Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/11/14 07:07 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: He wasn't fleeing when he was shot, and he wasn't shot for fleeing. Given that, it's stupid to bring up the fact that at one stage he was fleeing.

The fact that at one stage Brown was fleeing is irrelevant. The moment Brown attempts to reengage, or makes a move that could reasonably be seen by a police officer who has just been assaulted by that very person as an attempt to reengage, the use of force become legal.

That doesn't necessarily mean he should have fired, or that it was socially or morally OK to fire, it just means that under the rules, he had the right to.

I'd much rather have to take down the average 40 year old than Brown. Are you saying that Brown should have reacted differently because of Brown's age (which I would contend would not have been easily discernible given Brown's size)?

Generally, 40 year olds are likely to be weaker, less energetic, and more frail than an 18 year old. Sadisticmonkey is right here.

Also note that in all likelihood Brown had just attempted to murder this police officer so it's dumb to act like this was someone harmless little kid.

First off, the only indication that we can make it that Brown was attempting to take Wilson's gun. What Brown intended to do with it is 100% unknown and we have no evidence to say what he would have done with it at all. He may have used it to threaten Wilson to allow him to leave. He may have taken it and thrown it away. He may have attempted to shoot Wilson. He may have attempted to carjack wilson.

I also want to point out something really stupid and a MASSIVE red herring. What ever abels we can put on Brown are 100% irrelevant. Whether or not Brown was a thug or a sweetheart, whether he was a person who harms or was harmless, whether he was Hitler or the second coming of Jesus, is 100% irrelevant. All that is relevant is what Wilson knew or had good prudent reason to believe, and the actions Brown took in the presence of Wilson. So stop saying "Well, Brown was a thug, therefor it's OK that he was shot." That is not a proper logical jump, and makes light of everythin this case involves. Frankly, when you people say that, you prove everything the rioters say about race and the police right. I suggest the use of a combination of at least one brain cell, a bit of tact, a shit ton of restraint, and the mildest bit of logic before spouting sutff that only makes the situation worse.

I spent all Saturday in teh ER as well. Mystery leg pain. Doctors thought it might be a bad infection but none of the sysmptoms pointed toward anything but a gigantic question mark. Turns out making doctors confused was a good treatment, what was massive pain then was all but gone this morning.

I am both a medical miracle (were it not for the continuing application of modern medicne, I would be dead) and a medical mystery (more often than not, when I have all the symptoms of a condition, the deciding test for that condition will be negative or inconclusive).

At 12/7/14 01:01 AM, wildfire4461 wrote: Perhaps one of the biggest examples ever of when religion is bullshit.

Here's the text of the Bill. This bill alone is unclear as to what it will cover. It says that religion can trump any neutral law that substantially burdens a person's free exercise of religion. Based on pure text, substantially is a pretty high burden, but based upon the rhetoric of those passing the law, they want substantially to read "any". So, this will have to wait a while to play out.

On top of that, it imposes an intermediate scrutiny upon the decisions of the state even to impose substantially burdensome legislation. Intermediate scrutiny, while fairly difficult to satisy s not the nearly impossible level that Strict scrutiny is.

While, I think the whole idea of any of the RFRAs is bad, we will have to wait and see exactly how bad this one turns out. If it ends up being like the Federal one (pre-Hobby Lobby mental pretzel) it will end up being mostly academic.

At 12/7/14 12:23 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: If all things are not recorded in real time without interruption then the system is a fail. This would also take Billions of dollars to store the catuerd video footage being that it would need to be in a minimum resolution of 720P or better. Thats allot o fucking HDD capacity to store and maintain all the footage. I would not want my Girlfriends boobs to be submitted as evidence and shown about so this is an issue.

Connect the system to the dispatch system. So once an officer calls in a dispatch it begins recording, and then when the officer calls dispatch to end the call, it turns off.

If the video does not end up being attached to a report, it will be deleted after 3 months. If a video cuts out early, or a report does not have a video attached, it should be automatic grounds for punishment (either due to negligence, derelict of duty, or intentional action).

Also, any release of video not attached to a police report, or not condoned by the police chief should be grounds for punishment.

This would help cover most of the issues.

At 12/6/14 11:29 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Accountability is great and we surely could use more of it. But my problem is what this does to privacy.

Seeing as all police reports (with some exceptions) are public record, I don't see any privacy issue here.

I think before we rush into getting this program going there needs to be very clear laws about how long the footage is stored, how it's used, what kinds of things can be recorded, and what is and isn't admissable.

