the Beartooth Hwy.
   5575. BrianBrianson Posted: August 27, 2014 at 03:38 AM (#4779780)
It's totally unreasonable to even debate whether it's reasonable for Brown to have charged or not. In the two seconds after I've been shot while fleeing for my life, I don't make reasonable decisions. No one does. Or, if they do, it's totally by accident.

It's possible to CSI Brown's death to bits, but I think the central point is that we, their employers, would like to see cops shoot us less often.


Maybe. Maybe cops mostly shoot people when it's the reasonable course of action. At a minimum, though, it would be desirable for them to produce explanations for why they shot someone, rather than just offering us a map to a short pier. I can't honestly say whether Wilson shooting Brown was reasonable. All the evidence I've seen suggests "no", but I don't know for sure. I do know for sure it's unreasonable for the department to say "We're not going to release the relevant facts and statements for the public to ascertain whether it's reasonable or not." Here, there's no uncertainty.
   5576. Lassus Posted: August 27, 2014 at 07:55 AM (#4779788)
"taking into consideration, of course, those instances where not to make the left-hand turn would result in a ridiculously circuitous route."

i.e., Manhattan


I'd think just the opposite, Manhattan would be the easiest place to do this. Short blocks, grid system. Try that out in the exurbs or less-urban industrial areas and you'd be way more screwed.
   5577. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 27, 2014 at 08:30 AM (#4779795)
You forgot the guy who was shot at Wal Mart while holding a BB Gun that he picked at the Wal Mart in question.

DON'T SHOOT-UM! ME ON YOUR SIDE!
   5578. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 27, 2014 at 08:51 AM (#4779806)
Maybe. Maybe cops mostly shoot people when it's the reasonable course of action.

I think it also bears considering how many officers are killed in the line of duty.

From this site: http://www.odmp.org/search/year

Line of Duty Deaths: 68
Assault: 1
Automobile accident: 15
Fire: 1
Gunfire: 29
Gunfire (Accidental): 1
Heart attack: 7
Motorcycle accident: 2
Struck by vehicle: 3
Vehicle pursuit: 2
Vehicular assault: 7


It appears at least 37 cops have been directly killed in the line of duty (29 from gunfire, 1 from assault, and 7 from vehicular assault) in 2014.

Estimates I've seen suggest about 400 people are killed by police every year in the US, which would prorate to ~265 at this point in the year.

Is that a reasonable ratio? I have literally no idea. But, the police are certainly at some real risk.

To contrast this, zero police officer have been killed in the UK in 2014, and 12 total in the past 10 years.
   5579. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 27, 2014 at 08:56 AM (#4779809)
I read the whole piece. Cassell says that the case hinges on whether or not the cop had a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary. I don't see how that squares with shooting after a fleeing, unarmed 18 year old.

The fleeing, unarmed 18 year old was exactly the scenario presented in TENNESSEE v. GARNER, the case cited. The Supremes held that in that exact situation, deadly force was not appropriate.
No. You and Ray are underthinking this. The fleeing suspect being armed is sufficient, but not necessary, to justify a shooting. The issue is whether the cop reasonably believes that the fleeing person poses a serious danger. The fleeing person carrying a gun is one way to show that, but not the only.

In Garner, there was no weapon, and the only thing the cop knew was that the person had burgled a house. So he couldn't identify a serious danger. Here (the cop will say) that Brown viciously assaulted him without provocation and tried to grab his gun. Someone who would do that is in fact a serious danger. (Or, at least, a jury could so find.)
   5580. Ok, Griffey's Dunn (Nothing Iffey About Griffey) Posted: August 27, 2014 at 08:58 AM (#4779810)
   5581. BrianBrianson Posted: August 27, 2014 at 09:05 AM (#4779815)
   5582. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 27, 2014 at 09:11 AM (#4779818)
It's a lower limit, not an estimate.

OK, 400 or 1000 doesn't really make that much of a difference. I'm sure some large number of them aren't justified.

