Most posters here are civilians so we're kinda bias...
Biased is a word you can use. Opinionated is more accurate, but I could use another word that's even more applicable.
The bottom line is, until there's the "instant puke baton" like in a certain movie or a "stun ray" like from other movies, the options are violent responses to violent acts.
Well, since we're dicking around with semantics I doubt many here have an issue with police reacting violently to violent people. What many have an issue with is the lethal option that police resort to too often. I'd think many politicians, police, and civilians would like to make the encounters less lethal unless police are met with lethal action. That is why many here suggested tasers or other non-lethal responses to a non-lethal action.
I think the prosecutor didn't have a case and knew it but there was no way that not giving it to the GJ would fly with all of the race baiters. Jesse, Al, Crump, CNN etc etc. So he gave everything he had to the GJ. I'm not seeing a problem with this because the GJ could request everything he had anyway.I'm a middle-aged, middle class white guy that has never had any problem with the law. I don't know if he is guilty. Now I probably never will. Because he never got a trial.
I am not trying to decide if he is guilty or not. I just want a judicial system that is fair to everyone. I'm afraid that our system has become corrupted, and I am smart enough to know that harms us all.
If the best data you have is oranges and we're talking about umbrellas, it doesn't mean a goddamn thing.Yes I am, because that is the best data we have.
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_documents/ferguson-shooting/SMOGZINN said:Because state grand jury process is secret, because it is not a trial.
A grand jury disagrees with you.SMOGZINN said:There is probable cause, we have multiple witnesses saying multiple things.This is the exact reason we have jury trials. To determine who is telling the truth.
Right, it happened 193,000 times in 2010, of those 193,000 times a Grand Jury choose not to indict 11 times. That means that grand juries decides to not indict 0.005% of the time.
Compare that to the 175 police officers that were put before the grand jury between 2008 and 2012, with only 1 indictment. Amazingly Grand Juries only have a 0.57% rate of indicting a police officer.
Numbers like that are not coincidence. DA offices are working with the courts to make sure that police officers do not go to trial.
Have you seen the stats of McCullough's office though?
33 cases filed against police.
20 indictments
5 still pending.
The office that did not indict Wilson indicts more than 50% of the time. They are by no means 'easy on police' by default. They often throw the book at cops.
The GJ didn't indict simply because they couldn't. This is a case that should not have gone to grand jury, but was done so essentially out of a courtesy to the public. McCullough could have easily just refused to indict and told everyone to pound sand but that wouldn't have been accepted at all.
Now at least you can say a grand jury saw everything, and still didn't indict. Considering how rare GJ's indict, this should be a clear sign that there was no case at all, and it certainly didn't even need to be shown to a GJ.
Considering they went to GJ in order to prevent looting/fires/violence, it looks like a huge colossal waste of money.
Michael Brown's step father Louis Head could face charges for inciting the mob violence that left parts of Ferguson a smouldering wreck this time last week, claims the city's police chief.
According to Thomas Jackson, the Ferguson Police department is 'pursuing' an investigation into whether Brown was in part responsible for starting last weeks fiery riot by screaming 'Burn this motherf****r down! Burn this bi**h down!' on discovering the grand jury's decision.
Why would you shoot someone with a shotgun instead of a hollow point?
I have seen a documentary about heavier type of bullets.
When a perpetrator is empowered because of adrenaline and for example cocaine, it is hard to take him down. The answer to that was heavier types of bullets, that do more damage. Bigger bullets or hollow points. The only problem is that the criminals also get their hands on these kinds of bullets. It turns into an arms race. The idea is to disarm the suspect, not kill him/her.
You didn't answer the question. Also what you just said makes zero sense.
You are saying that if someone is high on cocaine, a cop would be better off shooting him with a .410 bird shot round than a .40 hollow point round?
No, i do not say that. What i mean to say is that heavier type of bullets were developed or used to make a bullet more effective stopping the target. If that may be in war time or because for example some suspect would be strung out on adrenaline and cocaine or other empowering drugs. That made the suspect keep on coming, no matter how much non fatal bullets he was shot.
I just want to say that using hollow points can also create an adverse situation.
People make stupid decisions just as this teenager. He ends up paying with his life for it. If it would have been someone close to you acting stupid towards a police officer, you would feel bad about it too.
I doubt many police officers would be willing to use their gun to force someone to the ground to be arrested, knowing that the first shot will be fatal as is the case with heavy ammunition.
Situations as these have no ideal solution. Only solution is that police officers come in duo or trio. I guess Brown figured he could win because of his size. When there are more police officers, the odds tip in favor of the officers.
And i think police officers should be trained in martial arts to disable a suspect when in a fight. And get a periodic health or fitness check to see how fit they are.
ok, how?
You can get both, automatic weapons with proper permitting.Also, are hollow points for sale and other heavy weapons such as automatic weapons in the US ?
Also, are hollow points for sale and other heavy weapons such as automatic weapons in the US ?
I was quite happy with mine, thank you.I think when cops start using hollow points, i expect a lot of debates and demonstrations to happen. And i really think police officers would not be happy with it as well if they were forced to use hollow points.
I think when cops start using hollow points, i expect a lot of debates and demonstrations to happen. And i really think police officers would not be happy with it as well if they were forced to use hollow points.
Police should use frangiles. Other than that, shoot away.
Allow me to remind the hoods of how not to get shot by the police, this is a piece by a very astute man on this complicated matter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igQDvYOt_iA
Cops already use hollow points, for the exact reason that they mushroom upon impact rather than penetrate the target (and possibly hit people behind). Hollow points are safer for police officers to use, despite the fact they do cause more damage than normal bullets.
Automatic weapons are illegal in the US outside of military and government agency use. However, they are still readily available to anyone willing to break the law.