/tg/Station 13

Posted: **Mon Dec 08, 2014 11:56 am**

Bottom post of the previous page:

Snake2512 wrote:
Incomptinence wrote:If you have a story you would like to share go ahead.
EDIT: Or do you want my first trip to America story

This one. It's very important.

Posted: **Mon Dec 08, 2014 10:10 pm**

Aren't police officers trained to deal with this sort of shit?
If an unarmed guy is charging you surely you are taught how to take him down non-lethally.

Posted: **Mon Dec 08, 2014 10:10 pm**

Maccus wrote:
Snake2512 wrote:
Incomptinence wrote:If you have a story you would like to share go ahead.
EDIT: Or do you want my first trip to America story
This one. It's very important.

is that the one with the toilets

Posted: **Mon Dec 08, 2014 11:18 pm**

>i've never heard the trip to america
wot the fahkin fak u cuhnt

Posted: **Tue Dec 09, 2014 12:15 am**

ChrisTheThird wrote:Aren't police officers trained to deal with this sort of shit?
If an unarmed guy is charging you surely you are taught how to take him down non-lethally.

Their training is to shoot people attempting to engage them in CQB.

What? You think Officer Waddle is some elite martial artist trained in judo?

Posted: **Tue Dec 09, 2014 12:28 am**

Well it would be a good skill/hobby to pursue in such a risky profession. They already have four on one choking mastered though, is that a martial art?

Posted: **Tue Dec 09, 2014 12:42 am**

No, its high school handball

Posted: **Tue Dec 09, 2014 12:42 am**

Vekter wrote:1) If you're going to come to me and tell me how awful of an idea this thread is, don't turn around and shit it up.

it was shat up long before I got here, sorry for getting a little emotional over your pet idiot trying to have a political opinion.

if it's one thing ferguson has been good for, its making civil rights a family affair. the same thing happened after hurricane katrina: no one gives a FUCK about black people until it is fashionable. and no one wants to talk about how this might be indicative of a larger problem, how oppressive the police are, no. It is all about how the white man is evil and the black man is the misunderstood underdog. Americans are the worst at protesting. they'll let anything bad happen to them as long as they have free wi-fi.

Posted: **Tue Dec 09, 2014 10:36 am**

Worth noting that Ferguson was a low crime neighborhood and almost all of the people rioting and looting are from the nearby higher crime areas.

The community came together to peacefully protest and out of town dickheads ruined it.

Posted: **Tue Dec 09, 2014 6:18 pm**

Malkevin wrote:
ChrisTheThird wrote:Aren't police officers trained to deal with this sort of shit?
If an unarmed guy is charging you surely you are taught how to take him down non-lethally.
Their training is to shoot people attempting to engage them in CQB.

What? You think Officer Waddle is some elite martial artist trained in judo?

I don't think it would be hard to have some basic training on how to deal with situations like this. It's not like he has to do some martial arts shit just defend himself until backup arrives or attempt to use a taser at least. I can understand him shooting when the guy grabbed his gun but he could have at least tried to subdue him non-lethally afterwords especially considering the guy was already wounded from the gunshot.

Posted: **Wed Dec 10, 2014 7:37 am**

"i have no idea how police work" - ChrisTheThird
tasers are not an instant drop-limp weapon like everyone thinks they are. that only happens to some people. for most people, it's only an extremely painful, debilitating shock that ends when the officer stops tasing you. for some people, it only makes them more mad.
officers are given a right to use force in degrees based on the situation. michael brown attempted to take the officer's firearm, meaning that if he had succeeded, he would have had a firearm, and used it to shoot the officer, and perhaps other people, we don't know. that is a threat on the officer's life and potentially others, arming a dangerous person with a gun. in that situation he is permitted to fire on the attacker with his gun. the same would go for if michael had any sort of weapon, such as a knife or a bat.

Posted: **Wed Dec 10, 2014 7:42 am**

I have been hit with a taser. While I dropped like a log I am a bit of a bitch, and I was aware I could kind of still act.

There are videos of people moving around like tasers were nothing.

Posted: **Wed Dec 10, 2014 8:20 am**

Tasers are generally effective in bringing someone down, HOWEVER if the taser connectors fail to connect properly (such as getting stuck on clothing or a malfunction) then the taser may be totally ineffective.

Posted: **Wed Dec 10, 2014 9:05 am**

It takes a pretty strong or angry person to resist a tazer, but in the instance that your life or lives around you are threatened, you don't go for the tazer first, that's stupid. What if it catches on clothing or just doesn't stop them, or makes their fingers spasm and pop off a few shots? Michael Brown went for the officer's gun, if he'd had his hands on it by the time the officer tazed him he could've easily shot him in the leg. At least that's non-lethal, though, right?

