Ferguson Riots

No, it wouldn't. Police procedure doesn't dictate that you can use lethal force on a feeling. Police protocol is that lethal force is only acceptable as a response to lethal force. As Brown was shot from a distance and was not armed, there's no circumstances in which he could be threatening or inflicting lethal force on Wilson, that would justify him using his gun.

If Brown had been in a physical fight with Wilson at the time of being shot, you could maybe make a defense in court that he was being overpowered and his gun was the only weapon he could reach- even that's sketchy. But ultimately that Brown was shot from afar completely rules that out.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Using lethal force in a situation which doesn't call for it (Brown was not armed) is one of the worst offenses a police officer can commit.

You're not correct especially because you referenced CA.

The use of a firearm is justified, by most police departments, if an officer determines that the use of lethal force is necessary to prevent serious bodily harm (or death) to him/herself or others. If Wilson was treated for an assault, there is your justification (still waiting on those medical records that show Wilson was beaten...).

If he was beaten by Brown in his car, this is justification enough to use lethal force. Lethal force can be a taser or firearm (tasers are considered the less-lethal options).

Here is some stuff from the Cincinnati PD that I found:

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/police/assets/File/Procedures/12550.pdf

Also, it talks about warning shots. I guess I was wrong about that: they can be used if the police officer determines the area is safe to shoot warning shots. I do not agree that it was a safe option to fire warning shots since it was a neighborhood and, most likely, people were at their windows, watching.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
If he was in California he'd absolutely be getting charged with criminal negligence. He's not in California so he probably won't, though he should, but at the very least he should be fired.

I do not believe you're correct, here, either. From how it appears in most CA jurisdictions, CA is even more liberal with law enforcement firearm use.

Actually, the officer doesn't just need determine that his life is in danger, it also needs to be an accurate assessment, hence why it needs to be investigated.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
No, it wouldn't. Police procedure doesn't dictate that you can use lethal force on a feeling.

You're incorrect, here, as well:

"...then only when an officer reasonably believes that such use
of firearms is necessary to protect the officer or another from the risk of serious physical harm or loss of life."

That reads like those feelings you seem to dislike.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Police protocol is that lethal force is only acceptable as a response to lethal force.

This is not correct. I could not find a single police department that had such a rule. Not a single one.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
As Brown was shot from a distance and was not armed, there's no circumstances in which he could be threatening or inflicting lethal force on Wilson, that would justify him using his gun.

Except the part, before, where Wilson alleges Brown assaulted him. And the part after where he supposedly fired warning shots and Brown turned around and started approaching him.

A jury will determine if Wilson's side of the story is more believable. I believe it will not get past a "Grand Jury", as I stated, prior.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
If Brown had been in a physical fight with Wilson at the time of being shot, you could maybe make a defense in court that he was being overpowered and his gun was the only weapon he could reach- even that's sketchy. But ultimately that Brown was shot from afar completely rules that out.

Wilson, I believe, alleged just that: struggle over his gun in the cab. This is where the shot to Brown's thumb is supposedly supposed to come from...

Originally posted by Bardock42
...it also needs to be an accurate assessment, hence why it needs to be investigated.

I do not see that anywhere in the literature...

Just that he or she has "dat feeling." If the "feeling" was clearly unjustified, it would be investigated.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I do not see that anywhere in the literature...

Just that he or she has "dat feeling." If the "feeling" was clearly unjustified, it would be investigated.

From your own link:

"In considering the use of firearms, understand that you are responsible for your acts and that you may be required to justify your acts in a court of law."

Hence, if the officer's assessment was incorrect (and he therefore was not justified) they are responsible for their deed.

Originally posted by Bardock42
From your own link:

"In considering the use of firearms, understand that you are responsible for your acts and that you may be required to justify your acts in a court of law."

Hence, if the officer's assessment was incorrect (and he therefore was not justified) they are responsible for their deed.

"He walked towards me after I fired warning shots and told him to put his hands up."

/justification

Does not seem like a steep requirement because is relies entirely on feelings.

From my very own post:

Originally posted by dadudemon
If the "feeling" was clearly unjustified, it would be investigated.

In other words, a dash-cam recording shows that a person did not start walking towards an officer after warning shots are fired.

By the way, I'm using this Brown case as my example, if it was not obvious, already. No dash-cam video exists so now we are back to "dat feeling."

I am almost certain that your interpretation of that is incorrect even as far as police policy goes. Further police policy actually isn't law however, and as such a police officer is not exempt from prosecution even if the policy may "justify it".

Going back to your link however, the officer wouldn't just have to justify that there was a tenuous reason for them to feel threatened, they have to justify that they exhausted all reasonable means and that they reasonably believed that their live was in danger. Reasonable being the key word, and what it would have to be judged by.

