• 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!

Man tries to run over Pa. police, shot dead

Unrepresented said:
I want justice by jury whenever possible and justice by police officer as little as possible. While this may have been legal, I don't believe it was the action that should've been taken.
Click to expand...

You don't get justice by jury when you try and murder a police officer. The officer must take immediate action to preserve his or her own life and the lives of those around them. It is unbelievable that people can't grasp that notion. Grabbing a cop's firearm you expect to LIVE?
 
11Bravo said:
You don't get justice by jury when you try and murder a police officer. The officer must take immediate action to preserve his or her own life and the lives of those around them. It is unbelievable that people can't grasp that notion. Grabbing a cop's firearm you expect to LIVE?
Click to expand...
Ultimately the officer determined that he was the victim of attempted murder by an unarmed man. While there may be evidence to support that, I don't think that's a standard that lends itself towards justice.
 
Unrepresented said:
Ultimately the officer determined that he was the victim of attempted murder by an unarmed man. While there may be evidence to support that, I don't think that's a standard that lends itself towards justice.
Click to expand...

Why do you insist on lying? The facts proved that Brown grabbed the officer's gun resulting in a struggle in the vehicle. Brown pulling the gun, caused two shots to go off inside of the officer's vehicle.

He tried to turn a cop's gun on the cop. Brown deserved to die, the officer acted 100% appropriately, hence no charges. You aren't considered unarmed when you try and take an officer's weapon. You are then a lethal threat.

Nice talking to you. It appears you will ignore facts and continue to play the "he was unarmed" card. Educations must be tough to come by these days.
 
11Bravo said:
Why do you insist on lying? The facts proved that Brown grabbed the officer's gun resulting in a struggle in the vehicle. Brown pulling the gun, caused two shots to go off inside of the officer's vehicle.

He tried to turn a cop's gun on the cop. Brown deserved to die, the officer acted 100% appropriately, hence no charges. You aren't considered unarmed when you try and take an officer's weapon. You are then a lethal threat.

Nice talking to you. It appears you will ignore facts and continue to play the "he was unarmed" card. Educations must be tough to come by these days.
Click to expand...
A citizen entered into an encounter with a law enforcement officer unarmed and left dead from the officer's gun. We're quibbling over details but ultimately it leaves room for doubt over a number of issues. We can agree that this is the type of encounter that should never occur, right?
 
apdst said:
You can also blame propaganda. Example: we never hear Libbos say that black folks can succeed if they try hard enough.
Click to expand...
In some ways, the statement of "you can succeed if you try hard enough" is utter bull****.

Sure, if you try hard enough, you will probably succeed.

But in some cases the obstacles you need to climb in order to succeed shouldn't be there in the first place.
 
Unrepresented said:
Ultimately the officer determined that he was the victim of attempted murder by an unarmed man. While there may be evidence to support that, I don't think that's a standard that lends itself towards justice.
Click to expand...

That is the basic standard for self defense for everyone, not just cops.

And it's just a bonus (for the person being attacked) that there is evidence to support them.

That's indeed the way it is supposed to work.
 
Unrepresented said:
A citizen entered into an encounter with a law enforcement officer unarmed and left dead from the officer's gun. We're quibbling over details but ultimately it leaves room for doubt over a number of issues. We can agree that this is the type of encounter that should never occur, right?
Click to expand...

Naked citizen entered into an encounter with a law enforcement officer. Law enforcement officer disarmed and left dead.

Details? Yeah, cop made some mistakes. But it was a no-win situation for him. If he had even drawn his gun, he would have been crucified in the media. If he had shot to defend himself, he'd be on death row since apparently, there is no way that an unarmed person can pose a threat to an armed one :(

2001 Bellevue, WA
Officer Herzog
 
Has anyone figured out why or explained how so many people can willfully ignore the fact that there is a very real and necessary reason that cops tell suspects to get down on the ground, hands behind their heads, before they approach them? I mean, why isnt the procedure just to walk up to them and handcuff them? @_@
 
Lursa said:
That is the basic standard for self defense for everyone, not just cops.

And it's just a bonus (for the person being attacked) that there is evidence to support them.

That's indeed the way it is supposed to work.
Click to expand...
I admittedly have unorthodox views on the legitimacy of self defense laws.
Lursa said:
Naked citizen entered into an encounter with a law enforcement officer. Law enforcement officer disarmed and left dead.

Details? Yeah, cop made some mistakes. But it was a no-win situation for him. If he had even drawn his gun, he would have been crucified in the media. If he had shot to defend himself, he'd be on death row since apparently, there is no way that an unarmed person can pose a threat to an armed one :(

2001 Bellevue, WA
Officer Herzog
Click to expand...
I don't like either side of the officer/citizen equation being killed, however, being a civilian, I will side on the priorities of protecting civilians first. Officers are paid to protect and serve, citizens are unpaid for their risks in encountering law enforcement.
Lursa said:
Has anyone figured out why or explained how so many people can willfully ignore the fact that there is a very real and necessary reason that cops tell suspects to get down on the ground, hands behind their heads, before they approach them? I mean, why isnt the procedure just to walk up to them and handcuff them? @_@
Click to expand...
I don't disagree that resisting arrest should be prosecuted. I disagree that resisting arrest should result in dead citizens.
 
I have no problem with police using force when it is warranted. AKA surviving. I don't really know about you, but choking out a man who has his hands up saying he can't breathe is not exactly a survival instinct. To show that I am sympathetic to genuine police officers, I would support making the targeting police officers to kill or injure a hate crime. I think that it is imperative to keep our officers safe, at the same time though, it is also imperative that we do not turn to mob rule and choke out every other person that is stopped on the streets.
 
Last edited:
The Mark said:
In some ways, the statement of "you can succeed if you try hard enough" is utter bull****.

Sure, if you try hard enough, you will probably succeed.

But in some cases the obstacles you need to climb in order to succeed shouldn't be there in the first place.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but even so, there's no excuse for not trying.
 
Unrepresented said:
A citizen entered into an encounter with a law enforcement officer unarmed and left dead from the officer's gun. We're quibbling over details but ultimately it leaves room for doubt over a number of issues. We can agree that this is the type of encounter that should never occur, right?
Click to expand...

Haha now you're just twisting the story. You're ignoring the entire plot. No, we do not agree at all. Brown was confronted for breaking the law. Brown attacked a police officer, tried to take his gun, STARTED the struggle in the policeman's car, and died. 100% legal. You can continue your "he was unarmed, hand's up don't shoot" lies all you like. This was an easy one for the grand jury. Thug tries to kill cop, thug dies. Easy peasy lemon squeezy :)
 
Unrepresented said:
Ultimately the officer determined that he was the victim of attempted murder by an unarmed man. While there may be evidence to support that, I don't think that's a standard that lends itself towards justice.
Click to expand...

Why should justice not be based on supporting evidence?
 
11Bravo said:
Haha now you're just twisting the story. You're ignoring the entire plot. No, we do not agree at all. Brown was confronted for breaking the law. Brown attacked a police officer, tried to take his gun, STARTED the struggle in the policeman's car, and died. 100% legal. You can continue your "he was unarmed, hand's up don't shoot" lies all you like. This was an easy one for the grand jury. Thug tries to kill cop, thug dies. Easy peasy lemon squeezy :)
Click to expand...
Unarmed men shouldn't be able to disarm police officers. I expect law enforcement to be better trained than that.
ttwtt78640 said:
Why should justice not be based on supporting evidence?
Click to expand...
My sentence was a bit vaguely worded. I'm fine with supporting evidence, but feel it should be something a jury should review, rather than a police officer making a unilateral, irreversible decision about.
 
Unrepresented said:
Unarmed men shouldn't be able to disarm police officers. I expect law enforcement to be better trained than that.

My sentence was a bit vaguely worded. I'm fine with supporting evidence, but feel it should be something a jury should review, rather than a police officer making a unilateral, irreversible decision about.
Click to expand...

You mean an unarmed man that's 4 inches taller and 80 pounds heavier, in a violent fit of rage?

Lol, your argument is about as strong as a blade of grass.
 
11Bravo said:
You mean an unarmed man that's 4 inches taller and 80 pounds heavier, in a violent fit of rage?

Lol, your argument is about as strong as a blade of grass.
Click to expand...
Larger men shouldn't have less ability to have a jury of their peers decide their fate than smaller men.

I have very high expectations for what police should be able to do. Preventing a violent man from accessing a deadly weapon is one of them.
 
Unrepresented said:
Unarmed men shouldn't be able to disarm police officers. I expect law enforcement to be better trained than that.

My sentence was a bit vaguely worded. I'm fine with supporting evidence, but feel it should be something a jury should review, rather than a police officer making a unilateral, irreversible decision about.
Click to expand...

That makes little sense to me. The police officer (or any crime victim) must deal with the here and now while the justice system deals with legal theory long after the fact. That is much like saying one should not attempt to stop a crime in progress (requiring a unilateral decision) since a judge and jury are better able to ensure justice.

The GJ determined that a violent crime took place (Brown attacked the officer) and that the officer on the scene lawfully defended himself using deadly force. The officer had indeed made a unilateral decision and the decision was not deemed unlawful by a GJ. Just as in the Zimmerman/Martin case, the GJ (or jury) must decide who was the initial aggressor and whether the shooting preceded the initial physical attack or was used to stop that attack.
 
Unrepresented said:
Larger men shouldn't have less ability to have a jury of their peers decide their fate than smaller men.

I have very high expectations for what police should be able to do. Preventing a violent man from accessing a deadly weapon is one of them.
Click to expand...

Your expectations do not, in no way shape or form, dictate the law. If you go and try and take the police officer's firearm, 9 times out of 10, you will die of a gun shot wound. Police are trained to kill people that are trying to kill them. What if someone took the officer's gun and shot bystanders as well? That's why they are put down.

Your insane theories that the cop should just wrestle the guy, rather than shoot the attempted killer, are just theories. That's why the grand jury didn't side with you.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That makes little sense to me. The police officer (or any crime victim) must deal with the here and now while the justice system deals with legal theory long after the fact. That is much like saying one should not attempt to stop a crime in progress (requiring a unilateral decision) since a judge and jury are better able to ensure justice.

The GJ determined that a violent crime took place (Brown attacked the officer) and that the officer on the scene lawfully defended himself using deadly force. The officer had indeed made a unilateral decision and the decision was not deemed unlawful by a GJ. Just as in the Zimmerman/Martin case, the GJ (or jury) must decide who was the initial aggressor and whether the shooting preceded the initial physical attack or was used to stop that attack.
Click to expand...

You aren't arguing with someone that thinks rationally.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Why should justice not be based on supporting evidence?
Click to expand...

When evidence goes against a deeply held belief, that evidence tends to be dismissed or ignored.

In this case, the deeply held belief was that a white cop shooting a black person is never justified, and that the cops just have it out for black people.

Which is why the Ferguson case and the case of the cigarette seller in NY get lumped together. The facts show that they're two very different cases, but the only thing seen by the racist through the goggles of deeply held belief is white cops and black suspects. Supporting evidence, any facts, are irrelevant in their eyes.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That makes little sense to me. The police officer (or any crime victim) must deal with the here and now while the justice system deals with legal theory long after the fact. That is much like saying one should not attempt to stop a crime in progress (requiring a unilateral decision) since a judge and jury are better able to ensure justice.

The GJ determined that a violent crime took place (Brown attacked the officer) and that the officer on the scene lawfully defended himself using deadly force. The officer had indeed made a unilateral decision and the decision was not deemed unlawful by a GJ. Just as in the Zimmerman/Martin case, the GJ (or jury) must decide who was the initial aggressor and whether the shooting preceded the initial physical attack or was used to stop that attack.
Click to expand...
I am advocating to reform laws and practices to decrease deadly encounters between police and citizens and citizens and citizens. I am advocating that the sentence of a jury by one's peers be increased and death from encounters be decreased.

We're giving both citizens and law enforcement liberty to take lives which while currently legal doesn't match up to my view of either ethical or beneficial to society.
 
Unrepresented said:
I have no idea about Brown's character, I'm speaking specifically about the response to a history of perceived injustice.
Click to expand...

"Perceived" then. You agree that it is "perceived" and not an objectively defined injustice.
 
stonewall50 said:
"Perceived" then. You agree that it is "perceived" and not an objectively defined injustice.
Click to expand...
I can't verify every feeling of violation everyone's every had. Some will be legitimate, others less so. I used it as a catchall to include both.
 
Unrepresented said:
I am advocating to reform laws and practices to decrease deadly encounters between police and citizens and citizens and citizens. I am advocating that the sentence of a jury by one's peers be increased and death from encounters be decreased.

We're giving both citizens and law enforcement liberty to take lives which while currently legal doesn't match up to my view of either ethical or beneficial to society.
Click to expand...

Reform them to what exactly? Reform practices to what exactly?
 
j-mac said:
Reform them to what exactly? Reform practices to what exactly?
Click to expand...
If a police officer is overpowered and has his weapon turned against him there are procedural issues that should be addressed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom