Ferguson

MobBoss said:
I don't presume to know what the officers had available for use and what they didn't. I think it a valid question if they did have that stuff available and didn't use it, but with the caveat it still probably would have killed the guy given his health problems.
Click to expand...
A taser likely would have. But pepper spray? Does that routinel kill people? Or are you assuming they'd still use physical force after spraying him?
 
James Stuart said:
A taser likely would have. But pepper spray? Does that routinel kill people? Or are you assuming they'd still use physical force after spraying him?
Click to expand...

Pepper spray on someone with that many medical conditions, especially in the middle of an asthma attack more then likely would have killed him, the tazer would have due to the heart condition. I seriously doubt any of them really had any other non-lethal equipment because the only thing I can think that wouldn't have killed him is maybe a gun with beanbag rounds, but thats more of a riot response gear. I can't imagine anything else that they would have readily available.
 
Colonel said:
Pepper spray on someone with that many medical conditions, especially in the middle of an asthma attack more then likely would have killed him, the tazer would have due to the heart condition. I seriously doubt any of them really had any other non-lethal equipment because the only thing I can think that wouldn't have killed him is maybe a gun with beanbag rounds, but thats more of a riot response gear. I can't imagine anything else that they would have readily available.
Click to expand...
I'm forgetting the asthma attack, because Mobby was writing about heart attacks. Yeah, dumb James, dumb, dumb. Of course pepper spray would kill an asthmatic in the middle of an attack.
 
James Stuart said:
A taser likely would have. But pepper spray? Does that routinel kill people? Or are you assuming they'd still use physical force after spraying him?
Click to expand...

If you have asthma (he did) pepper spray can shut down your airway and kill you.
 
bathsheba666 said:
Liberty shall not be curtailed.
Click to expand...

That's a great slogan, but it doesn't mean much in practice. The whole point of a police force is that a group of vaguely-accountable lawmakers and another group of totally unaccountable judges decide that you're not allowed to do certain things, force you to give them money, and use that money to pay other people to force you to do as they say. All of civilised society is based on curtailing liberty; the question is how much liberty we should trade for how much security.
 
Flying Pig said:
All of civilised society is based on curtailing liberty; the question is how much liberty we should trade for how much security.
Click to expand...
Arguably, civil society is about enabling liberty, by providing a framework in which people can act freely without fear of being clubbed and eaten.

Or maybe they're both true, that civil society means trading some liberties for other liberties.

S'complicated.
 
Traitorfish said:
Arguably, civil society is about enabling liberty, by providing a framework in which people can act freely without fear of being clubbed and eaten.

Or maybe they're both true, that civil society means trading some liberties for other liberties.

S'complicated.
Click to expand...

Positive liberty and all that... I second your closing statement.
 
bathsheba666 said:
Liberty shall not be curtailed.

I am impressed by the determination on display here that US cops should continue to be able to off individuals unimpeded by any normal considerations.
Click to expand...

Except your comment is a blatant misrepresentation. No one where thinks cops should 'off' individuals unimpeded.

Cops that do blatantly cross the line should absolutely be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Cops that are involved in killing someone while defending themselves? Not so much.
 
MobBoss said:
Except your comment is a blatant misrepresentation. No one where thinks cops should 'off' individuals unimpeded.

Cops that do blatantly cross the line should absolutely be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Cops that are involved in killing someone while defending themselves? Not so much.
Click to expand...

by having their pensions removed
 
MobBoss said:
Except your comment is a blatant misrepresentation. No one where thinks cops should 'off' individuals unimpeded.

Cops that do blatantly cross the line should absolutely be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Cops that are involved in killing someone while defending themselves? Not so much.
Click to expand...

I greatly appreciate the nuance and subtlety of distinguishing between not thinking they should off individuals unimpeded without actually impeding them.

What we need here are effective distinctions - well played !
 
MobBoss said:
Except your comment is a blatant misrepresentation.
Click to expand...

When person after person after person attributes the same belief to you, which you claim not to actually believe...perhaps you are misrepresenting yourself?
 
Here's a case where a cop did get indicted.
http://cjonline.com/news/2014-12-04/south-carolina-police-chief-charged-death-unarmed-man

ORANGEBURG, S.C. — A white police chief who fatally shot an unarmed black man in South Carolina in 2011 was charged with murder, and his lawyer accused prosecutors of taking advantage of national outrage toward police to get the indictment.