I would assume that as far as everything goes the current rules should apply just fine. The videos should be kept as long as thier corresponding police reports. They should be used to support arrests, and to ensure compliance of 4th and 5th amendment rules by police. Thye should be able to record everything.

As far as admissibility, the current rules of evidence and criminal procedure would apply just fine. If the evidence would be admissible in another medium, it should be admissible. If the search or stop involved is improper the camera would help prove that and then everything taken by the camera would be inadmissible.

At 12/6/14 09:06 AM, MonochromeMonitor wrote: Although my house got robbed a few years back and they didn't do shit, I guess because burglaries aren't a violent crime.

Robbery and burglary are two VERY different crimes. Robbery is by its very definition, a violent crime. Burglary can never be a violent crime, though it can very much coincide with one.

First off, don't argue with SadisticMonkey about racism. He wholeheartedly believes black people are the cause of all of the world's problems.

Second, you're having a difficult time framing the issue. You're trying to talk about white privilege without actually discussing it. I don't blame you as the term white privilege tends to bring out the dumb who cannot understand any concept more difficult than 1+1=2, as well as quick knee jerk reactions from many others. However, you cannot have an actual discussion of race in this country without talking about it.

There is a huge misconception as to what white privilege actually means. People quickly respond to the term by saying, "what about white people who have it tough?" and "So that means white people did not earn what they got?" Both of these statements are wrong and do little other than reflect a lack of understanding about how it works. I will not deny that there are some on the minority side who want it to mean this.

What white privilege means is that life is hard, but whtie people have numerous benefits all along the way in this country. White people do not have to worry about racial profiling. White people have easier social interactions with the majority of Americans (e.g. they rarely face the "let's cross the street to avoid these people" interaction). White names are treated better in housing, hiring, and promotion. White people aren't expected by many to have a broken family. The list goes on.

What this does NOT mean is that white people have it good, or that white people don't earn anything. There are tons of white people who have it shitty. I know, these sorts represent the bulk of my client base. Life is really difficult, and no amount of white privilege can change that (though certain other privileges can, like wealth). What privilege means is that if a white person and a black person had the same exact life and made the same exact choices at the same exact times, the white person would end up better off (though, not necessarily by much). Privilege does not take away from accomplishments (well, most accomplishments) that the privilege class achieves. This only means that the opportunities the privileged class has may be greater. Privilege does not detract from what one does with the opportunities they are given.

At 12/5/14 06:45 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: I hope you take such a stand against any use of tasers.
Way more cardiac-arresty than a chokehold.

Not to the average person. The chokehold is deadly to the average person for a number of reasons.

At 12/4/14 06:29 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: I feel that people shouldn't face criminal charges unless they actually break the law.

What he did is against the law. He used force that was well above what was needed to assuage the situation at hand. The fact that he used a hold that had been banned for 20 years precisely for being too dangerous is almost per se proof of this.

That's the point, it's resisting arrest. Something which makes the police very worried for their safety and very suspicious of you.

So? Resisting arrest only warrants enough force to get the resister to the ground. Guess what the following have in common? Tazer. A couple Nightstick swings to the legs. Full nelson. Half nelso. Dip-Boom football tackle. Putting a leg behind his ankle and pull back on his chest.

The answer is these are all moves that have a high chance of subduing a person and all have an extremely low chance of causing serious injury or death.

The chokehold, while having a high schance of subduing someone, also carries a relatively high chance of causing serious injury and/or death.

Even if he was completely innocent (or at least believed himself to be), you never, ever resist arrest or you will be in for a bad time, which is completely fair enough too.

That's not wrong, but then again, no one here is denying that force should be used. The problem here was the type of force and the extent to which it was used. Propoertionality may be slightly more loose for the policethan for civilians, but it still exists for police.

I'm not saying he deserved to die, but it wasn't the intention to kill him either.

OK, so murder 1 is off the table. What about murder 2: depraved heart? What about reckless homicide? What about negligent homicide? What about reckless endangerment? None of these require an intent to kill. These require at least that the officer should have known his act could have resulted in death, up to the officer flagrantly disregarding an actual knowledge that his move could result in death. The highly publicized banning of the chokehold, and his training on that places a strong indication that the officer definitely violated the reckless crimes, and possibly even Murder 2.

At 12/4/14 12:24 AM, migrant wrote: yall need to watch this, get educated

No. How's about you tell us what is says?

