"...The forensics tests showed Mr. Brown’s blood on the gun, as well
as on the interior door panel and on Officer Wilson’s uniform. Officer
Wilson told the authorities that Mr. Brown had punched and scratched
him repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck."

See: the cop was correct and not just out to kill a Negroid!

Article/video from the "you libs".

(By Michael S. Schmidt, Matt Apuzzo and Julie Bosman, NY Times)

http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/10/19/report-michael-browns-blood-found-officer-darren-wilsons-gun-car-door

https://tinyurl.com/o5z5a8k

I love America!

As I said before. it will be in the officer's favor... if the gun had
DNA on it.

OK, if the gun, uniform and car door had Michael Brown's blood on them, then doesn't that refute the supposed "eye witness" testimony that Brown was shot at some distance (about 30 feet) from the cop car with his hands in the air (in a gesture of surrender)?

Or does that now mean that there was an initial struggle between Wilson and Brown in the car, and that Brown gave up on that struggle and walked away only to turn around and be shot by the cop from about 30 feet away?

I know there was one supposed eye witness that said she saw Brown shot while his hands were in the air in an apparant gesture of surrender. Without knowing what happened immediately before that, both accounts are plausible. Brown could have struggled with Wilson in the car, and then given up on the struggle and walked away only to have been shot by Wilson when he turned around and raised his hands to surrender. (?)

This is going to turn into another Treyvon Martin / George Zimmerman court case where only one survivor of the altercation actually knows what happened.

On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 14:10:53 -0700, Oren wrote:

"...The forensics tests showed Mr. Brown’s blood on the gun, as well
as on the interior door panel and on Officer Wilson’s uniform. Officer
Wilson told the authorities that Mr. Brown had punched and scratched
him repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck."

See: the cop was correct and not just out to kill a Negroid!

Article/video from the "you libs".

(By Michael S. Schmidt, Matt Apuzzo and Julie Bosman, NY Times)

http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/10/19/report-michael-browns-blood-found-officer-darren-wilsons-gun-car-door

https://tinyurl.com/o5z5a8k

I love America!

As I said before. it will be in the officer's favor... if the gun had
DNA on it.

Oren,

Why are you spreading all those racist lies? You should be ashamed.
The only thing you are doing is upsetting all the poor innocent
victims that us white honkies have suppressed forever. Then do you
know what's going to happen? Well, I'll tell you. somebody is going to
call reverend Al and his close buddy Jessy!

Then the ****'s going to hit the fan and all them spear Chuckers,
oops, Negros are going to burn and destroy that whole damn town. When
that happens they're going to want someone to blame because it
certainly won't be the Porch Monkeys fault, right? Do you know who
they're going to blame? This should be easy to answer because we've
had six years of it so far.

They're going to blame Bush. Again. So, knock it off Oren!

On 10/19/2014 5:45 PM, nestork wrote:
OK, if the gun, uniform and car door had Michael Brown's blood on them,
then doesn't that refute the supposed "eye witness" testimony that Brown
was shot at some distance (about 30 feet) from the cop car with his
hands in the air (in a gesture of surrender)?



Or the boyz in da hood will say all the blood
is further evidence that the cop attacked the
nice young man who was on the way to take
cigars to his ailing grand mother who is
invalid and house bound.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 10/19/2014 6:12 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
Oren,

Why are you spreading all those racist lies? You should be ashamed.
The only thing you are doing is upsetting all the poor innocent
victims that us white honkies have suppressed forever. Then do you
know what's going to happen? Well, I'll tell you. somebody is going to
call reverend Al and his close buddy Jessy!

Then the ****'s going to hit the fan and all them spear Chuckers,
oops, Negros are going to burn and destroy that whole damn town. When
that happens they're going to want someone to blame because it
certainly won't be the Porch Monkeys fault, right? Do you know who
they're going to blame? This should be easy to answer because we've
had six years of it so far.

They're going to blame Bush. Again. So, knock it off Oren!


Of course, the evil white cop pounded
the innocent negro teenager, and made
him bleed. Strange that the cop beat
the teen by head butting him with his
eye socket, but still.....
--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On Monday, October 20, 2014 5:05:42 AM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 10/19/2014 6:12 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:

Oren,



Why are you spreading all those racist lies? You should be ashamed.

