• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Victims family releases graphic video of his death

DVSentinel said:
1.)Would you please quit rearranging my posts. If I wanted them to look like bullets in a power point slide, I would put them that way.

2.)A criminal engaged in a felony, in the case presented felony evasion which endangers the public, is by my definition a piece of ****.
3.)I have zero sympathy for any who get killed while committing a crime.
4.) Killing a felon, who gives a damned, damage to a public vehicle while engaged in official duties, hardly something to fire someone over.
Click to expand...

1.) my responses(and your quote) are numbered out of courtesy and convenience so you know exactly what im replying to.
2.) oh, so your meaningless definitions? got it.
3.) nice so next time the cops are chasing people corning houses on Halloween if he kills them not problem, they got what they deserved, thats awesome uhm . . .logic
4.) he was fired for being a complete moron, violating procedures, that OTHER officers were smart enough to follow and those procedure violations ended in a death.


like i said thank you for proving you didnt watch the video or read anything, its very funny
 
DVSentinel said:
A criminal engaged in a felony, in the case presented felony evasion which endangers the public, is by my definition a piece of ****. I have zero sympathy for any who get killed while committing a crime. Killing a felon, who gives a damned, damage to a public vehicle while engaged in official duties, hardly something to fire someone over.
Click to expand...

You're not a felon until convicted of a felony. What felony was he convicted of?
 
AGENT J said:
1.) my responses(and your quote) are numbered out of courtesy and convenience so you know exactly what im replying to.
2.) oh, so your meaningless definitions? got it.
3.) nice so next time the cops are chasing people corning houses on Halloween if he kills them not problem, they got what they deserved, thats awesome uhm . . .logic
4.) he was fired for being a complete moron, violating procedures, that OTHER officers were smart enough to follow and those procedure violations ended in a death.


like i said thank you for proving you didnt watch the video or read anything, its very funny
Click to expand...

Actually, I did watch the video, first two repeats then I cut it off. As to reading, why should I read a bunch of whining about some criminal getting himself killed?
 
DVSentinel said:
Actually, I did watch the video, first two repeats then I cut it off. As to reading, why should I read a bunch of whining about some criminal getting himself killed?
Click to expand...

compassionate conservative?
 
DVSentinel said:
1.)Actually, I did watch the video, first two repeats then I cut it off.
2.)As to reading, why should I read a bunch of whining about some criminal getting himself killed?
Click to expand...

1.) nothing in your posting suggest you did
3.) reading would help your posts be less uneducated and factually wrong about the topic as to why he was fired etc etc, oh well your mistake
 
sangha said:
That's how it sounds to me
Click to expand...

seems super obvious to me

how the corner/medical examiner even had the gall to say theres no evidence the car hit him is obnoxious but then again who am i, im no doctor.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) nothing in your posting suggest you did
3.) reading would help your posts be less uneducated and factually wrong about the topic as to why he was fired etc etc, oh well your mistake
Click to expand...

Then how did I know the cop was trying to stop on grass?

A criminal was committing a crime. Said criminal was given opportunity to surrender and go to court. Said criminal did not do so. Said criminal died as a result. Whats the problem.

As to procedures. Cops arrest criminals. If criminal resists, Cops use whatever means necessary, up to and including deadly force to apprehend criminals and/or remove them from society. Cop gave opportunity to the criminal to surrender. Cop took criminal off the streets. Cops job done. Any procedure the interferes or limits said Cops ability to carry that out is a bad procedure.

Not a damned thing that is going to "educate" that anything else applies or should apply to the situation. Any article saying any different is just a bunch of liberal hooey. Since most criminals are from heavily biased liberal areas, said criminal was also probably a liberal if not already a felon without the "right" to vote. So Cop not only removed stupid criminal from society but also helped society by also removing a liberal.
 
poweRob said:
compassionate conservative?
Click to expand...