At 12/1/14 12:33 PM, Korriken wrote: And if you think turkey tasted bad, try eating a pigeon that lives in the city.... bleh, not making THAT mistake again.

Yuck. I'll ever eat one of those disease ridden pests.

At 12/1/14 10:42 AM, LordJaric wrote: Tell me about it. Give me a slice of ham any day.

I'm not supposed to eat ham...

I don't mind one meal of trukey and gravy a year, but this whole "let's eat this rancid shit for an entire week!" some people try to push is gross.

Why can't we have barbecue for thanksgiving? A nice smoked brisket or something. The leftovers would be heavenly.

At 11/29/14 12:54 PM, AKMan2 wrote: What racial tension exists today?

A shit ton, and it's a heck of a lot more complex than people like to believe.

Is racism exaggerated in the media?

No. If anything the media likes to smooth everything out and dull the racism.

Is it worse in some areas than others?

I'd say no. It is different in different areas, but not worse. Certain parts of the country are much more confortable with overt acts of racism. The remaining parts of the country are equally racist, but tend to act on it in more subtle, but equally harmful, ways.

Is there a bias or prejudice towards certain races in our society?

Yes. White people have numerous benefits in their lives that people of color do not. Converse to that, people of color have many obstacles that white people do not.

Do you agree with federal intervention to stop racism (hate crimes, campaigns, Affirmative Action, etc)

I see no problem with them. Hate crime legislation is important when executed properly because hate crimes are a very dangerous form of terrorism.

Is there any special treatment or favoring of one race in our legal system?

Being part of the system, I'd like to say no. However, it's difficult to disagree with the numbers.

I hate turkey. The fact the everyone insists on eating pouds of it after thanksgiving to torture. Of all the meats we could eat, we picked the most rancid flavored bird that lasts for-fucking-ever.

At 11/29/14 12:05 PM, Korriken wrote: at this point I'm stumped and have no idea on what to do...

Ask for them to cover hotel and storage for the days they have delayed.

At 11/27/14 10:05 AM, TNT wrote: Milwaukee Police Chief speaks out.

He makes extremely good points regarding the community's treatment of police. Police officers should be held to a higher standard, but acting as if the police are causing communities to go bad is both blind and stupid.

These communities already have deep seated problems that are hurting them, and the police , at worst, have done a little , but nothnig to compare to the pre-existing issue.

EDIT: Fixed spelling error: Milwaukee

Actually, it's pronounced "Mee-Lee-Wah-Kay", Algonquin for "The Good Land".

Nobody cares. it is widely known that several groups made it before Columbus. On top of that, people were already here.

The difference between all of those people is that Columbus didn't just go to America, he brought the rest of the World to America too. So instead of saying he discovered America, how about we say he opened America?

At 11/26/14 10:54 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: funny how you guys weren't saying that when people brought up Zimmerman's past.

There were reasons in Zimmerman's case to bring it in. Largely to dispute his claim of self defense, as he had done dumb shit with people before indicating that he was he likely aggressor.

What is and is not relevant to cases of self defense and murder is mire cmplex than people here have made it seem.

However, based on what we know about the Wilson case, very little, if anything at all is relevent to the legal matter at hand.

At 11/26/14 08:18 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Anything that happened before that is not relevant in the least to the situation that ended with Brown shot to death.

When it comes to claims of racial preference one aspect leading up to the contact does play a role. That is why did Wilson initiate the stop. As Wilson has a clear reason to initiate the stop, first for two young adults walking down the middle of a busy-ish street and second when he learned they were suspects in a just completed robbery, the notion that this encounter was caused by racial profiling or racial bias is shown to be incorrect.

However other than that fact, anything Wilson or Brown did before is irrelevant (with one fairly complex exception, that I do not belive applies here)/

At 11/26/14 06:44 PM, TheKlown wrote: Correct verdict, because Mike Brown was a thug that stole from stores and assaulted people.

Whether or not Mike Brown was a thug or a thief or a robber is irrelevant here. All that is relevant is what Mike Brown did after he came into contact with Wilson.

You're making numerous points here, but from what I see there's an underlying misunderstanding of what the American Dream used to actually be. You say people are unwilling to work for it, unwilling to take risks, and that it's fading cause people don't try hard enough.

The American dream never required opportunism, risk taking extraordinarily hard work, or extraordinarily hard. It was simply, if you work hard and keep your head up, you will get the house, the car, and the 2.5 children. Now it's more like, if you work hard, know the right people, are in the right places, and take risks (of the kind that could crush your life if you fail), you have a good chance fo the American dream, well, that is unless you were born into it.