The only thing you are doing is upsetting all the poor innocent

victims that us white honkies have suppressed forever. Then do you

know what's going to happen? Well, I'll tell you. somebody is going to

call reverend Al and his close buddy Jessy!



Then the ****'s going to hit the fan and all them spear Chuckers,

oops, Negros are going to burn and destroy that whole damn town. When

that happens they're going to want someone to blame because it

certainly won't be the Porch Monkeys fault, right? Do you know who

they're going to blame? This should be easy to answer because we've

had six years of it so far.



They're going to blame Bush. Again. So, knock it off Oren!





Of course, the evil white cop pounded

the innocent negro teenager, and made

him bleed. Strange that the cop beat

the teen by head butting him with his

eye socket, but still.....

--


More likely they'll claim the police planted the blood, like
they they did in the OJ case. Harder to claim they planted that
broken eye socket. If indeed it's broken. It's bizarre that
even at this stage, AFAIK the police haven't even confirmed the
extent of the officer's injuries.

The police chief did join the protesters a couple weeks ago.
They were calling for his resignation and he went out to join
them. How nuts is that? Trouble quickly ensued, and the previous weeks
of calm went down the drain. Apparently the police chief was listening
to the advice of some PR expert they hired. Turns out a few days
later they found out he had a criminal record. Nice.

On Sunday, October 19, 2014 5:45:47 PM UTC-4, nestork wrote:
OK, if the gun, uniform and car door had Michael Brown's blood on them,

then doesn't that refute the supposed "eye witness" testimony that Brown

was shot at some distance (about 30 feet) from the cop car with his

hands in the air (in a gesture of surrender)?



No, but it pretty much shatters the testimony that they were just
walking down the street and that the cop had no reason to fear them.
We know one guy, the other perp, is a liar for sure. IDK how many
witnesses they have. I heard there is supposed to be at least one
that supports the officer's version.




Or does that now mean that there was an initial struggle between Wilson

and Brown in the car, and that Brown gave up on that struggle and walked

away only to turn around and be shot by the cop from about 30 feet

away?



That the officer was attacked while in his patrol car was the officer's
version from the beginning. Brown struggled with him for his gun, the
gun went off while he was still in the car. There should be forensics
to prove that too.

Now, given that you have the blood evidence, what does that tell you
about who started it? Do you think any cop is going to try to punch
someone and start a fight when he's still sitting in his car and most
vulnerable? It obviously happened the way the officer described, he
was trying to get out of his car and Brown blocked the door, started
wailing on him while he was still in the car.




I know there was one supposed eye witness that said she saw Brown shot

while his hands were in the air in an apparant gesture of surrender.

Without knowing what happened immediately before that, both accounts are

plausible. Brown could have struggled with Wilson in the car, and then

given up on the struggle and walked away only to have been shot by

Wilson when he turned around and raised his hands to surrender. (?)


Yeah, anything is possible, but I doubt it. How about this for a defense.
Officer: My eye was badly injured by the perp, my vision impaired, what I saw to the best of my determination was the perp coming at me.





This is going to turn into another Treyvon Martin / George Zimmerman

court case where only one survivor of the altercation actually knows

what happened.


The Martin thing ended because the eyewitness testimony and the
forensic evidence all supported Z's version of what happened. It
didn't even matter who started it. There was plenty of evidence that
Z was on the ground, getting his head bashed into the sidewalk, yelling
for help. At that point, even if you pushed the guy and started it,
you're justified in using deadly force to end it.

On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 17:12:00 -0500, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 14:10:53 -0700, Oren wrote:

"...The forensics tests showed Mr. Brown’s blood on the gun, as well
as on the interior door panel and on Officer Wilson’s uniform. Officer
Wilson told the authorities that Mr. Brown had punched and scratched
him repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck."

See: the cop was correct and not just out to kill a Negroid!

Article/video from the "you libs".

(By Michael S. Schmidt, Matt Apuzzo and Julie Bosman, NY Times)

http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/10/19/report-michael-browns-blood-found-officer-darren-wilsons-gun-car-door

https://tinyurl.com/o5z5a8k

I love America!

As I said before. it will be in the officer's favor... if the gun had
DNA on it.

Oren,

Why are you spreading all those racist lies? You should be ashamed.
The only thing you are doing is upsetting all the poor innocent
victims that us white honkies have suppressed forever. Then do you
know what's going to happen? Well, I'll tell you. somebody is going to
call reverend Al and his close buddy Jessy!

