Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Viceroy)
    It is not legal to shoot someone.

    Under US law if an officer or civilian believes that his or her life may be in danger he or she may use any kind of force up till lethal to subdue the assailant. A simple google search will bring up multiple governmental websites that justify killing someone if you think that your life is in danger.

    Here in the UK if you feel your life is threatened you can hit back at someone ... if that person dies you can write up in your case that it was self defence. If the jury decides that it was self defence, you are let off the hook.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Michael Brown
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Viceroy)
    It is not legal to shoot someone.
    errrrm, yes it is.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in Tyrone)
    Under US law if an officer or civilian believes that his or her life may be in danger he or she may use any kind of force up till lethal to subdue the assailant. A simple google search will bring up multiple governmental websites that justify killing someone if you think that your life is in danger.

    Here in the UK if you feel your life is threatened you can hit back at someone ... if that person dies you can write up in your case that it was self defence. If the jury decides that it was self defence, you are let off the hook.
    In the post I was responding to, there was no mention of it being legal to shoot someone if you feel that your life is in danger; the original poster simply said, blanketly (and again below), that "it is legal to shoot someone." Of course, in this case, there is still no evidence that the officer was being threatened in any way by Mr Brown, so, really, we have no way of knowing how great of a response was appropriate on his behalf; I find it hard to believe that shooting someone 6 times as they're running away from you is necessary for self defense, but I wasn't there, I don't know what happened.

    (Original post by Yi-Ge-Ningderen)
    errrrm, yes it is.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Viceroy)
    In the post I was responding to, there was no mention of it being legal to shoot someone if you feel that your life is in danger; the original poster simply said, blanketly (and again below), that "it is legal to shoot someone." Of course, in this case, there is still no evidence that the officer was being threatened in any way by Mr Brown, so, really, we have no way of knowing how great of a response was appropriate on his behalf; I find it hard to believe that shooting someone 6 times as they're running away from you is necessary for self defense, but I wasn't there, I don't know what happened.

    "I find it hard to believe that shooting someone 6 times as they're running away from you", your ignorance is clear here. The bullets hit Mr Brown from the front, so your talking trash, unless you believe that US police have magic bullets that perform mid-flight 180 degree turns.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yi-Ge-Ningderen)
    "I find it hard to believe that shooting someone 6 times as they're running away from you", your ignorance is clear here. The bullets hit Mr Brown from the front, so your talking trash, unless you believe that US police have magic bullets that perform mid-flight 180 degree turns.
    There is no need to be so rude.

    Witness statements suggest that Brown was running away from the officer and that shots were fired, and at some point turned towards him, possibly with hands raised. It was likely at that point that Brown was struck by the officer's fire, but there is no conclusive evidence as of yet indicating what his apparent intentions were -- attested to by his raised hands or some other demonstration of surrender/impassivity -- when he turned around.

    In any case, none of us know what exactly happened, but I do deplore the way that Brown's body was treated after the shooting -- being left on the street for four hours -- which, if anything, suggests a gross lack of respect for this young man on behalf of police forces.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Getting shot for stealing a freddo.... The officer should be jailed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Viceroy)
    There is no need to be so rude.

    Witness statements suggest that Brown was running away from the officer and that shots were fired, and at some point turned towards him, possibly with hands raised. It was likely at that point that Brown was struck by the officer's fire, but there is no conclusive evidence as of yet indicating what his apparent intentions were -- attested to by his raised hands or some other demonstration of surrender/impassivity -- when he turned around.

    In any case, none of us know what exactly happened, but I do deplore the way that Brown's body was treated after the shooting -- being left on the street for four hours -- which, if anything, suggests a gross lack of respect for this young man on behalf of police forces.
    So if he turned around, your statement that he was shot 6 times from behind is wrong.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yi-Ge-Ningderen)
    So if he turned around, your statement that he was shot 6 times from behind is wrong.
    I did not say that he was shot 6 times from behind: I wrote that he was fired at, but he was likely hit when he turned to face the officer. This is what I wrote:

    "Witness statements suggest that Brown was running away from the officer and that shots were fired, and at some point turned towards him, possibly with hands raised. It was likely at that point that Brown was struck by the officer's fire..."
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Does it really make a difference if the shots were from the front, or if he "charged" at the officer? This is not gta. There is no way a human can swallow up 5 bullets and cause you any harm. If you are that incompetent with non lethal weapons, don't shoot kill, show to impede, so you can then detain the suspect. The cops in the UK have no trouble detaining unarmed men without lethal force, so why does the US get a pass?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Only one at fault here is none other than the late Michael Brown.

    Being a black in US you generally know that racial profiling does happen and being mouthy with a policeman isn't going to get you anywhere.

    "Ex turpi causa non oritur actio" you simply accept it that if you were up to no good then you deserve all that comes to you even where force used was disproportionate.