Not a conservative, but that is ok, I am used to liberals and other leftist types not being able to read that my lean is "other". For some reason, few of them seem to be able to comprehend that as meaning that I'm not a conservative, or even particular very far to the right.

Compassionate? Depends on whom you are deciding should receive compassion, the criminal or society/victims of said criminal.
 
DVSentinel said:
Not a conservative, but that is ok, I am used to liberals and other leftist types not being able to read that my lean is "other". For some reason, few of them seem to be able to comprehend that as meaning that I'm not a conservative, or even particular very far to the right.

Compassionate? Depends on whom you are deciding should receive compassion, the criminal or society/victims of said criminal.
Click to expand...

Other = I dunno

scapegoat lean declaring is scapegoat.
 
DVSentinel said:
1.)Then how did I know the cop was trying to stop on grass?

2,)A criminal was committing a crime. Said criminal was given opportunity to surrender and go to court. Said criminal did not do so. Said criminal died as a result. Whats the problem.

3.)As to procedures. Cops arrest criminals. If criminal resists, Cops use whatever means necessary, up to and including deadly force to apprehend criminals and/or remove them from society. Cop gave opportunity to the criminal to surrender. Cop took criminal off the streets. Cops job done. Any procedure the interferes or limits said Cops ability to carry that out is a bad procedure.

4.)Not a damned thing that is going to "educate" that anything else applies or should apply to the situation. Any article saying any different is just a bunch of liberal hooey. Since most criminals are from heavily biased liberal areas, said criminal was also probably a liberal if not already a felon without the "right" to vote. So Cop not only removed stupid criminal from society but also helped society by also removing a liberal.
Click to expand...

1.) still pictures in the thread and comments in the thread? who knows

2.) protocol and procedure violations resulting in a death, thats the problem thats why he was instantly fired as soon as the commanding officer saw the video

3.) well you just further show how severely uneducated you are on this topic, just saying what you did shows you basically know next to nothing, once again SUPER funny. Always like when somebody exposes themselves as bad as you. You are cracking me up.

4.) see #3, the entertainment continues from your irrational factual false and uneducated posts. Please dont stop! wow
 
DVSentinel said:
Then how did I know the cop was trying to stop on grass?

A criminal was committing a crime. Said criminal was given opportunity to surrender and go to court. Said criminal did not do so. Said criminal died as a result. Whats the problem.

As to procedures. Cops arrest criminals. If criminal resists, Cops use whatever means necessary, up to and including deadly force to apprehend criminals and/or remove them from society. Cop gave opportunity to the criminal to surrender. Cop took criminal off the streets. Cops job done. Any procedure the interferes or limits said Cops ability to carry that out is a bad procedure.

Not a damned thing that is going to "educate" that anything else applies or should apply to the situation. Any article saying any different is just a bunch of liberal hooey. Since most criminals are from heavily biased liberal areas, said criminal was also probably a liberal if not already a felon without the "right" to vote. So Cop not only removed stupid criminal from society but also helped society by also removing a liberal.
Click to expand...

You're obviously terribly full of hate and this is your outlet.
 
j-mac said:
Maybe the guy should have stopped and took his $25 seatbelt fine instead of running and putting everyone's life in danger including the cops.
Click to expand...

How in the world was the cop's life in danger here? He could have simply taken down the license plate and got the guy later. This $25 infraction did not warrant the guy being killed. Isn't that the whole point of seat belt laws, to save lives??
 
Verax said:
You're obviously terribly full of hate and this is your outlet.
Click to expand...

Nope, if I hated them, I would want them to live forever. Dead people don't feel pain, except for in hell of course, but I'm not going to be there to witness it.
 
chromium said:
How in the world was the cop's life in danger here? He could have simply taken down the license plate and got the guy later. This $25 infraction did not warrant the guy being killed. Isn't that the whole point of seat belt laws, to save lives??
Click to expand...

That's not how it goes...Run from the cops, they chase you. People breaking the law don't get to set the scenario.
 
Because everybody hightails and runs when the cops pull the over......