Then the ****'s going to hit the fan and all them spear Chuckers,
oops, Negros are going to burn and destroy that whole damn town. When
that happens they're going to want someone to blame because it
certainly won't be the Porch Monkeys fault, right? Do you know who
they're going to blame? This should be easy to answer because we've
had six years of it so far.

They're going to blame Bush. Again. So, knock it off Oren!

Should I stand in the corner or go to my room and then stand in the
corner

On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 23:45:47 +0200, nestork
wrote:


OK, if the gun, uniform and car door had Michael Brown's blood on them,
then doesn't that refute the supposed "eye witness" testimony that Brown
was shot at some distance (about 30 feet) from the cop car with his
hands in the air (in a gesture of surrender)?


DNA supports the officer was attacked in his vehicle. What makes you
believe that Brown had his hands up? If he was shot again at 30' away,
where is the bad in that? Police can shoot a fleeing felon - even in
the back, without a warning shot or orders to "halt in the name of the
law!"

Or does that now mean that there was an initial struggle between Wilson
and Brown in the car, and that Brown gave up on that struggle and walked
away only to turn around and be shot by the cop from about 30 feet
away?

Even the early reports suggested Brown assaulted the officer at his
vehicle. Some accounts say he charged the officer again from X feet
distances.

I know there was one supposed eye witness that said she saw Brown shot
while his hands were in the air in an apparant gesture of surrender.
Without knowing what happened immediately before that, both accounts are
plausible. Brown could have struggled with Wilson in the car, and then
given up on the struggle and walked away only to have been shot by
Wilson when he turned around and raised his hands to surrender. (?)


The forensics have spoken. Wilson was assaulted in a vicious attack.
Shooting Brown was justified.

This is going to turn into another Treyvon Martin / George Zimmerman
court case where only one survivor of the altercation actually knows
what happened.

No, it isn't the same. Based on evidence so far Wilson will not be
indicted, or see the inside of a court room. Much less be arrested for
a crime. Unless you know something special. I'm not a lawyer. The
Grand Jury testimony is secret.

On Sunday, October 19, 2014 6:40:53 PM UTC-2:30, Oren wrote:
"...The forensics tests showed Mr. Brown's blood on the gun, as well

as on the interior door panel and on Officer Wilson's uniform. Officer

Wilson told the authorities that Mr. Brown had punched and scratched

him repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck."



See: the cop was correct and not just out to kill a Negroid!



Article/video from the "you libs".



(By Michael S. Schmidt, Matt Apuzzo and Julie Bosman, NY Times)



http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/10/19/report-michael-browns-blood-found-officer-darren-wilsons-gun-car-door



https://tinyurl.com/o5z5a8k



I love America!



As I said before. it will be in the officer's favor... if the gun had

DNA on it.

On Sunday, October 19, 2014 6:40:53 PM UTC-2:30, Oren wrote:
"...The forensics tests showed Mr. Brown's blood on the gun, .......

What on earth has this item (some US assault case apparently?) got to do with the topic for this news group?????? Which supposed to be concerning building/house repairs and such?

On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 13:44:04 -0700 (PDT), terry
wrote:

"...The forensics tests showed Mr. Brown's blood on the gun, .......

What on earth has this item (some US assault case apparently?) got to do with the topic for this news group?????? Which supposed to be concerning building/house repairs and such?

Why does a Canuck, like you, from New Brunswick
Halifax, Canada even worry about America?

Guns in America protect buildings, homes and supports home repairs.
Get back under your rock from whence you came from. Spit!

Why are you replying in an OT subject, asshokle?

Terry:

The beginning of the thread starts with the letters "OT", which means the thread is Off Topic. That means it's about something other than home repairs. In this case, it's about a white cop shooting a black teenager under contentious circumstances, and that's about as different from home repairs as a fish is from a bicycle. Alternatively, it could equally be about how a racist white cop attacked an innocent black teenager's fist with his face so violently as to break the bone around his eye socket. Thankfully, the black teenager's fist was unharmed in the attack. Still, it's different than home repairs, which warrants the "OT" preface in the thread name.

Oren wrote:
It's because we Canadians consider you Americans our younger brothers. We kind of look out for you to make sure you don't get in over your heads in stuff that's new to you. Terry figured the thread had gone off it's rails and figured he'd bring it to someone's attention. He figured we might not be aware that we're talking about a racially sensitive shooting in a home repair forum.

