Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bauglir]

It's why aggravated assault imposes penalties above regular assault when you're using a deadly weapon

Erm... Most of the things typically thought of as 'deadly weapons' (such as knives) it is illegal to carry around in public... Also, literally anything can be a deadly weapon.

Then again, I might be missing something since I don't live in 'Murica where any average Joe can a buy gun from your local supermarket and convenience store.

You can get a license for these things. Deadly weapon is a well-defined legal category, actually. I don't think I need to argue that licensing people to wear hoodies in public is absurd, but keep in mind that's still technically more permissive than what's being suggested. The point is that the law often includes penalties that exacerbate punishments for crimes committed in particular ways - which doesn't necessarily do much to deter crime because criminals are rarely rationally computing expected losses from their actions, don't expect to be caught, and so on. I just grabbed an obvious example.

[Frumple]

Yet comment from a fellow moderate was that there was new evidence suggesting Brown had reacted violently and/or tried to resist arrest to the police officer, thus adding more assets towards the cop's innocence regarding this issue.

What is this evidence and how credible is it?

Outside the publicly released grand jury testimonies, I'm personally unaware of any notable evidence of that nature. And in that case, you've got contradictory testimony from the two closest people (Brown's friend, and the police officer) in regards to what went down and a fairly incredibly shitty prosecutorial performance crapping all over much of what came out of said grand jury.

If there's nothing new and that's what they were talking about, the answer is the grand jury testimonies (in this case, pretty much entirely the LEO's, since the other immediate report marks the officer as the belligerent party and initiator of violence) and very much arguably credible.

E: I'll admit I haven't exactly been paying attention once it became fairly obvious the situation wasn't going to trial like it needed to, though. It's entirely possible there's some sort of new evidence that's come up, but I'm not entirely sure what that evidence could be, unless they somehow dug up a close-up video recording of the event, complete with clear audio.

[SalmonGod]

That's quite a lot of information you're asking for there, Sheo.  The details are quite hotly debated, and one could write a very long post in order to cover them all comprehensively.

I'll summarize for you as best I can:  The police selectively edited some surveillance footage from a local convenience store to make it look like Brown was a thug, but the owner of that store later vouched that Brown didn't bully anybody or steal anything.  There was a disagreement between Brown and store clerk that got heated for a few seconds (something about the clerk refusing to accept Brown's payment, IIRC) during which Brown shoved the clerk, but it ended peacefully and Brown paid for the stuff and left.

The police account of the confrontation is that Brown attacked Wilson, ran away, and then turned back around and charged at him.  Other witness accounts seem to indicate the exact opposite.  Forensic evidence supports a mix between the two stories, but there was no evidence or testimony that I'm aware of besides Wilson's own word that Brown ever attacked him.  The guy who was walking with Brown says that Wilson pulled up right next to them and pulled Brown into his car window.  One thing quite clear is that Wilson's account is lying about multiple details, but not anything that points to one side or the other's story being conclusively the correct one.

Personally, I'm much more inclined to believe it was Wilson that attacked Brown, but I'm very cynical about police in the U.S.  Go ahead and ask if you have any more specific questions, but I would suggest looking up fact-based sources on your own to get a better impression of what the issue looks like.

[Sheo]

That's quite a lot of information you're asking for there, Sheo.  The details are quite hotly debated, and one could write a very long post in order to cover them all comprehensively.

I'll summarize for you as best I can:  The police selectively edited some surveillance footage from a local convenience store to make it look like Brown was a thug, but the owner of that store later vouched that Brown didn't bully anybody or steal anything.  There was a disagreement between Brown and store clerk that got heated for a few seconds (something about the clerk refusing to accept Brown's payment, IIRC) during which Brown shoved the clerk, but it ended peacefully and Brown paid for the stuff and left.

The police account of the confrontation is that Brown attacked Wilson, ran away, and then turned back around and charged at him.  Other witness accounts seem to indicate the exact opposite.  Forensic evidence supports a mix between the two stories, but there was no evidence or testimony that I'm aware of besides Wilson's own word that Brown ever attacked him.  The guy who was walking with Brown says that Wilson pulled up right next to them and pulled Brown into his car window.  One thing quite clear is that Wilson's account is lying about multiple details, but not anything that points to one side or the other's story being conclusively the correct one.

Personally, I'm much more inclined to believe it was Wilson that attacked Brown, but I'm very cynical about police in the U.S.  Go ahead and ask if you have any more specific questions, but I would suggest looking up fact-based sources on your own to get a better impression of what the issue looks like.

Your explanation is already quite satisfactory - thanks, friend.

That was pretty much all I needed. My friend's comment made it seem like there was no doubt whatsoever of which side was right or wrong.

It is good to know things aren't quite so black and white.

[Arcvasti]

This has probably been mentioned already, but fun fact- if you're black belt in something you automatically get upgraded to 'deadly weapon' status; legally.

So if I picked up a black belt martial artist and hit someone with him, he counts as a deadly weapon?

[SalmonGod]

Not completely, no... but there are many well-established facts that do not reflect well at all on the police.  There are two major unresolved disputes about what happened during the confrontation

1.  Who initiated the scuffle inside Wilson's car.  Did Wilson pull him in, or did Brown reach through on his own?  (Noteworthy point:  there was supposedly a gunshot from within the car, and Wilson's blood was found inside the car.  Wilson claims he suffered a horrible face injury, but photo evidence following the event show only a light bruise under his eye.)
2.  After that scuffle, Brown ran.   Wilson got out of his car and shot at him.  Brown then stopped and turned around.  What's unclear at this point is whether Brown proceeded to charge back towards Wilson or not.

But the following is stuff that indisputably reflects badly on police.

1.  Police releasing misleading content to the public to try and smear public perception of Brown's character.
2.  According to Wilson's story, he asked these two people to get out of the street.  They responded aggressively to him, and he was afraid of them.  So why did he respond by spontaneously pulling his car around to where his window was within arm's reach?  (one conclusive fact established by witnesses is they heard tires squeeling just before Brown's upper body was seen through Wilson's car window)
3.  It's firmly established that Wilson shot at Brown as he was running away, and the final barrage of bullets was fired from a pretty good distance.  Why?
4.  The court proceedings were very obviously corrupted in order to prevent a trial.

[Tack]

This has probably been mentioned already, but fun fact- if you're black belt in something you automatically get upgraded to 'deadly weapon' status; legally.

So if I picked up a black belt martial artist and hit someone with him, he counts as a deadly weapon?

Depends. Is he flailing?

[Phmcw]

Not completely, no... but there are many well-established facts that do not reflect well at all on the police.  There are two major unresolved disputes about what happened during the confrontation

1.  Who initiated the scuffle inside Wilson's car.  Did Wilson pull him in, or did Brown reach through on his own?  (Noteworthy point:  there was supposedly a gunshot from within the car, and Wilson's blood was found inside the car.  Wilson claims he suffered a horrible face injury, but photo evidence following the event show only a light bruise under his eye.)
2.  After that scuffle, Brown ran.   Wilson got out of his car and shot at him.  Brown then stopped and turned around.  What's unclear at this point is whether Brown proceeded to charge back towards Wilson or not.

But the following is stuff that indisputably reflects badly on police.

1.  Police releasing misleading content to the public to try and smear public perception of Brown's character.
2.  According to Wilson's story, he asked these two people to get out of the street.  They responded aggressively to him, and he was afraid of them.  So why did he respond by spontaneously pulling his car around to where his window was within arm's reach?  (one conclusive fact established by witnesses is they heard tires squeeling just before Brown's upper body was seen through Wilson's car window)
3.  It's firmly established that Wilson shot at Brown as he was running away, and the final barrage of bullets was fired from a pretty good distance.  Why?
4.  The court proceedings were very obviously corrupted in order to prevent a trial.

It's horribly hard to form an hard oppinion on this topic when the only certainty you have is that all official report will be tampered with if convenient.

I'd say "but the autopsy" but american police has been known to mess with about everything in the past. And the witnesses are never reliable in those cases.

If you think it's important to know for sure if peoples are being murdered, you'll have to fix the system. And keep in mind it may happen to you or anyone you know, being black only make it more likely. Beside the police aren't the only one with impunity, very rich peoples seems to have gotten a pass in several occasions too.

[Helgoland]

but while reading this discussion, I also can't stop thinking about the recent push in the U.S. to ban face-coverings and the like at protests or even in general public, quite obviously for the purpose of discouraging political expression.

This is actually the one case in which I'm certain it is forbidden in Germany to cover up - the Vermummungsverbot. It was instated to make prosecution of crimes during demonstrations, such as throwing rocks, easier.
And honestly if you're going to be active politically you can at least have the decency to show who you are. Demonstrations are a form of communication, after all.

[SalmonGod]

And honestly if you're going to be active politically you can at least have the decency to show who you are. Demonstrations are a form of communication, after all.

I agree if being "active politically" means "running for or serving as a professional politician".

Otherwise, I cannot agree.  In the U.S., employers will fire you, you might be placed on "potential domestic terrorist" watchlists, marked for harassment and denial of access to rights by authorities, and even targeted for assassination (Link:  The FBI was aware of an assassination plot targeting Occupy organizers.  Didn't bother to warn the targets, and still refuses to release any further details beyond the FOIA revelations that there was one and they knew about it.)

Freedom of expression is not so respected in the U.S. as it's supposed to be, and can be a serious danger to livelihoods.  Removing the ability to do so anonymously is a really easy way to discourage many from doing so at all.

[Helgoland]

Otherwise, I cannot agree.  In the U.S., employers will fire you, you might be placed on "potential domestic terrorist" watchlists, marked for harassment and denial of access to rights by authorities, and even targeted for assassination (Link:  The FBI was aware of an assassination plot targeting Occupy organizers.  Didn't bother to warn the targets, and still refuses to release any further details beyond the FOIA revelations that there was one and they knew about it.)

Freedom of expression is not so respected in the U.S. as it's supposed to be, and can be a serious danger to livelihoods.  Removing the ability to do so anonymously is a really easy way to discourage many from doing so at all.

Wearing baclavas/burkas/whatever is not the appropriate way to stop such things from happening: Being put on any list requires them to have your name, which kinda implies you already were stopped by an officer and had your personal info noted, and against employers firing you (the real risk for most demonstrations, methinks) there are the courts (there are laws against that type of thing, right?) and, if nothing else helps, public outrage. One could even argue that being fired because of demonstrating is a good thing, since it gives a chance to expose an employer with an undesirable political agenda to the general public.

And to your last point: Who covers their faces right now anyway? Paranoiacs and the black bloc. It certainly isn't the norm, and so it is absurd to claim that the average protestor would be hindered by such a law.

[Phmcw]

I forgot about that : peoples tend to lose their jobs over stupid internet feud in the US, so I suppose that being in a protest would be an huge professional risk. On the left as on the right, actually, and I hate how witch-hunty a part of left has become, too.

Before anyone write something to complain, remembre which side you took in the campain to get Brian Eich fired over a PRIVATE donnation.

[ChairmanPoo]

gainst employers firing you (the real risk for most demonstrations, methinks) there are the courts (there are laws against that type of thing, right?)

No there aren't.  Not in Europe, much less in the US where labor laws are waaayy less developed.

[Phmcw]

gainst employers firing you (the real risk for most demonstrations, methinks) there are the courts (there are laws against that type of thing, right?)

No there aren't.  Not in Europe, much less in the US where labor laws are waaayy less developed.

In Belgium that's illegal but hard to sue (you have to prove the fact that the termination wasn't used for its intended purpose) if you're an employee but blatantly illegal if you're a manual worker and easy to prove. A freelance may be in more trouble.

[ChairmanPoo]

I dont know the details of other parts of the EU, but here in Spain you can fire someone with no reason at all. Sure, it's ruled as improcedent and you have to pay an extra penalty, but it's not very expensive, either. It's so standard that there's even a mechanism from employers to "improcedently" fire someone and pay the penalty directly, without going to court.  The only time this cannot be done to you  is if you're your co-workers' trade union representative (also, it's virtually impossible in the public sector, but that's another can of worms)

The way I hear it, inthe rest of Europe for the most part laws are even laxer in regards to job termination, but I don't know the details.

On the other hand, I've also heard that labor inspections are more frequent and more serious, so there's likely less bullshit with unpaid extra work hours, so there's that.....