Mind you, I don't disagree that he would likely get away with such a weak justification as you have given, due to the racist, authoritarian system that exists, since the victim was black.

My point is more that when the laws (and the police policy) is applied the way it is meant to be (i.e. when the victim is white) that the officer has to prove more thoroughly that their actions were justified.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're not correct especially because you referenced CA.

The use of a firearm is justified, by most police departments, if an officer determines that the use of lethal force is necessary to prevent serious bodily harm (or death) to him/herself or others. If Wilson was treated for an assault, there is your justification (still waiting on those medical records that show Wilson was beaten...).

If he was beaten by Brown in his car, this is justification enough to use lethal force. Lethal force can be a taser or firearm (tasers are considered the less-lethal options).

Here is some stuff from the Cincinnati PD that I found:

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/police/assets/File/Procedures/12550.pdf

Also, it talks about warning shots. I guess I was wrong about that: they can be used if the police officer determines the area is safe to shoot warning shots. I do not agree that it was a safe option to fire warning shots since it was a neighborhood and, most likely, people were at their windows, watching.

I do not believe you're correct, here, either. From how it appears in most CA jurisdictions, CA is even more liberal with law enforcement firearm use.

By your own link, a firearm should be used only after exhausting all other options, and even then can only be used to protect the life of yourself or another. Your link then goes on to say that when threat of serious physical harm or loss of life is perceived ("dat feeling" you keep referring to), an officer is authorized to display a firearm. It also notes that an officer is required to justify that "feeling" and that ultimately the legality of his actions are determined by the court, not the officer.

Provide a quote from your link that supports your tautological assertion that a "feeling of danger" is legal justification within itself for applying deadly force, horse ****er.

Originally posted by dadudemon
"He walked towards me after I fired warning shots and told him to put his hands up."

/justification

Originally posted by Bardock42
Further police policy actually isn't law however, and as such a police officer is not exempt from prosecution even if the policy may "justify it".

You might have a point if these policy codes of conduct have not be in place for decades, were not legally tested for decades, and were not readily understood. Local law enforcement organizations work closely with prosecutors. Prosecutors, especially when police misconducts are being considered, would need to be readily aware of these policies in order to move forward with a prosecution/charge. I believe this is the part you are missing from your explanation which explains the gap in our positions.

To make my point even more clear: if a police officer was operating within the rules of conduct set in their police code, I'm pretty sure no case can be made against the officer. It is something else...hmmm...what is the legal word. There is a legal term for this. It absolves the police officer but it may not absolve those in authority over the police officer. To my knowledge, nothing in modernity has occured like this because the police codes of conduct are designed to protect the officer as well as the people so it is highly unlikely that any policy made, recently, would have a provision in it that would put the officer or police department at prosecutorial risk.

I looked and could not find a case that fits this (a police officer that is operating within their code of conduct but was criminally prosecuted because the conduct violated the law). It seems like a very very specific situation that would likely never get that far.

As of right now, in the Ferguson shooting case, whether or not Wilson operated properly within Police Code of Conduct is yet to be fully understood. From my perspective, in order to justify the slaying of Brown, I want to see Wilson have a medical record that clearly shows his ass was beaten. If no such documentation exists, I do not think Wilson is justified. Here is my reasoning: what happened after that confrontation is down to witnesses (many saying Brown turned around and started approaching Wilson and many saying Brown turned around and put his arms up) and I do not think the case can be made around that point. But you and I both know that that is not what is going to happen: Wilson will be justified because the important people will believe the witnesses that claim Brown turned around, did not put his arms up, and started to approach Wilson.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Going back to your link however, the officer wouldn't just have to justify that there was a tenuous reason for them to feel threatened, they have to justify that they exhausted all reasonable means and that they reasonably believed that their live was in danger. Reasonable being the key word, and what it would have to be judged by.

No they don't (exhaust stuff). Most policies allow the immediate use deadly force if the conditions (such as the ones I outlined) are met. In fact, trying to exhaust other options before using deadly can result in the death of the officer or the death of innocents. That would actually be a very shitty policy, if it was actually a policy.

You may be thinking of a hostage situation.

Originally posted by Bardock42
My point is more that when the laws (and the police policy) is applied the way it is meant to be (i.e. when the victim is white) that the officer has to prove more thoroughly that their actions were justified.

Yeah, I believe I covered this: Wilson probably adequately justified himself long ago.

At this point, I think prosecution is just going through the motions until the grand jury rejects indictment.

"Respect for human life requires that police officers exhaust all other reasonable means before resorting to the use of firearms"

Originally posted by Bardock42
"Respect for human life requires that police officers exhaust all other reasonable means before resorting to the use of firearms"

Originally posted by Tzeentch
By your own link, a firearm should be used only after exhausting all other options, and even then can only be used to protect the life of yourself or another. Your link then goes on to say that when threat of serious physical harm or loss of life is perceived ("dat feeling" you keep referring to), an officer is authorized to display a firearm. It also notes that an officer is required to justify that "feeling" and that ultimately the legality of his actions are determined by the court, not the officer.