The American worker over the past decade or so has been asked to do more and more while getting very little in return, but tability in their work. The American Dream cannot thrive on this, as it is expensive.

And no, immigrants coming here does not mean the Dream is alive and well. It means that even with our downward trajectory, we are still better than where they came from.

At 11/26/14 05:13 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: jesus christ progressives are fucking idiotic

Even though you are trying as hard as you can to be white noise, your comic and derisive tone actually have the glimmer of beginning to possibly make a good point.

That point would be that a large group of people are trying to make this case something it is not: a martyr for racism in this country. This is a flat out horrible test case for that. Brown was not targetted because he was black. He was not interacted with because he was black. He was not shot because he was black (though you may debate whether or not Wilson may have been so quick to believe Brown was charging him were he white). He was taregtted and interacted with because he had violently robbed a store. He was shot because he had assaulted a police officer inside of his car and then after running away decided to appraoch the police officer (possibly twice based on some accounts).

I absolutely understand why people are trying to force the issue over this case. The issue of racism in the law is a very important issue and needs to be talked about and addressed. However, so many people who MUST be part of this consversation are being turned off by the fact that this was not a race based incident. This was very different than the Trayvon Martin case, and it definitely is no new Rdney King nor is it another Bimingham.

At 11/25/14 02:20 PM, Feoric wrote: In normal self defense situations, once the person deescalates the situation deadly force is usually no longer justified.

This is not a normal self defense scenario, as police officers have a duty to apprehend criminals, and thus they have a duty to chase the person.

If a self defense scenario if the attacker breaks off, and then turns around and approaches the person, the defender then again has reason to believe the attacker is approaching to attack again.

I just don't see how Brown could have reasonably posed a threat, regardless of what the law permits.

That's why say that Wilson wasn't in the right, even if his action were not illegal. He had numerous opportunities after the initial altercation to end this without killing Brown.

According to Wilson's testimony it's completely irrelevant as to whether or not he should have used a taser since he himself said he was specifically going to reach for his gun regardless. He still would have used lethal force, and the entire point of the case is whether or not it was justified.

And this is where training comes in.

There are multiple instances where the team of prosecutors are blatantly acting like defense attorneys for Wilson.

This should have NEVER even gone to a grand jury. The prosecutors have discretion, and the evidence, even as shown at the very beginning, never indicated that Wilson went out of the proper actions in the line of duty. Had the community not rioted, this would have never gone to the grand jury. In short, if Brown was named Jones and was white, this would have NEVER gone to the grand jury.

Those claiming the system failed them actually got better treatment than they deserved.

Now, dispute the law regarding police actions, I am fine with that. That is place where you can say did not work. However, faulting the rosecutors for going well beyond where they should have is ludicrous.

So, you are missing the real issue in your zeal to be right. In short, you're very close to leanliftering.

The real issues here are:
- police training - better training on when not to shoot
- police equipment - tasers and body cameras - Could have lessen damage, and shown what actually happened
- police trust of the community - Wilson who knows Borwn is less likely to shoot him
- community trust of police - A Brown that knows Wilson is less likely to assault him
- laws that give the police leeway - Matching up legals wrongs with moral wrongs may (only may) help lessen violence in these scnarios.

Red Herrings:
- Prosecutors didn't try - Why should they? This should not have even gone that far
- Wilson is racist - Come on people, you can't wish away facts
- Brown was a criminal - Browns actions prior to the encounter do not justify his death

At 11/25/14 01:06 AM, Feoric wrote: The evidence presented to the grand jury does not clearly expell the notion that Wilson acted rationally out of self defense, though. Ergo, there is legimately enough probable cause for this to have justifiably gone to trial.

Actually, the facts do show this. Is is a solid argument that relieves him of social liability? Absolutely not. Is it enough to relieve him of legal iability as an officer of the peace? (ironic name, given the circumstances) yes.

He was in his car and the suspect was leaning into his car. It appears the first shots happened as the suspect was in his car.

These shots are very justified. A police officer's car is treated like a a private home, in that if a person is invading it and the police officer is inside they are allowed to use force, even deadly force, to keep that person out.

The next shot happened after Brown had run away, turned around and began to approach Wilson. This alone is not grounds to use force. However, in light of the fact the Brown had already forcefully enterred the police officer's car, Brown turning around and approaching as opposed to stopping, could be reasonaby seen as an atempt to use force against Wilson.