But, how many people every year act in a way that justifies the use of deadly force by police?
   5583. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 27, 2014 at 09:12 AM (#4779819)
Basically, the odds are about even that a cop will be killed by a criminal with a gun as they are that they will die by crashing their car or just having a heart attack on duty. That does not justify the way cops shoot civilians.
   5584. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 27, 2014 at 09:20 AM (#4779821)
Basically, the odds are about even that a cop will be killed by a criminal with a gun as they are that they will die by crashing their car or just having a heart attack on duty. That does not justify the way cops shoot civilians.

I agree that it seems that cops are too eager to shoot.

My only point is that there are a substantial number of officer killings, which must certainly influence the mindset of cops when they're on the street.
   5585. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 27, 2014 at 09:26 AM (#4779825)
My only point is that there are a substantial number of officer killings, which must certainly influence the mindset of cops when they're on the street.


29 shootings is not a "substantial number" in the US. That's the equivalent of the Sandy Hook victims, basically.
   5586. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 27, 2014 at 09:28 AM (#4779828)
That does not justify the way cops shoot civilians.


Being a cop is crazy difficult. I am as bleeding heart as can be, but still. There are over 600,000 cops in the US (according the the never wrong inter-tubes and a 5 second search) and millions upon millions of guns all in a society that is pretty darn violent (and has been for a long long time).

Can and should steps be taken to minimize death and injury on both sides of the LEO divide? Obviously yes. Just as obviously many many of those 600,000+ are bad apples. But most are good and hard working men and women. Baby, bath water (and all that).

None of that justifies individual acts by bad apples, nor does it justify the fact that cops are rarely held accountable when they do screw up. But let's not pretend they have an easy job and are majority bad actors and/or fascist thugs. Because that is just not so. Yes I have several cop friends, and while I have strong disagreements with all of them on some issues, they are all good guys who try to do the right thing. They also are crazy protective of their own and seem to have a siege mentality, which makes it very hard to root out the bad apples, sadly.
   5587. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 27, 2014 at 09:31 AM (#4779829)
As will a, given the length of time the cop was shooting. 100 feet away is too far to justify shooting an unarmed man. Much closer and there's no way he could have been advancing for over 6 seconds at any pace faster than a brisk walk. And if Brown was within say 50 feet and advancing slowly, how is the jury to believe than none of the first 6 shots incapacitated Brown? Is "I'm really a terrible shot" to be part of the defense, that he couldn't hit a large slowly moving target from 50 feet away?
"I had just been punched really hard in the face; I could barely see straight."

"Even though it went against my training, I really didn't want to kill him. So I shot to wound. Only after he kept coming did I fire the shots that killed him."
   5588. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 27, 2014 at 09:35 AM (#4779831)
Being a cop is crazy difficult. I am as bleeding heart as can be, but still. There are over 600,000 cops in the US (according the the never wrong inter-tubes and a 5 second search) and millions upon millions of guns all in a society that is pretty darn violent (and has been for a long long time).

Can and should steps be taken to minimize death and injury on both sides of the LEO divide? Obviously yes. Just as obviously many many of those 600,000+ are bad apples. But most are good and hard working men and women. Baby, bath water (and all that).

None of that justifies individual acts by bad apples, nor does it justify the fact that cops are rarely held accountable when they do screw up. But let's not pretend they have an easy job and are majority bad actors and/or fascist thugs. Because that is just not so. Yes I have several cop friends, and while I have strong disagreements with all of them on some issues, they are all good guys who try to do the right thing. They also are crazy protective of their own and seem to have a siege mentality, which makes it very hard to root out the bad apples, sadly.


Well said.
   5589. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 27, 2014 at 09:39 AM (#4779832)
None of that justifies individual acts by bad apples, nor does it justify the fact that cops are rarely held accountable when they do screw up. But let's not pretend they have an easy job and are majority bad actors and/or fascist thugs. Because that is just not so.
Very few cops unjustifiably kill people. A significantly bigger number unjustifiably use force on people, or shoot people's dogs or destroy their property while conducting a search. A huge percentage cover for those in the first two groups.