Let us be careful, now, not to incorrectly cherry-pick points out of that document to just be right.

"...exhaust all other reasonable means..."

There is an important word in there: "reasonable." If Wilson's assertions of a fight which involved his handgun are correct, it would be unreasonable to explore options other than lethal options.

And now we have come full circle back to my original point: Wilson, based on what we know, is probably justified in killing Brown. Brown should have been killed in this situation. I just go a step further and say a taser should have been used because I despise taking human lives.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Provide a quote from your link that supports your tautological assertion that a "feeling of danger" is legal justification within itself for applying deadly force, horse ****er.

Yeah, that's already been done. Did you read stuff in the thread? You're not too good at this debate stuff.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Walking toward someone is not threatening or applying lethal force, so that wouldn't fly.

You're obviously wrong because that's not how it is going to play out and you know it. 🙂

Originally posted by Bardock42
"Respect for human life requires that police officers exhaust all other reasonable means before resorting to the use of firearms"

See my above post.

Additionally, I've already addressed that argument directly with you:

No they don't (exhaust stuff). Most policies allow the immediate use deadly force if the conditions (such as the ones I outlined) are met. In fact, trying to exhaust other options before using deadly can result in the death of the officer or the death of innocents. That would actually be a very shitty policy, if it was actually a policy.

You may be thinking of a hostage situation.

Bring me something new, fellas. I grow tired of answering the same point 3 times, now. 🙂

inb4 word games over the "exhaust" stuff. Context. Use it.

I feel like you are arguing from a point that laws and regulations are up to interpretation, which is true, and sort of why we have courts.

I have already stated that I agree with you, that it is likely that Wilson's otherwise tenuous argument will be bought due to the racism and pro-authoritarian bias inherent in the system.

My only point is that it would not be found to be reasonable if it was a rich, white kid that got shot by a police officer in the same manner.

Originally posted by Bardock42
My only point is that it would not be found to be reasonable if it was a rich, white kid that got shot by a police officer in the same manner.

I do not know what to say, here.

I think I could just concede the point. If I cannot think of a counter-argument, you're probably right about this.

If that is the case, then that makes the Brown situation more suspect which is what I believe you're getting at?

Edit - Of course, you know I would think the rich white kid probably deserved to get shot, too. But we both know that that is probably not how it would play out in the real world. Which is why I believe I have no choice but to concede.

Originally posted by dadudemon
[B]Wilson, based on what we know, is probably justified in killing Brown.

Yeah, that's already been done. Did you read stuff in the thread?

You're obviously wrong because that's not how it is going to play out and you know it. 🙂

Implying that how something plays out is synonymous with how something should play out. Calm down.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
What did Brown do that put Wilson in a situation of immediate threat to life, that made it unreasonable for Wilson to use less lethal force?

Logical fallacy: false dilemma.

Your question makes the faulty assumption that the situation requires an immediate threat to life when the Police Code of Conduct example I provided did not make such a provision.

After realizing your error, revisit the point you wanted to make and perhaps form a new question if you think you still have a good point.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
I accept your concession.

So because I pointed out that your point was already addressed, I am conceding? lol

Are you trying to be funny at this point? You seem to do that when you know you're wrong: play it off as a joke.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Implying that how something plays out is synonymous with how something should play out. Calm down.

Wait...you think you're God and can demand something play out a certain way and your way is correct?

Lol

That's not how it works in courts. The case will not determine if Wilson was correct. It will determine if Wilson stepped over the line of Police Conduct into criminal misconduct. If not enough evidence is there to justify the latter, he will not be indicted, which you and I both know he will not be indicted.

As you said, you should calm down. Think more clearly about your words and do not get so worked up. The case is not simple, it cannot be boiled down into these binary absolutes you're drawing up but we can be pretty dang sure, at this point, how it will play out in a court.

Originally posted by dadudemon
[B]Logical fallacy: false dilemma.

Your question makes the faulty assumption that the situation requires an immediate threat to life when the Police Code of Conduct example I provided did not make such a provision.

So because I pointed out that your point was already addressed, I am conceding? lol

It will determine if Wilson stepped over the line of Police Conduct into criminal misconduct. If not enough evidence is there to justify the latter, he will not be indicted, which you and I both know he will not be indicted.

As you said, you should calm down. Think more clearly about your words and do not get so worked up. The case is not simple, it cannot be boiled down into these binary absolutes you're drawing up but we can be pretty dang sure, at this point, how it will play out in a court.

Well, Blax definitely won this argument.