Richard Combs, the former police chief and sole officer in the small town of Eutawville, was indicted Wednesday, the same day a grand jury in New York decided against charging an officer in a chokehold death, and less than two weeks after there was no indictment in the fatal police shooting in Ferguson, Missouri. Those cases also involved white officers and unarmed black men and the decision not to charge the officers set off protests around the country.

The indictment in the South Carolina case was released Thursday.

The former police chief’s lawyer questioned why prosecutors waited almost four years to ask for the murder charge. Combs had previously been indicted with misconduct in office.

“He’s trying to make it racial,” Combs’ attorney John O’Leary said of Solicitor David Pascoe. “He’s got all the national issues going on.”

Pascoe said he told Combs’ lawyers a year ago that he would pursue a murder charge if a judge rejected Combs’ claim of self-defense. A judge ruled against the defense’s “stand your ground” motion earlier this week.

Combs worked in Eutawville — population 300 and one-third black — when Bernard Bailey came to Town Hall to argue about his daughter’s broken-taillight ticket in May 2011. Combs tried to arrest Bailey on an obstruction of justice charge, prosecutors said. Bailey marched back outside to his truck, and Combs tried to get inside, he said to turn off the ignition. The two briefly fought, and Combs shot Bailey, 54, twice in the chest in his pickup.

Combs said at an earlier hearing that he was tangled in Bailey’s steering wheel as he tried to shut the engine off and feared for his life if Bailey drove away.

Prosecutors said Combs was the aggressor, following Bailey as he tried to get away. They said he should have called for more officers to help or let Bailey go and arrest him another day instead of escalating the confrontation.

State investigators began reviewing the shooting in March 2013 after a U.S. Justice Department investigation determined Combs did not violate Bailey’s civil rights. In August 2013, state prosecutors charged Combs with misconduct in office, which carries a maximum of 10 years in prison.

Combs trial on the lesser charge had been set to start next week, and after the indictment, Pascoe wanted to move forward with a murder trial then. But the judge delayed it until at least January.

Combs’ bail was set at $150,000. O’Leary said he likely won’t be able to pay it because he doesn’t have a job. Combs was placed on leave after the shooting, and the town let him go six months later.

In August, Bailey’s family reached a $400,000 wrongful death settlement with Eutawville, which is 50 miles southeast of Columbia.

His family said they are pleased with the murder indictment. But they don’t think this case should be compared to what happened in Missouri and New York because Eutawville is a small town where everybody knows everyone.

“That is comparing oranges and apples,” said Bailey’s widow, Doris Bailey.
Click to expand...

Arguing a ticket is obstruction of justice?
 
Kaitzilla said:
Arguing a ticket is obstruction of justice?
Click to expand...

Poorly worded article (and repeated through several media outlets).

He had a warrant out for his arrest for a previous incident.

Sounds like he went there to argue the daughter's ticket. The officer informed him he had this outstanding warrant. They argue more and it escalates to what happened.

http://thetandd.com/news/judge-no-s...cle_8e06fc66-7b60-11e4-b9a8-1ba299f9a3f8.html

The shooting occurred on May 2, 2011 in the town hall parking lot after a confrontation over a warrant for Bailey’s arrest.

Bailey had gone to the town hall to talk with Combs about a traffic ticket given to Bailey’s daughter, Briana Bailey, six weeks earlier. Bailey walked out to his truck after Combs told him he had a warrant against him for obstruction of justice.
Click to expand...

Warrants aren't issued by police but by a judge if I'm not mistaken, so it's not likely he got a judge to sign the warrant while arguing with the guy.
 
Silly black people! Haven't they caught on to being second class citizens yet? They're always arguing with the police and getting shot or choked to death.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Formaldehyde
State of Emergency Declared In Ferguson: It's Back...
4 5 6
Replies
119
Views
9K
El_Machinae
El_Machinae
Gary Childress
Dakota Access Pipeline Protests
2 3 4
Replies
79
Views
6K
tetley
T
H
Voting is Undemocratic
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
5K
Lexicus
Lexicus
B
Beer For My Horses
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
7K
Flying Pig
Flying Pig
Kaitzilla
The Zika Virus
2 3 4
Replies
66
Views
5K
flamingo12
F
Back
Top Bottom