Thanks for alerting us, Terry. Good thing one of us is on the job watching out to see that these guys know what they're doing in here.

On Monday, October 20, 2014 2:04:05 AM UTC-7, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 10/19/2014 5:45 PM, nestork wrote:

Or the boyz in da hood will say all the blood
is further evidence that the cop attacked the
nice young man who was on the way to take
cigars to his ailing grand mother who is
invalid and house bound.

Christopher A. Young

Learn about Jesus

www.lds.org

You're nullifying the positive message that those "I'm a Mormon"
commercials tried to convey and instead stereotyping the image
expected from a formerly segregated church that didn't allow
black clergy.

On 10/21/2014 10:18 AM, wrote:
On Monday, October 20, 2014 2:04:05 AM UTC-7, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 10/19/2014 5:45 PM, nestork wrote:

Or the boyz in da hood will say all the blood
is further evidence that the cop attacked the
nice young man who was on the way to take
cigars to his ailing grand mother who is
invalid and house bound.

Christopher A. Young

Learn about Jesus

www.lds.org

You're nullifying the positive message that those "I'm a Mormon"
commercials tried to convey and instead stereotyping the image
expected from a formerly segregated church that didn't allow
black clergy.


Are you Moe or Curly? Woo! Woo! Woo!

I'm hoping to nullify your comment.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 10/20/2014 2:08 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 23:45:47 +0200, nestork
wrote:


OK, if the gun, uniform and car door had Michael Brown's blood on them,
then doesn't that refute the supposed "eye witness" testimony that Brown
was shot at some distance (about 30 feet) from the cop car with his
hands in the air (in a gesture of surrender)?


DNA supports the officer was attacked in his vehicle. What makes you
believe that Brown had his hands up? If he was shot again at 30' away,
where is the bad in that? Police can shoot a fleeing felon - even in
the back, without a warning shot or orders to "halt in the name of the
law!"

Or does that now mean that there was an initial struggle between Wilson
and Brown in the car, and that Brown gave up on that struggle and walked
away only to turn around and be shot by the cop from about 30 feet
away?

Even the early reports suggested Brown assaulted the officer at his
vehicle. Some accounts say he charged the officer again from X feet
distances.

I know there was one supposed eye witness that said she saw Brown shot
while his hands were in the air in an apparant gesture of surrender.
Without knowing what happened immediately before that, both accounts are
plausible. Brown could have struggled with Wilson in the car, and then
given up on the struggle and walked away only to have been shot by
Wilson when he turned around and raised his hands to surrender. (?)


The forensics have spoken. Wilson was assaulted in a vicious attack.
Shooting Brown was justified.

This is going to turn into another Treyvon Martin / George Zimmerman
court case where only one survivor of the altercation actually knows
what happened.

No, it isn't the same. Based on evidence so far Wilson will not be
indicted, or see the inside of a court room. Much less be arrested for
a crime. Unless you know something special. I'm not a lawyer. The
Grand Jury testimony is secret.


Drives me nuts to hear the Brown lawyer say that this should go to trial
so all the facts come out.

Our grand jury system does not depend on a unanimous vote as does a
trial and lawyer knows this. Most probable that these things go to
trial if there is probable guilt.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 06:33:37 +0200, nestork
wrote:

Oren wrote:
Why does a Canuck, like you, from New Brunswick
Halifax, Canada even worry about America?
It's because we Canadians consider you Americans our younger brothers.
We kind of look out for you to make sure you don't get in over your
heads in stuff that's new to you. Terry figured the thread had gone off
it's rails and figured he'd bring it to someone's attention. He figured
we might not be aware that we're talking about a racially sensitive
shooting in a home repair forum.
Thanks for alerting us, Terry. Good thing one of us is on the job
watching out to see these guys know what they're doing.

We Americans consider you Canadians (some) as nosey neighbors, Canada
as the attic of America where the crazy uncle is to be kept - out of
sight-out of mind. Terry was just trying to be a do-gooder hall
monitor of Usenet in a thread clearly marked "OT".

BTW, what does race have to do with this case? NOTHING!

It is about crime and prevention of crime.

In article ,
Frank wrote:

Drives me nuts to hear the Brown lawyer say that this should go to trial
so all the facts come out.

Our grand jury system does not depend on a unanimous vote as does a
trial and lawyer knows this. Most probable that these things go to
trial if there is probable guilt.

He probably doesn't want the money or the publicity to stop before he
has enough for a post-trial book. I am guessing he is counting on the
implied threats and the fact that, if they want to, a Prosecutor can get
a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 16:06:42 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Frank wrote:

Drives me nuts to hear the Brown lawyer say that this should go to trial
so all the facts come out.

Our grand jury system does not depend on a unanimous vote as does a
trial and lawyer knows this. Most probable that these things go to
trial if there is probable guilt.

He probably doesn't want the money or the publicity to stop before he
has enough for a post-trial book. I am guessing he is counting on the
implied threats and the fact that, if they want to, a Prosecutor can get
a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.

Interesting in the case is that the Prosecutor's father was a police
offer killed by a black man when he was a young child. Killed in the
line of duty. As the present DA, he stepped aside so his subordinates
presented the case to the grand jury. They were both female of
different races, IIRC.

Officer Wilson is not guilty of a crime. He performed his duties under
color of law.

I don't believe race had anything to do with the cop's decision to shoot or not.

But, I expect the reason why Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson went to Ferguson is because of the initial reports from one supposed eye witness that Brown was shot with his hands in the air in a gesture of surrender. I believe that's what dragged the race issue into this case.

The cop woulda done what he done regardless of what colour Michael Brown was, but as soon as the public hears the cop shot the kid with his hands in the air, that's when the rioting starts and it becomes a race related shooting in some people's minds unless and until that presumption is proven wrong.

In article ,
Oren wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 16:06:42 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wr

Officer Wilson is not guilty of a crime. He performed his duties under
color of law.

Color of law? Damn racist (grin)
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
-- Aaron Levenstein

On 10/21/2014 6:27 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Oren wrote:
Officer Wilson is not guilty of a crime. He performed his duties under
color of law.

Color of law? Damn racist (grin)

Not too bad. If he was really open minded,
he'd have said under the Afro of law.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 18:27:33 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

Officer Wilson is not guilty of a crime. He performed his duties under
color of law.

Color of law? Damn racist (grin)

G "...Acting under color of [state] law is misuse of power,
possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the
wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law Thompson v.
Zirkle, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77654 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 17, 2007)"

Don't be a wrongdoer - you are protected under the color of law.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 18:33:41 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

Color of law? Damn racist (grin)

Not too bad. If he was really open minded,
he'd have said under the Afro of law.

"...Color of Law

The appearance of a legal right.

The act of a state officer, regardless of whether or not the act is
within the limits of his or her authority, is considered an act under
color of law if the officer purports to be conducting himself or
herself in the course of official duties."

BTDT (use of force)

So did Officer Wilson.

He kilt what needed kilt!

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 18:33:41 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

Color of law? Damn racist (grin)

Not too bad. If he was really open minded,
he'd have said under the Afro of law.

"...Color of Law

The appearance of a legal right.

The act of a state officer, regardless of whether or not the act is
within the limits of his or her authority, is considered an act under
color of law if the officer purports to be conducting himself or
herself in the course of official duties."

BTDT (use of force)

So did Officer Wilson.

He kilt what needed kilt!

No, he stopped a threat that needed to be stopped. The death was
incidental.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 16:30:00 -0700, "Pico Rico"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 18:33:41 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

Color of law? Damn racist (grin)

Not too bad. If he was really open minded,
he'd have said under the Afro of law.

"...Color of Law

The appearance of a legal right.

The act of a state officer, regardless of whether or not the act is
within the limits of his or her authority, is considered an act under
color of law if the officer purports to be conducting himself or
herself in the course of official duties."

BTDT (use of force)

So did Officer Wilson.

He kilt what needed kilt!

No, he stopped a threat that needed to be stopped. The death was
incidental.


Under color of law. Death was consequential.

IOW's his action was justified.

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 16:30:00 -0700, "Pico Rico"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 18:33:41 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

Color of law? Damn racist (grin)

Not too bad. If he was really open minded,
he'd have said under the Afro of law.

"...Color of Law

The appearance of a legal right.

The act of a state officer, regardless of whether or not the act is
within the limits of his or her authority, is considered an act under
color of law if the officer purports to be conducting himself or
herself in the course of official duties."

BTDT (use of force)

So did Officer Wilson.

He kilt what needed kilt!

No, he stopped a threat that needed to be stopped. The death was
incidental.


Under color of law. Death was consequential.

IOW's his action was justified.

Yes, but if he said something like "I shot to kill him" he would be an
idiot. Cops are not allowed to "shoot to kill", they are allowed to use
deadly force to stop a threat, and if death results, well that's the breaks.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 16:48:53 -0700, "Pico Rico"
wrote:

Yes, but if he said something like "I shot to kill him" he would be an
idiot. Cops are not allowed to "shoot to kill", they are allowed to use
deadly force to stop a threat, and if death results, well that's the breaks.


Um, cops can shoot to kill. "Shoot center of mass!" It is part of the
training. No need to explain a bullet pierced a head, a heart, a
jugular vein in the neck or a direct hit in the eye ball!

Each of those "stop the threat". A civilian can practice the same use
of force. Can the crook catch a bullet in his/her teeth? Nobody I know
would claim "I shot to kill him"!

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 16:48:53 -0700, "Pico Rico"
wrote:

Yes, but if he said something like "I shot to kill him" he would be an
idiot. Cops are not allowed to "shoot to kill", they are allowed to use
deadly force to stop a threat, and if death results, well that's the
breaks.


Um, cops can shoot to kill. "Shoot center of mass!" It is part of the
training. No need to explain a bullet pierced a head, a heart, a
jugular vein in the neck or a direct hit in the eye ball!

Each of those "stop the threat". A civilian can practice the same use
of force. Can the crook catch a bullet in his/her teeth? Nobody I know
would claim "I shot to kill him"!

Cops cannot shoot with the intention of killing. They may, under certain
circumstances use potentially deadly force and a resulting death is
justifiable.

My understanding is that cops are taught to shoot at the center of mass of the body they're shooting at. Only a sniper would shoot at a particular part of a body, like the head.

The reason is that shooting for the center of mass minimizes the possibility of a miss, and the stray bullet hitting someone behind the target. Cops won't normally shoot if they see other people in the background because a miss would endanger, or even kill, one of them. But the idea of shooting at the center of mass is to minimize the possibility of missing, and the problems that could ensue if the stray bullet hits someone else.

Ya gotta remember that the barrel of a pistol is only inches long, and so aiming a pistol is inherently far less accurate than aiming a rifle.

On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 5:17:18 PM UTC-4, nestork wrote:
'Oren[_2_ Wrote:

;3298929']

BTW, what does race have to do with this case? NOTHING!

It is about crime and prevention of crime.



C'mon Oren. If this was a black police officer that shot Michael Brown,

or if Michael Brown were a white kid, this story wouldn't have gotten

nearly amount of ink and air time that it has. There wouldn't have been

any riots or TV reporters in Ferguson, Missouri if it was a black police

officer that did the shooting or if a white kid got shot and killed.



I'm not saying that race played any role in the cop pulling over Michael

Brown, or in his shooting. I believe that cop would have acted exactly

the same regardless of what colour Michael Brown was. But this story

wouldn't have even made the local newspapers if it was a white cop that

shot a white teenager or a black cop that shot a black teenager or even

a black cop who shot a white teenager. Race gets dragged into this

story only because it was a white cop that shot a black teenager. THAT

is why it's making the national news on TV.



You mean Big Al and Uncle Jessie wouldn't be bitching about cold
blooded killin and half blind Holder wouldn't be investigating what
the whole police dept has done for the last 10 years if Brown was a
white boy? I think you might be on to something there.

On 10/22/2014 7:27 AM, trader_4 wrote:
You mean Big Al and Uncle Jessie wouldn't be bitching about cold
blooded killin and half blind Holder wouldn't be investigating what
the whole police dept has done for the last 10 years if Brown was a
white boy? I think you might be on to something there.


I can't say as I remember any of the Black Three
doing a protest over the death of a cracker.

Know I'm sayin, home?

-
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 10/22/2014 2:56 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 4:31:41 AM UTC-7, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Did I nullify your comment completely enough?
LOLOL!!!!!

Christopher A. Young

Learn about Jesus

www.lds.org

Thanks for telling the truth about yourself. I'll never defend
Mormons and the Mormon religion again, now that you've spouted
off just like my pro-KKK uncles, one who's also a Nazi.

There are certain things that decent people just don't joke about.


Oh, hey, any time. You still got that puppy you
need lit on fire and slingshotted across the
lake?

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 17:41:22 -0700, "Pico Rico"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 16:48:53 -0700, "Pico Rico"
wrote:

Yes, but if he said something like "I shot to kill him" he would be an
idiot. Cops are not allowed to "shoot to kill", they are allowed to use
deadly force to stop a threat, and if death results, well that's the
breaks.