No sympathy here.
 
Verax said:
You're obviously terribly full of hate and this is your outlet.
Click to expand...

Obvious maybe to those who don't agree.

Criminals are a danger and/or resource drain upon society. Therefore, they must be stopped from acting criminally. Criminals can either be reformed, warehoused or removed from society permanently. I see no evidence the the criminal justice system currently in place in this country has adequate punishments or procedures to actually reform very many at all. Warehousing criminals is itself a resource drain on society. So that leaves removing those who will not reform or cannot be reformed from society as the most logical option. Anytime that a criminal is permanently removed from harming society while in the commission of a crime, it is the most efficient means of handling criminals, however since we are "civilized" we give them the option to surrender and submit to possible being reformed. Failure to submit/surrender simply removes that option and the criminal has chosen then to be permanently removed from society.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) still pictures in the thread and comments in the thread? who knows

2.) protocol and procedure violations resulting in a death, thats the problem thats why he was instantly fired as soon as the commanding officer saw the video

3.) well you just further show how severely uneducated you are on this topic, just saying what you did shows you basically know next to nothing, once again SUPER funny. Always like when somebody exposes themselves as bad as you. You are cracking me up.

4.) see #3, the entertainment continues from your irrational factual false and uneducated posts. Please dont stop! wow
Click to expand...

Maybe from your point of view. However, you and others seem to think that only discussing the "facts" in this particular case and not the overall problems of the entire criminal justice system is somehow "enlightened". Besides whether a procedure was broken, the existence and the governing philosophy as to why such procedure exists in the first place also need to be considered.

Breaking procedure, which may or not be justified in it's existence, did lead to the death of a criminal. The death of a criminal while in the commission of a crime is not something that some feel is a reason for remorse or even concern or sympathy. Criminals ending up dead in the process of apprehension simply reduces greatly the cost to society for trials, incarceration, and other associated costs. The criminal had the choice, he made a bad one, he died as a result. I don't see a problem with that.
 
chromium said:
How in the world was the cop's life in danger here? He could have simply taken down the license plate and got the guy later. This $25 infraction did not warrant the guy being killed. Isn't that the whole point of seat belt laws, to save lives??
Click to expand...

One would have to consider the thought process of an individual who would resist a $25 infraction by instigating a pursuit that may have severely endangered innocent bystanders and in this case, lead to his own death. The decision to run and endanger both himself and others is what actually lead to his death, not the $25 ticket. Why did this individual actually run? A $25 ticket hardly seems a logical reason to do so. In this case and probably many others, the illogical decision to run from a minor infraction simply indicates the possibility/probability that the individual running is also involved in other, more dangerous criminal activity.

Yes, the cop could of taken down his licenses plate number and cited him later. However, by running, the criminal gave police probable cause that a crime, other than a seatbelt infraction may be occurring and the fleeing itself became a crime which endangered others.
 
CRUE CAB said:
That is just mean and heartless. (sarcasm)
See he was a NON violent criminal. Out side of the fact that he was willing to probably run down anyone that tried to stop is escape from police. For a seat belt fine. Which is I think $125.00 now.
The lives of your family to that man was worth $125.00, and he was willing to kill them for it.
Now his family will be millionaires thanks to the state of Florida.
Click to expand...

Nobody runs from a seat belt ticket. There had to be something he didn't want the officer to find out about, like a warrant or drugs or something.
 
DVSentinel said:
1.)Maybe from your point of view. However,
2.) you and others seem to think that only discussing the "facts" in this particular case and not the overall problems of the entire criminal justice system is somehow "enlightened".
3.) Besides whether a procedure was broken, the existence and the governing philosophy as to why such procedure exists in the first place also need to be considered.
4.) Breaking procedure, which may or not be justified in it's existence, did lead to the death of a criminal.
5.) The death of a criminal while in the commission of a crime is not something that some feel is a reason for remorse or even concern or sympathy.
6.) Criminals ending up dead in the process of apprehension simply reduces greatly the cost to society for trials, incarceration, and other associated costs.
7.) The criminal had the choice, he made a bad one, he died as a result. I don't see a problem with that.
Click to expand...