Posted: **Wed Dec 10, 2014 9:34 am**

Tasers are a compliance device, probably shouldn't be, but that's about all their good for.

When someone makes a threat on your life would you prefer to take someone down with a device that only works 90% of the time or one that works 100% of the time?

Posted: **Wed Dec 10, 2014 4:08 pm**

miggles wrote:-snip-

Yes I know that a taser isn't one hundred percent reliable at taking people down. I'm not saying he should have attempted to whip out a taser when Brown was actually trying to grab his gun, in that respect he was totally justified in firing his weapon. (If his side of the story is true that is.) However in my own view I don't see why it was necessary to fire his weapon at Brown as he fled from him and I just think if he did have a taser why did he not attempt to use it while Brown was running away?

Posted: **Wed Dec 10, 2014 7:16 pm**

I agree it was fucking stupid of him not to carry a taser. It among other things is why he definitely should have been indicted. Remember, the question of indictment is "Do we have enough to think this may have been a crime?" not "He 100% did or didn't do it."

Posted: **Wed Dec 10, 2014 9:10 pm**

uh, no, innocent until proven guilty bruv
"proven guilty" usually means "100% did it"

Posted: **Wed Dec 10, 2014 9:27 pm**

Ah yeah that insulating layer from the actual law.
Not like that makes prosecution exceedingly unlikely.

Posted: **Wed Dec 10, 2014 9:47 pm**

Incomptinence wrote:Ah yeah that insulating layer from the actual law.
Not like that makes prosecution exceedingly unlikely.

Except presumed innocence is a base assumption of American jurisprudence. It makes prosecution difficult for the same reason the constitution makes certain forms of arrest and prosecution more difficult.

Posted: **Wed Dec 10, 2014 9:56 pm**

miggles wrote:uh, no, innocent until proven guilty bruv
"proven guilty" usually means "100% did it"

Do you not know what the jury was actually deciding? Because it sounds like you don't.

They were not trying to find him guilty or innocent, and the fact people seem to think that is the case is a major problem with grand jurries which are not meant to be an extra bonus phase of the appealate courts. The only reason that he would get off in an indictment court is if the jury nullified, which usually happens either due to prejudices or believing the law is wrong. Most people would agree murder is wrong, so that means either the grand jury did not understand what they were supposed to do and assumed that the innocent until proven guilty standard was in play, or something else influenced their decision. I am personally assuming the former, considering pretty much everyone here and on the news talks about the trial as if it was a not-guilty vs guilty choice, but I also forgive people for assuming that it was racism considering what happened with the chokehold on camera where that excuse doesn't hold up at all.

Considering the multiple conflicting eye witness testimony and the corrinors report, combined with the fact he deliberately chose not to carry a less lethal weapon "Because it was uncomfortable" there was plenty of evidence to move to indict. He should have been indicted by every objective count of the law. That does not mean he should have been found guilty. He probably shouldn't have been because of the conflicting eye witness testimony.

Incomptinence wrote:Ah yeah that insulating layer from the actual law.
Not like that makes prosecution exceedingly unlikely.

Actually prosecution is unlikely because most people fold in plea bargins. 99% of cases fail to make it to trial for this reason, because procecutors are really good at making most accused willing to sign a confesion to 'get off easy', which has extreme reprecusions with our felony laws. Mandatory minimum sentences are a deliberate attempt to increase the amount of people making pleas because it takes power away from judges to go easy on people and gives prosecutor a good stick to beat people with to up their conviction rates, because if you are found guilty a judge can't help you, but if you plea the prosecutor can.

Posted: **Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:21 am**

so what do you suppose he did instead? in a situation where he had a less lethal weapon? and in the one that actually happened?
everything he did was OK by officer code standards

Posted: **Sat Dec 13, 2014 4:10 am**

Not talking about the presumption of innocence, just how the extreme difficulty of police being even taken to court in the first place is ridiculous.

Yes laws are different for an officer on duty (use of force permitted etc) but they should at least go to fucking court.

I don't think plea bargains even come into it if charges are never placed in the first place or it is handled by "disciplinary" committee, proceedings, tribunal whatever the fuck. My favourite is kill a guy get a paid leave. Basically paid vacations for killings maybe one day we will get an officer shit enough to kill people for time off.

Then we have police unions hell bent on making things worse, like if you had military reserves protesting peace time.

Posted: **Tue Dec 16, 2014 11:43 am**

What was that people were saying about Australia having no gun crime since guns were banned?

Posted: **Tue Dec 16, 2014 12:01 pm**

Having little gun crime not none. Details are ongoing but it looks like the guy had been in and out of the courts like a knitting needle and was let off on new bail laws despite being accessory to his wife's murder and a rampant sexual assaulter of women undergoing spiritual counselling with him posing ridiculously as an expert in "black magic" at the time like 50 or so charges. Granted political asylum in 2001 in return he sent hate mail to the families of deceased Australian servicemen and considered the Australian military "Hitler's soldiers". How he got bail is perplexing, a total legal failing really since the responsible magistrate even noted he was a threat to his former victims and the community and still let him free what the shit.

Posted: **Tue Dec 16, 2014 7:47 pm**

There really should have been an indictment. The prosecutor didn't even have to ask a Grand Jury, and it seems likely to me that he flubbed his presentation to it. I've heard the governor encouraged the prosecutor to fail to indict, and that the presentation was very atypical. Though I've also heard people insist on calling the incident a "murder" and that "black people get murdered by cops all the time" and trot out all sorts of misleading statistics to make emotional non-points...

An0n3 wrote:People leap to causality just based on stats.

A disproportionate number of blacks getting arrested getting arrested than whites?
Holy shit, must be racist cops.

A disproportionate number of whites being murdered by blacks?
Holy shit must be racist criminals.

Compare the number of blacks killed by whites. There are roughly six times as many whites in the country yet they're responsible for less than half as many murders of blacks as blacks are of whites.
If you want to be the kind of asshole who just makes judgements based on numbers you could pull some shit out of your ass and say if the roles were reversed white people would be extinct.

But that's fucking ridiculous. You can't say that because these are just numbers. They don't tell the story of the situation. Each digit is a whole set of circumstances and people that you don't know jack shit about.
Just because shit happens and you can count it and make comparisons between the frequency of things occurring doesn't mean you know how or why they happen.

Every day of my life I've been alive. If I'm operating under this kind of logic than I have every reason to believe I'm fucking immortal.

Underrated post. So many screwy statistics on both sides of this.

I read through a summary of the actual witness reports (organized excerpts, not paraphrasing):
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/2 ... esses-said
(There's a complete account here but I haven't read through it, it's massive: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... ume-7.html )

Based on these accounts I formed an opinion I'm pretty confident about. But I'm not a jury. With the amount of anger going around, this desperately needed to get a proper trial. The only investigations were internal affairs, and the spectacle-driven media. So the protests (not riots) were 100% justified, not because Wilson was definitely guilty, but because the matter never even reached trial.

I know major trials are expensive affairs, but would it have been more expensive than policing the riots and protests was? The rioters are responsible for all the damage they caused, yeah, but a trial was not an unreasonable demand.

The prosecutor's actions seem really fishy to me, or maybe just incompetent. Some people say it was a reflex of a system that always tries to protect cops... That would explain these otherwise perplexing actions.

Posted: **Sun Dec 21, 2014 2:12 am**

So this just happened
http://nypost.com/2014/12/20/2-nypd-cop ... -brooklyn/

Posted: **Sun Dec 21, 2014 2:33 am**

XSI wrote:So this just happened
http://nypost.com/2014/12/20/2-nypd-cop ... -brooklyn/

>Some police officer was accused of murdering someone somewhere!
>Therefore, murdering two police officers who had nothing to do with anything is moral.

Kek, talk about profiling. If I said that black people are violent they would go apeshit because its a sweeping stereotype, but if some police officers are trigger happy, its a-ok to not only profile officers, but outright murder them too.

Posted: **Sun Dec 21, 2014 2:58 am**

I fully expected something like this to happen.

It is an endless cycle of escelation where people feel opressed by people who are supposed to protect them, and then lashing out in a dumb way, which causes the police to endlessly escelate, compounded further by the fact our police are in a large part funded by a for profit model in poorer communities due to how profoundly fucked up civil forfeture laws actually are and how it creates a weird for profit system you would expect out of a dystopian novel where all your shit can be taken for essentially no reason and stacks of money face formal charges. Then the media hypes everything up with highly selective and sensational reporting.

No one wins, everyone loses, and two people who didn't need to be dead are now dead. Great job random asshole. If you actually gave a shit you would realize that this makes increasing militarization look justified.