    While I don't agree with police brutality in this situation I believe the police did the right thing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Viceroy)
    I did not say that he was shot 6 times from behind: I wrote that he was fired at, but he was likely hit when he turned to face the officer. This is what I wrote:

    "Witness statements suggest that Brown was running away from the officer and that shots were fired, and at some point turned towards him, possibly with hands raised. It was likely at that point that Brown was struck by the officer's fire..."
    Liar.

    You said the following:

    In the post I was responding to, there was no mention of it being legal to shoot someone if you feel that your life is in danger; the original poster simply said, blanketly (and again below), that "it is legal to shoot someone." Of course, in this case, there is still no evidence that the officer was being threatened in any way by Mr Brown, so, really, we have no way of knowing how great of a response was appropriate on his behalf; I find it hard to believe that shooting someone 6 times as they're running away from you is necessary for self defense, but I wasn't there, I don't know what happened
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alfissti)
    Only one at fault here is none other than the late Michael Brown.

    Being a black in US you generally know that racial profiling does happen and being mouthy with a policeman isn't going to get you anywhere.

    "Ex turpi causa non oritur actio" you simply accept it that if you were up to no good then you deserve all that comes to you even where force used was disproportionate.
    This is so backwards. You can't execute people for being mouthy and "up to no good". Even if they're black.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Stupid thread - nobody can say who is to blame until they themselves have been able to review the evidence themselves. Anything else is merely speculation.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not sure if I should be scared that people are so content with the idea of police using limitless excessive and deadly force on individuals who commit petty crimes. Because, Alfissti pretty much admitted that he think Brown "deserved" to die because he was refractory while being black. I want to see this happen with a white victim and white cop, just to see how people react. If people are ok with that too then I really fear for the future of America. People defending this event are most likely racist to some extent, white people who defend this when it happens to a white victim and white cop are generally ok with living under martial law.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Viceroy)
    There is no need to be so rude.

    Witness statements suggest that Brown was running away from the officer and that shots were fired, and at some point turned towards him, possibly with hands raised. It was likely at that point that Brown was struck by the officer's fire, but there is no conclusive evidence as of yet indicating what his apparent intentions were -- attested to by his raised hands or some other demonstration of surrender/impassivity -- when he turned around.

    In any case, none of us know what exactly happened, but I do deplore the way that Brown's body was treated after the shooting -- being left on the street for four hours -- which, if anything, suggests a gross lack of respect for this young man on behalf of police forces.
    So that conflicts what post mortem analysis has shown :/
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Viceroy)
    I did not say that he was shot 6 times from behind: I wrote that he was fired at, but he was likely hit when he turned to face the officer. This is what I wrote:

    "Witness statements suggest that Brown was running away from the officer and that shots were fired, and at some point turned towards him, possibly with hands raised. It was likely at that point that Brown was struck by the officer's fire..."
    So you're saying he was both shot at when running away from the police and when he turned running towards them? If so the witness accounts are automatically screwed as post-mortem suggests they were ALL frontal entrance gun shot wounds.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yi-Ge-Ningderen)
    Liar.

    You said the following:

    In the post I was responding to, there was no mention of it being legal to shoot someone if you feel that your life is in danger; the original poster simply said, blanketly (and again below), that "it is legal to shoot someone." Of course, in this case, there is still no evidence that the officer was being threatened in any way by Mr Brown, so, really, we have no way of knowing how great of a response was appropriate on his behalf; I find it hard to believe that shooting someone 6 times as they're running away from you is necessary for self defense, but I wasn't there, I don't know what happened
    The quote you responded to earlier was the one I quoted back to you, in which I explained my perspective on this issue clearly; even in the earlier quote that you're responding to here what I meant was that he was shot at as he was running away, even though he was hit in the front when he turned around. If you are simply looking for a fight (which you clearly are), look elsewhere because I'm not going to engage with you. You are an incredibly rude poster who is clearly not interested in having a productive discussion.

    (Original post by Made in Tyrone)
    So you're saying he was both shot at when running away from the police and when he turned running towards them? If so the witness accounts are automatically screwed as post-mortem suggests they were ALL frontal entrance gun shot wounds.
    You misunderstand what I wrote. Witness accounts suggest that he was shot at (not hit) while he was running away, turned around, and then was hit in the front.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Viceroy)
    The quote you responded to earlier was the one I quoted back to you, in which I explained my perspective on this issue clearly; even in the earlier quote that you're responding to here what I meant was that he was shot at as he was running away, even though he was hit in the front when he turned around. If you are simply looking for a fight (which you clearly are), look elsewhere because I'm not going to engage with you. You are an incredibly rude poster who is clearly not interested in having a productive discussion.



    You misunderstand what I wrote. Witness accounts suggest that he was shot at (not hit) while he was running away, turned around, and then was hit in the front.
    You said shot 6 times whilst running away, face it, you have been found to be wrong and are now backtracking, looking for an excuse for your lie.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yi-Ge-Ningderen)
    You said shot 6 times whilst running away, face it, you have been found to be wrong and are now backtracking, looking for an excuse for your lie.
    Why are you arguing with him? I'm pretty sure you're on the same side. Let it go.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.