Um, cops can shoot to kill. "Shoot center of mass!" It is part of the
training. No need to explain a bullet pierced a head, a heart, a
jugular vein in the neck or a direct hit in the eye ball!

Each of those "stop the threat". A civilian can practice the same use
of force. Can the crook catch a bullet in his/her teeth? Nobody I know
would claim "I shot to kill him"!

Cops cannot shoot with the intention of killing. They may, under certain
circumstances use potentially deadly force and a resulting death is
justifiable.


Cops do not need intent.They do not wake in the morning with intent to
kill. As trained and practiced, shooting at center of mass may kill.
Killing is the legal consequence.

I'm interested in your training in the administrating of "deadly
force"?

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 17:41:22 -0700, "Pico Rico"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 16:48:53 -0700, "Pico Rico"
wrote:

Yes, but if he said something like "I shot to kill him" he would be an
idiot. Cops are not allowed to "shoot to kill", they are allowed to use
deadly force to stop a threat, and if death results, well that's the
breaks.


Um, cops can shoot to kill. "Shoot center of mass!" It is part of the
training. No need to explain a bullet pierced a head, a heart, a
jugular vein in the neck or a direct hit in the eye ball!

Each of those "stop the threat". A civilian can practice the same use
of force. Can the crook catch a bullet in his/her teeth? Nobody I know
would claim "I shot to kill him"!

Cops cannot shoot with the intention of killing. They may, under certain
circumstances use potentially deadly force and a resulting death is
justifiable.


Cops do not need intent.They do not wake in the morning with intent to
kill. As trained and practiced, shooting at center of mass may kill.
Killing is the legal consequence.

That is correct, but not what it seemed you were stating initially.

"nestork" wrote in message
...

I don't know if you guys heard this or not, but today in Ottawa (the
capital city of Canada), a gunman armed with a rifle shot one of the
soldiers standing guard at the War Memorial in Ottawa, which is only
steps away from the Parliament Building. Apparantly, even though the
guards at the War Memorial have rifles, they have no ammunition for
those rifles, so the guard was essentially unarmed. Some reports say
that there were two guards, but only one was killed.

The gunman then ran into the front entrance of the Parliament Building,
right past the building's own security people and got into a gun fight
with the guards there. The chief of security at the Parliament
building, called the "Master of Arms" came out of his office to see what
was going on and came face to face with the gunman. The Master of Arms
dropped to the floor and fired three shots with his revolver to kill the
gunman.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police are now investigating this to see if
it was in any way related to the terroism being exported to western
countries by groups like ISIS.

This kind of thing has never happened before,

But this sounds really deja vu. didn't something very much like this happen
before, even with the SGT at Arms dealing with it much the same way?

When I read the article I had to check the date - I thought it was a rerun.

On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 21:49:40 -0700, "Pico Rico"
wrote:

This kind of thing has never happened before,

But this sounds really deja vu. didn't something very much like this happen
before, even with the SGT at Arms dealing with it much the same way?

When I read the article I had to check the date - I thought it was a rerun.

In Quebec 1984, "Denis Lortie (born March 10, 1959) is a former
Canadian army corporal. In 1984, he stormed into the National Assembly
of Quebec building and opened fire with several firearms, killing
three Quebec government employees and wounding 13 others."

Two C-1 Submachine guns (9mm NATO)
Inglis pistol (9mm)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Lortie

Oren: I suspect you may have presumed that I was serious when I posted that.

I thought it was funny at the time.

Sorry for not putting an at the end to let you know it was meant as a joke.

On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 22:29:50 +0200, nestork
wrote:

Thanks for alerting us, Terry. Good thing one of us is on the job
watching out to see that these guys know what they're doing in here.

Oren: I suspect you may have presumed that I was serious when I posted
that.

I thought it was funny at the time.

Canadians have a sense of humor? I'm shocked. I still respect you
though. IIRC, Terry, a Canadian, was trolling from Manitoba? I can
check it if you desire.

No, I don't care where he is. In your response to him, you said he was in Halifax. Halifax is on the east coast of Nova Scotia; right on the Atlantic Ocean.

Nova Scotia | Border Map | TBWG

I'm in Winnipeg, Manitoba, or about as far away from any ocean as it's possible to be in North America.