Spoiler:

Posted: **Sun Dec 21, 2014 4:42 am**

Purchase firearms and explosives

Posted: **Mon Dec 22, 2014 7:18 am**

lmao mah nigga downing two minority officers, that will get the point across

Posted: **Mon Dec 22, 2014 5:27 pm**

The guy was a fugitive for shooting his girlfriend on Saturday. He just wanted to make his inevitable death look heroic or even noteworthy by inserting himself in a national controversy.

Posted: **Wed Dec 24, 2014 3:40 pm**

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6faeeaa6 ... pulled-gun

BERKELEY, Mo. (AP) — Violent protests broke out in suburban St. Louis after another black 18-year-old was fatally shot by a white police officer.

St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar said the officer was questioning the 18-year-old and another man about a theft late Tuesday at a convenience store in Berkeley when the young man pulled a 9mm handgun on him. The officer stumbled backward but fired three shots, one of which struck the victim, Belmar said.

Berkeley is just a few miles from Ferguson, Missouri, where a white police officer fatally shot Michael Brown, an unarmed black 18-year-old, on Aug. 9. Brown's death sparked weeks of sometimes violent demonstrations and a grand jury's decision to not charge Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting has spurred a nationwide movement to protest police brutality.

Posted: **Wed Dec 24, 2014 5:35 pm**

He dint do noting rong, he just be ex-uh-ci-sing is sekomendent-ament rites yo.

Posted: **Wed Dec 24, 2014 9:52 pm**

Malkevin wrote:He dint do noting rong, he just be ex-uh-ci-sing is sekomendent-ament rites yo.

quiet faggot

Posted: **Thu Dec 25, 2014 6:13 am**

HE DIDN'T DO NUFFIN, WENT TO HONOR EVERY SUNDAY AND WAS ON THE CHURCH ROLL

Posted: **Thu Dec 25, 2014 6:44 am**

10 pages

Posted: **Thu Dec 25, 2014 8:36 am**

Skorvold wrote:nsos is smarter than all of us

Posted: **Thu Dec 25, 2014 11:20 am**

danno wrote:
Skorvold wrote:nsos is smarter than all of us

Posted: **Fri Dec 26, 2014 4:54 am**

Sum Ting Wong wrote:http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6faeeaa6 ... pulled-gun

BERKELEY, Mo. (AP) — Violent protests broke out in suburban St. Louis after another black 18-year-old was fatally shot by a white police officer.

St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar said the officer was questioning the 18-year-old and another man about a theft late Tuesday at a convenience store in Berkeley when the young man pulled a 9mm handgun on him. The officer stumbled backward but fired three shots, one of which struck the victim, Belmar said.

How the hell do you protest a cop shooting back at someone who pulled a gun on him? Michael Brown I can at least understand, because the media passed it off like he was executed for no reason while surrendering.

Are we really at a point where a cop can't protect his own life without people throwing bricks around? The only outcome I can see here is police departments eventually just going "We can't hire this guy, because he's white."

Posted: **Fri Dec 26, 2014 9:29 am**

There's at least some question as to whether or not the gun was planted as evidence.

Posted: **Fri Dec 26, 2014 9:52 am**

There were several cameras around the front of the store that showed a fellow in a white t-shirt walking up and pointing a gun shaped object at the officer. The officer reeled back in a panic and unloaded a few shots into him. He was lucky that Antonio left the safety on.

Posted: **Fri Dec 26, 2014 9:53 am**

Posted: **Fri Dec 26, 2014 10:16 am**

Vekter wrote:There's at least some question as to whether or not the gun was planted as evidence.

Thank you Al Sharpton

Posted: **Fri Dec 26, 2014 10:02 pm**

Vekter wrote:There's at least some question as to whether or not the gun was planted as evidence.

Come on now, not even SS13 security gets away with that most of the time, plus if the thing was caught on cam then that's pretty clear to me

Posted: **Fri Dec 26, 2014 10:50 pm**

are you really that stupid

Posted: **Sat Dec 27, 2014 11:59 pm**

That one is really clear cut.

Posted: **Sun Dec 28, 2014 7:55 am**

The general public are just bloody morons who would use any excuse to riot or loot.

The same prob goes for me I guess.

Posted: **Sun Dec 28, 2014 9:28 pm**

like 80% of this thread proves this community is all white people who get offended when theyre labeled as white people

Posted: **Sun Dec 28, 2014 10:03 pm**

go away cracker

Posted: **Sun Dec 28, 2014 10:38 pm**

Offended of being white?

Sorry Sir, you seem to be confusing us with white guilt having LibTards

/tg/Station 13

Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Re: Ferguson