On Sunday, August 17, 2014 10:11:15 AM UTC-4, Robert Macy wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 18:52:16 -0700, nestork

wrote:



...snip...

Here in Canda, we have much the same thing, but only with the native

people of our country. The reason why 80 percent of the prison

population in Canada is native is because they've been so damaged by the

...snip....to keep Aioe happy



Regarding Ferguson, tread lightly. The facts are different than the media

coverage.



Did you know that in the US, if you are assaulted by an assailant carrying

a weapon; you have the right to respond in kind. For example, threatened

with a knife, you can kill to defend. Threatened with a gun, you can kill

to defend. HOWEVER, *if* you disarm your assailant; your right for

retribution disappears. Once you've disarmed him and the threat of death

is gone; you can no longer beat the SOB to a pulp, called excessive force.

That's for a private citizen being threatened with bodily harm.



So raises the question, why would a policeman [who obviously still has his

weapon] NOT be chastised for emptying that weapon into someone? Seems the

threat to policeman was gone. Why do laws that apply to citizens NOT apply

to police officers? Nor even logic?



They do apply to the police. The investigation has to be completed to
figure out to the extent possible, what exactly happened. If it turns
out the officer shot Brown when he was 25 ft away and he had no reason
to believe his own life was in jeopardy, then I'm sure you will see
charges brought.

From what I've heard so far, I'd bet that Brown started it. I say
that because we know he committed a robbery 10 mins earlier, and when
stopped by the officer, Brown had reason to want to get away, because
he likely thought the officer was stopping him for the robbery. So,
it seems more likely he assaulted the officer and tried to get away,
than the version his co-robber gave, which was that the officer tried
to pull Brown into the car. That makes no sense.

What happend after that is the more important part. If Brown was
running away, no reason for the officer to think he was armed, etc and the officer shot him, then clearly he needs to be charged. But suppose he
had his hand in his pants, the officer thought he had a gun, etc, then
it gets a lot more complicated.