There were many places where Wilson could have acted differently leading to a different outcome, but that's not how the law works. The law rarely looks at what the person could have done, rather it asks whether the person had good reason to do what they did.

I repeat what I said at the beginning of this mess: better training and a taser could have saved the life of Michael Brown, regardless of whether or not his actions contributed to his own death.

At 11/25/14 12:23 AM, Korriken wrote: It boggled my mind when the prosecutor decided to put forth all of the evidence, and not just evidence that supports an indictment.
You're qualified to be a lawyer, what's your take on it?

It does seem a little odd. Usually an indictment is pretty heavily stilted toward the prosecution side. Though, I wouldn;t put it past a prosecutor on a tough case to give the evidence a shot through the indictment level. If the prosecution's case when given all evidence has trouble in the indictment stage, it will nver get a conviction at trial.

At 11/25/14 12:38 AM, Feoric wrote: IANAL but it seems like the only logical conclusion you could make is that he didn't actually want an indictment.

To be fair. If there were no hubub, the prosecutor would have never asked for an indictement at all.

In cases of justied acts, if the prosecutor believe the evidence of the justification to be strong enough, they would never even try to get a true bill on the case. If it weren't for the community pressure, this would have never gone to the grand jury at all.

Those who say the system failed them actually got better treatment than normal.

What bugs me is that people are saying the justice system failed us. No it did not. Merely disagreeing with the outcome does not mean the system failed us. Do we have evidence the process was rigged? No. Do we have evidence that the result went against the facts? No. Do we have evidence that there was any impropriety in teh proceedings? No. Does all of the evidence point toward a clean and thought out decision based on the evidence at hand? Yes.

At 11/24/14 08:22 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: So, for literally years I was told inside the classroom that, under the law, you are still in control of your actions when intoxicated/under influence of other substances.

That is not true. While specific laws may vary, most jurisdictions do not allow for certain crimes to be committed if the actor is intoxicated, whether voluntarily or involuntarily. In common law criminal jurisdictions, crimes that are specific intent crimes generally cannot be committed by an intoxicated person. In MPC jurisdictions, intoxicated people generally cannot commit crimes that are categorized as knowing or intentional.

Though, as far as I know, strict liability, negligent, reckless and general intent crimes can be charged against those who were intoxicated at the time of the act.

Now, I am about to talk about the most hotly contested seven-letter word in the English world today: consent

Consent is a very difficult issue, as it tends to blend two forms of law: criminal and contract (though, I have not seen any legal scholar or judge actually use contract law, the rules and logic just tend to macth contract law).

Sex is treated like it is a contract between two individuals, meaning if one person lacks capacity to enter into the contract, and the other party takes advantage of this be entering into the contract anyway, that party who takes advantage will be deemed in violation and responsible for any harm resulting therefrom. When both parties lack capacity the contract is thrown out as if it never happened.

However, when it comes to sex, you cannot undo the action. So if both parties are drunk and unable to consent, you can't just say "it never happened" especially if one or both parties decide that they were violated.

At 11/24/14 04:49 PM, orangebomb wrote: In all this, we realize that even if the face of overwhelming and factual evidence, there are always going to a few conspiracy idiots (leanlifter) out there who'll insist otherwise. I honestly find it disturbing (but not surprising) that some people just can't accept the facts that is presented to them, especially when they have no proof themselves.

Facts are maleable. What matters is the story told with those facts. If the facts presented create a story that a person cannot possibly accept as true they will ignore, bend, add, and create facts at will needed to make the sotry they want to believe.

Truth isn't the solid word we believe it to be. What is truth to one may be completely crazy to another. (Though, this does not mean that there are not correct and incorrect truths.)

This thread is starting to feel like the whole Benghazi hulaballoo.

At 11/24/14 01:20 AM, Korriken wrote: I have issues with both addiction and boredom. I become fascinated by something, begin studying the thing, then become bored with it and move on.

Sounds to me like you might have depression. Not the sad or hopeless kind, but the malaise kind. With my illness keeping me from being too productive I have had bouts of it. With it you just kind of stop caring after a while, and it becomes difficult to really get the wheels turning again. It's pretty easy to get excited about something new, but it is very hard to actually follow through.

I'm actually having a little trouble with it right now, now that I have passed the bar and am able to reenter the workforce I am finding it extremely difficult to ge my engine to turn over so to speak.