Unarmed Missouri teen shot by police sparks outrage

Status
Not open for further replies.
I watched CNN on TV yesterday and I was shocked to hear that law experts said that any law enforcement can use deadly force if s/he is assaulted. That means s/he can shoot to kill a fleeing assailant which is allowed by Supreme Court. Seriously?
 
sonocativo said:
Nope, thats what a witness said.
Click to expand...

Another witness said something completely difference . I saw on the news today a guy was saying all the people protecting the shooting had gone home and had nothing to do with the looting of stores. The cop that shot the teenage was not aware that he was a suspect in a robbery so there was no reason to show the video of the robbery , that shooting had nothing to do with the robbery.
 
CrazyPaul said:
I watched CNN on TV yesterday and I was shocked to hear that law experts said that any law enforcement can use deadly force if s/he is assaulted. That means s/he can shoot to kill a fleeing assailant which is allowed by Supreme Court. Seriously?
Click to expand...

Didn't some cop shot a person b/c they sign in ASL that where HOH by putting two fingers up to side of their head? I seem to remember reading something like this here. So a cops can shot an unarmed in the back while fleeing??? :shock:
 
whatdidyousay! said:
Another witness said something completely difference . I saw on the news today a guy was saying all the people protecting the shooting had gone home and had nothing to do with the looting of stores. The cop that shot the teenage was not aware that he was a suspect in a robbery so there was no reason to show the video of the robbery , that shooting had nothing to do with the robbery.
Click to expand...
You fail to acknowledge that the public has rights to ask for the name of the officer so do the mass media that asked for the release of the robbery video. In other words, we, the public have rights to see the video so that's why the police released the video. Don't blame the police. Please tell me how the officer's face was swollen when he confronted Brown who thought he could get away with it. Smh
 
whatdidyousay! said:
Didn't some cop shot a person b/c they sign in ASL that where HOH by putting two fingers up to side of their head? I seem to remember reading something like this here. So a cops can shot an unarmed in the back while fleeing??? :shock:
Click to expand...
I don't know what you are talking about, according to a deaf person getting shot by the cop. As for a fleeing unarmed person, law experts said if the person assaults a cop and flees, the cop can shoot the assailant in the back or hands up that is allowed by Supreme Court. I am shocked, too so we better NOT assault a cop, otherwise we will be dead.
 
Jiro or Foxrac, I am curious what would happen to a witness if FBI finds him/her giving a false information after the document is signed by the witness. Imprisoned and/or fine? In other words, a witness is required to sign his/her name after the info is given to a law enforcement by the witness to state that it's the truth.
 
If you take criminal justice course, there is chapter mentioning witness, their value of evidence as witness is now weight about 10% of whole case, what that means is that statement from witness is not reliable, and can easily be dismissed by judge.

And to prove intention of lying is very difficult because, under signature, it say "To best of my knowledge" It is very loose statement because nobody can prove if one made statement wether with knowledge or not.

I learn that from attorney recently when I had a very serious trauma (Near death) accident, my attorney point out the statement "To best of my knowledge" meaning if you forget or omitted or made mistake, you can change at later time, and it by no means as final statement.

CrazyPaul said:
Jiro or Foxrac, I am curious what would happen to a witness if FBI finds him/her giving a false information after the document is signed by the witness. Imprisoned and/or fine? In other words, a witness is required to sign his/her name after the info is given to a law enforcement by the witness to state that it's the truth.
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker said:
If you take criminal justice course, there is chapter mentioning witness, their value of evidence as witness is now weight about 10% of whole case, what that means is that statement from witness is not reliable, and can easily be dismissed by judge.

And to prove intention of lying is very difficult because, under signature, it say "To best of my knowledge" It is very loose statement because nobody can prove if one made statement wether with knowledge or not.

I learn that from attorney recently when I had an accident, my attorney point out the statement "To best of my knowledge" meaning if you forget or omitted or made mistake, you can change at later time, and it by no means as final statement.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Sorry for forgetting to add you. So no imprisonment and/or fine for the witness who gave false info? For example, a witness says Brown didn't assault the cop while he actually assaulted the cop.
 
There are threats to riot in Atlanta all over social media ....
 
Steinhauer said:
There are threats to riot in Atlanta all over social media ....
Click to expand...
OMG! Media is not to blame. Their job is to share info as long as the public demands it. If the rioters don't like what they hear, they act like animals. Nothing new. I never forget about Rodney King incident. Hundreds of brainless looters were arrested.

My point is that people who support Brown CAN'T control the public information. They are embarrassed that there's a truth behind it.
 
All these rioters are going to accomplish is a Presidential order to bring in the National Guard.
 
CrazyPaul said:
Remember Trayvon's personal pictures were inadmissible.
Click to expand...

I also remember the media only publishing photos of him as a child, not as the adult he became, so they could put their spin on it. Like it or not, photos displayed on FB doing gang signs and glorifying gang life, speaks to character, which is admissible in court.

Laura
 
Lau2046 said:
I also remember the media only publishing photos of him as a child, not as the adult he became, so they could put their spin on it. Like it or not, photos displayed on FB doing gang signs and glorifying gang life, speaks to character, which is admissible in court.

Laura
Click to expand...
No, GZ's defendant lawyer wanted to show those photos to the jury but the court won't allow it. I am surprised that you don't know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top