Michael Brown

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah I don't think so. When someone has been subdued and is already on the ground and obviously can't breath because he has multiple grown men bearing down on him and one choking him, plus he's begging them to stop because he can't breath, that's not very gray. I don't care what any lawyer or grand jury says, the dud choking him needs to be charged.

This right here is the problem. People who know probably 2% of the facts of the case feel their opinion is more informed than those who make their living dealing with these cases and people who spend weeks/months hearing evidence and arguments on the case.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This right here is the problem. People who know probably 2% of the facts of the case feel their opinion is more informed than those who make their living dealing with these cases and people who spend weeks/months hearing evidence and arguments on the case.

Kinda hard to argue with a video of what actually happened. And I never claimed to know anything beyond what the video showed. I also never claimed my opinion was more informed. I just gave my opinion. Sorry it isn't the same as yours.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Kinda hard to argue with a video of what actually happened. And I never claimed to know anything beyond what the video showed. I also never claimed my opinion was more informed. I just gave my opinion. Sorry it isn't the same as yours.

I have no opinion on this case. And I think it's absurd to form an opinion based upon a couple minutes of video tape. How much do you know about legality/morality of something like a policeman using a chokehold? How much do you know on what constitutes a chokehold? How much do you know about this man's medical history and condititions, and how those may have affected the situation? Did you learn all of these things from watching the video?

It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
-Mark Twain

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by HeallunRumblebelly [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Had a friend shot in the head for having the audacity to have a cell phone in his hand and walk to subway.

Sorry if this comes off as crass, but this sounds like the people who were saying "Trayvon Martin was shot for having the audacity to wear a hoodie and buy some skittles." My guess is that there is more to the story. Either that, or there is now a person in jail for attempted murder.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I have no opinion on this case. And I think it's absurd to form an opinion based upon a couple minutes of video tape. How much do you know about legality/morality of something like a policeman using a chokehold? How much do you know on what constitutes a chokehold? How much do you know about this man's medical history and condititions, and how those may have affected the situation? Did you learn all of these things from watching the video?

It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
-Mark Twain

Well I know that the use of chokeholds was banned in the nypd as of 1993. I'm pretty sure the officer involved was trained post 1993. I guess I can't be sure, but I'm willing to make that assumption. I also know that when you put your arm around someone's neck and hold it there, that should qualify as a chokehold. Or does it need to conform to some jujitsu dojo standard for form and grip?
As far as his medical conditions, I really don't know. I'm pretty sure we all have a dependency on oxygen though. And police officer or not, if someone has been pinned to the ground and no longer poses a threat to yourself or others and is begging you to let him breath, the moral thing to do would be to allow him to breath. I guess that's probably just due to my lack of knowledge about how long he could hold his breath though.

[MrSparkle001]

Funny because I heard that the chokehold was legal and that's one of the main reasons why there wasn't an indictment.

I have to side with the grand jury on this one too. They saw the evidence and were told about the laws. All I have is a short video and the media.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by MrSparkle001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Funny because I heard that the chokehold was legal and that's one of the main reasons why there wasn't an indictment.

I have to side with the grand jury on this one too. They saw the evidence and were told about the laws. All I have is a short video and the media.

I know I've heard that it was legal, illegal, banned, ok...pretty much everything except a definite answer. The great thing is that laws about stuff like this are written purposefully vague so that they can be bent one way or the other depending on the circumstance. As far as the video goes, it didn't seem like people had a problem forming a definite opinion about Michael Brown after the footage of him robbing a store before he got shot was released. I know my opinion certainly changed based on that.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I really don't know.

That's all you really needed to say. Your next step is to stop forming opinions while in this state of ignorance.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I know I've heard that it was legal, illegal, banned, ok...pretty much everything except a definite answer. The great thing is that laws about stuff like this are written purposefully vague so that they can be bent one way or the other depending on the circumstance.

No, it's not vague. Choke holds are legal (i.e. not against the law), but they are against police policy. So using one is a policy violation, which is not punishable by the law, but rather an employment matter. Like if you use your computer at work to watch porn. You can be fired, but the company can't bring criminal charges against you (in most circumstances) since it's not an illegal act.

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

As far as the video goes, it didn't seem like people had a problem forming a definite opinion about Michael Brown after the footage of him robbing a store before he got shot was released. I know my opinion certainly changed based on that.

Video evidence can be useful (although I doubt it was even presented to the Darren Wilson grand jury since grand juries only hear from the prosecutor), but forming an opinion based solely on a video is idiotic at best. I mean, what exactly would you have known about the altercation between Wilson and Brown that happened minutes after Brown was last on video? The video shows nothing about the incident in question, and so forming a solid opinion based solely on that is suspect logic.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That's all you really needed to say. Your next step is to stop forming opinions while in this state of ignorance.

K.

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Sorry if this comes off as crass, but this sounds like the people who were saying "Trayvon Martin was shot for having the audacity to wear a hoodie and buy some skittles." My guess is that there is more to the story. Either that, or there is now a person in jail for attempted murder.

I'm sorry, what was that you were saying?