(That doesn't even address the "legitimate" use of force that in a reasonable place would be deemed illegitimate, such as no-knock raids on people's homes in the middle of the night to search for drugs. )

Remember, a cop recently published an op/ed in the Post saying, "Do what I say or I'll beat you." He thought this attitude unremarkable enough that he could say it and nobody would think it outrageous and there would be no repercussions. And lo and behold: no repercussions.
   5590. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 27, 2014 at 09:46 AM (#4779836)
He thought this attitude unremarkable enough that he could say it and nobody would think it outrageous and there would be no repercussions. And lo and behold: no repercussions.


Wait a minute, are you suggesting there should be repercussions for a cop expressing his opinion in an editorial? I disagree with that cop (and said so at the time), but what kind of repercussions do you think there should be for the crime of expressing his opinion?
   5591. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 27, 2014 at 09:49 AM (#4779839)
   5592. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 27, 2014 at 09:50 AM (#4779841)
I agree that Wilson has to show that he was justified in shooting at a fleeing Brown (presuming that's what happened) and if he wasn't justified in shooting at a fleeing Brown then he wouldn't be justified in later shooting at a charging Brown. For one thing, Wilson would lose his self-defense claim if it were found that he was the aggressor or instigator and had provoked Brown into charging him.
No, he wouldn't lose it. A jury could, but need not, find that. It could find the initial shots unjustified, but separate from the second half of the encounter, in which Brown charged Wilson and wouldn't stop. Or Wilson could testify that the first shots were warning shots. Against every PD's policy that I am aware of, but not criminal. (Or, rather, it would be an unrelated crime.)

"He assaulted me and grabbed for my gun, but when he couldn't get it, he started to flee. I yelled for him to stop, and when he didn't, I fired a couple of warning shots up into the air. I know I shouldn't have, but I didn't want to kill someone. He stopped and turned around, but when I ordered him to the ground, he charged at me, so I had no choice but to fire again, killing him."

If he's credible and that's consistent with the forensic evidence, that's all he needs. Maybe a slap on the wrist for the warning shots.
   5593. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 27, 2014 at 09:56 AM (#4779844)
Wait a minute, are you suggesting there should be repercussions for a cop expressing his opinion in an editorial? I disagree with that cop (and said so at the time), but what kind of repercussions do you think there should be for the crime of expressing his opinion?
A cop does not have the right to express the opinion that he can beat you up if he wants. Or, rather, he has very right to express that opinion, but not every right to retain his job while so doing. (I'm not just making a normative statement here; that's legally true.) As a matter of the 1A, he can't be fired for saying that he supports Obamacare or likes the war in Iraq, but he can be fired for aging inappropriate things related to his job. (I'm oversimplifying the legal tests by putting them in layman's language, but that's the gist.)
   5594. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 27, 2014 at 09:58 AM (#4779845)
Polling update
Generic Congressional Poll: continues its wide swings from poll to poll, but aggregate remains fixed (Dem + 1.4)

Obama Job approval -9.9 (it's almost literally been fixed between -8 and -12 since last December, a couple weeks ago it looked like it was going to break -12 and head further south, but nope not yet)

Senate:
The upshot: GOP 67% (trend for the Upshot is towards the GOP)
Princeton Election Consortium: Dems 65% (trend is towards the Dems)
Monkey cage; GOP 58% (trend is towards the Dems)
RCP no toss ups, GOP 52, Dems 48
Pollster: Dems 50, GOP 50
   5595. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 27, 2014 at 10:05 AM (#4779847)
   5596. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: August 27, 2014 at 10:07 AM (#4779849)
A cop does not have the right to express the opinion that he can beat you up if he wants. Or, rather, he has very right to express that opinion, but not every right to retain his job while so doing. (I'm not just making a normative statement here; that's legally true.) As a matter of the 1A, he can't be fired for saying that he supports Obamacare or likes the war in Iraq, but he can be fired for aging inappropriate things related to his job. (I'm oversimplifying the legal tests by putting them in layman's language, but that's the gist.)


Gotta agree, for once, with David. The officer's opinion in this question is as job-related as it can be. I have the right to say whatever I want, but if I decide to post on Facebook that, say, I work with morons, I'm probably going to regret it, & for good reason.
   5597. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 27, 2014 at 10:24 AM (#4779857)
Gotta agree, for once, with David. The officer's opinion in this question is as job-related as it can be. I


I think the guy in question is an ex-cop, but anyway the real worry is how prevalent his attitude is among active cops- I mean I think with that attitude he's clearly unfit to have been a cop, but what's really worrisome is that he had no idea or awareness of how controversial or repugnant his remarks would be to many, I suspect that what he wrote is what he was taught, by other cops, "Rookie, I don't care what they told you in the Academy this is how we do things"
   5598. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 27, 2014 at 10:27 AM (#4779859)
A cop does not have the right to express the opinion that he can beat you up if he wants.


I think his opinion was job related, but this is an oversell on what he said. By a bunch.

Of course you can suggest he should be fired for his editorial*, but I certainly hope you are not on the anti-PC brigade next time someone calls for repercussions for someone saying something racist or whatever.

* I disagree, by the way. I thought what he said was wrong and indicative of a very destructive and common mindset, but no where near punishable.
   5599. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: August 27, 2014 at 10:39 AM (#4779863)
5595/snapper: This could easily be a spurious memory, but I think that the first time I ever discussed reclining airline seats (and only time prior to our thread?) was with the author of that piece, like 17 years ago or so.
   5600. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 27, 2014 at 10:52 AM (#4779874)
Does this guy have a self-defense claim? Or was he lying in wait with no reasonable apprehension that he would be seriously hurt or killed if he complied? What if he reacted impulsively not understanding that they were cops? Or, understanding that they were cops :-)

Drug smuggler opens fire on U.S. marshals during Queens raid: cops

Authorities broke down the door to the 175th St. apartment in Springfield Gardens late Tuesday and were greeted by a hail of fire from an automatic weapon.

U.S. marshals using a battering ram to enter a Queens apartment late Tuesday were greeted by bullets from the drug smuggler on the other side of the door, authorities said.

Seven U.S. marshals broke down the door to a rear apartment on 175th St. near 144th Dr. in Springfield Gardens around 11 p.m., said witnesses and authorities.

“He was prepared, he knew we were here,” a police source said.

The marshals returned fire from the door, a police source said. The trapped man, who was wanted for cocaine smuggling and a Brooklyn assault, then went into the backyard, where he fired at NYPD detectives stationed there as backup, a police source said.

The surrounded man finally returned to the apartment and abandoned his automatic pistol after he was shot in the left hand, a police source said.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/drug-smuggler-opens-fire-u-s-marshals-queens-cops-article-1.1918407
Page 56 of 64 pages ‹ First  < 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
James Kannengieser
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogCurt Schilling not hiding his scars - ESPN Boston
(22 - 3:24am, Oct 25)
Last: TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser

NewsblogBuster Olney on Twitter: "Sources: Manager Joe Maddon has exercised an opt-out clause in his contract and is leaving the Tampa Bay Rays immediately."
(81 - 2:03am, Oct 25)
Last: Dan

Newsblog9 reasons Hunter Pence is the most interesting man in the World (Series) | For The Win
(16 - 1:35am, Oct 25)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogJohn McGrath: The Giants have become the Yankees — obnoxious | The News Tribune
(12 - 1:31am, Oct 25)
Last: Into the Void

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(916 - 1:29am, Oct 25)
Last: J. Sosa

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 3 OMNICHATTER
(515 - 1:26am, Oct 25)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(385 - 1:05am, Oct 25)
Last: tshipman

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3736 - 12:23am, Oct 25)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogHow top World Series players ranked as prospects. | SportsonEarth.com : Jim Callis Article
(21 - 12:04am, Oct 25)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogRoyals get four AL Gold Glove finalists, but not Lorenzo Cain | The Kansas City Star
(14 - 11:59pm, Oct 24)
Last: Zach

NewsblogDid Adam Dunn Ruin Baseball? – The Hardball Times
(73 - 11:22pm, Oct 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogBeaneball | Gold Gloves and Coco Crisp's Terrible 2014 Defense
(2 - 7:47pm, Oct 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(871 - 7:22pm, Oct 24)
Last: Jim Wisinski

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(67 - 6:38pm, Oct 24)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogThe ‘Little Things’ – The Hardball Times
(2 - 6:34pm, Oct 24)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

Page rendered in 0.9339 seconds
53 querie(s) executed