1.) what m point of view please tell me id love to know
2.) there are no problems you talked about that go towards this case
3.) cute opinion but if you want to start a discussion on that opinion and that topic feel free.
4.) yep hence why he was instantly fired and so far he is lucky he isnt charged yet
5.) yes i know some people are irrational, illogical, uncivil and dont care about law and legal/human rights. THis is true. I do though, so did the guy that fired this moron.
6.) or increase the lost of freedoms, justice, liberty and rights which most value more.
7.) nope, a stupid officer breaking procedure got him killed, thats the problem and why that officer was in fact fired and why he could be facing charges.

please continue, this is great
 
The problem with stories like this come to light in the original CNN article the OP linked to.

From the second sentence:

"On May 8, Marlon Brown was being chased by DeLand police because they allegedly saw that he was not wearing a seatbelt"

Mr. Brown wasn't being chased because the DeLand police allegedly saw he was not wearing a seatbelt. They were chasing him because he wouldn't stop.

Did he just murder someone? Did he have a child stuffed in his trunk? Did he just rob a bank?

It's a shame he died as a result of his crime, but it could have been avoided.
 
ocean515 said:
The problem with stories like this come to light in the original CNN article the OP linked to.

From the second sentence:

"On May 8, Marlon Brown was being chased by DeLand police because they allegedly saw that he was not wearing a seatbelt"

Mr. Brown wasn't being chased because the DeLand police allegedly saw he was not wearing a seatbelt. They were chasing him because he wouldn't stop.

Did he just murder someone? Did he have a child stuffed in his trunk? Did he just rob a bank?

It's a shame he died as a result of his crime, but it could have been avoided.
Click to expand...

I agree wording like that is piss poor and shoty, media sucks today and yes had procedures and protocol been followed it could have been avoided.
 
AGENT J said:
The family of Marlon Brown, the Fla. man killed after being run down by a police car, has filed a complaint accusing the medical examiner's office of "negligence" and "material misrepresentation of the data" after it ruled the death was an accident

Officer Harris was fired immediately after his chief viewed the video on May 31, but State's Attorney R.J. Larizza did not indict Harris on charges of vehicular homicide, which in Florida is defined as "the operation of a motor vehicle by another in a reckless manner likely to cause the death of, or great bodily harm to, another."

Instead, Larizza gave the case to a grand jury, which declined to press charges.
Click to expand...

I know you didn't actually make the statement above but quoting folks when they quote the media gets kinda dicey. I'm technically attributing it to you but we both know it's from the newspapers.

Anyhow, if that's the legal definition of "vehicular homicide" I'd have a tough time charging a cop with it too, if I was sitting on a grand jury or if I was a prosecutor.

Actually, here's the law directly from Florida's Statutes webpage:

782.071 Vehicular homicide.—“Vehicular homicide” is the killing of a human being, or the killing of a viable fetus by any injury to the mother, caused by the operation of a motor vehicle by another in a reckless manner likely to cause the death of, or great bodily harm to, another.
Click to expand...

So yeah, I can't stand behind that charge.

This is not to defend this cop. He clearly did something wrong, I suspect broke "some" law, violated some regulation or procedure, or at the very least made a horrible mistake that should, at the very least, cost him his job (and it would seem that it has).

But to tell a cop "it's your job to catch criminals, and we understand that you'll sometimes have to drive in a manner that for any civilian would be considered wildly reckless and potentially dangerous, but we'll train you to do so in a controlled fashion" and then charge him with violating a law that we've already told him he has to break in order to properly do his job is kinda going a bit too far, as far as I'm concerned.

I think that was the wrong charge to make and it's the wrong charge to be pushing for.

I don't know Florida law, or "law" in general well enough to offer suggestions as to what would be a better or appropriate charge,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom