

Moderator: ZS Global Moderators
whisk.e.rebellion wrote: It's not what you say anymore. It's how you say it.
Sumdood wrote:Welcome to 2020. I would list all the rules here, but there are too many and most of them are made up as we go. Just be prepared to be punished for something.
I thought that was a joke.RickOShea wrote:Some of those "Ace" reporters seem under qualified as well.![]()
Nope. The Boy Wonder was serious.....the jokes came later:Anianna wrote:I thought that was a joke.RickOShea wrote:Some of those "Ace" reporters seem under qualified as well.![]()
http://i1012.photobucket.com/albums/af2 ... -idiot.jpg
-.-
whisk.e.rebellion wrote: It's not what you say anymore. It's how you say it.
Sumdood wrote:Welcome to 2020. I would list all the rules here, but there are too many and most of them are made up as we go. Just be prepared to be punished for something.
I hope that wasn't directed towards me cuz that's not what I said. This is what I said.crypto wrote:
2.
Im not sure why one poster in the thread would think that Ferguson wouldn't be able to turn out qualified black applicants to the force. Thats a pretty goddamned offensive comment, actually.
People are people and I don't see any reason why Ferguson couldn't turn out qualified applicants of any race. However to prove discrimination one must review the entire process including all the applicants, those who got the job and those who didn't.Woods Walker wrote: But beyond the surface numbers what does that prove? Surely there are standards and qualifications which must be met. In order to prove discrimination someone would have to review all the applicants then see if their hire or lack of was based on meeting/exceeding those standards and qualifications or something else. Also those standard would have to be reviewed as well. I don't know if there is a problem with their hiring practices as don't have enough information to draw an educated conclusion.
Of course. During these events I've called St Louis County all sorts of horrible things, but not racist. At this point in time, we still know literally nothing about the shooting besides a number of shots were fired and a young man is dead.Woods Walker wrote: People are people and I don't see any reason why Ferguson couldn't turn out qualified applicants of any race. However to prove discrimination one must review the entire process including all the applicants, those who got the job and those who didn't.
I don't think he was talking bout you.Woods Walker wrote:I hope that wasn't directed towards me cuz that's not what I said. This is what I said.crypto wrote:
2.
Im not sure why one poster in the thread would think that Ferguson wouldn't be able to turn out qualified black applicants to the force. Thats a pretty goddamned offensive comment, actually.
People are people and I don't see any reason why Ferguson couldn't turn out qualified applicants of any race. However to prove discrimination one must review the entire process including all the applicants, those who got the job and those who didn't.Woods Walker wrote: But beyond the surface numbers what does that prove? Surely there are standards and qualifications which must be met. In order to prove discrimination someone would have to review all the applicants then see if their hire or lack of was based on meeting/exceeding those standards and qualifications or something else. Also those standard would have to be reviewed as well. I don't know if there is a problem with their hiring practices as don't have enough information to draw an educated conclusion.
Makes you wonder about this:Around 1 a.m. on Wednesday, St. Louis County police responded to reports of shots being fired and four or five armed suspects, wearing ski masks, running near the intersection of Chambers Road and Sheffingdel Court in Ferguson, Valerie Schremp Hahn, a reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reported.
Officers arrived on the scene, saw "multiple subjects running" and gave chase, police spokesman Officer Brian Schellman told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
Upon approaching one of the suspects, the man allegedly pointed a handgun at the officer, police said. In response, the officer opened fire.
A gun was reportedly recovered at the scene.
Things seem to still be headed in the wrong direction.As officers put on gas masks, a chant from the distant crowd emerged: "We have the right to assemble peacefully." A moment later, police began firing canisters into the crowd. Protesters said their faces and eyes had been burned. Others screamed in pain.
Jayson Ross, who was leading the protesters toward police, said: "They got guns. We got guns. We are ready."
Yeah. It's considered escalation. Also, common sense. 50 bucks of cigars isn't worth getting in a fight, or worse, shot over. Most all Convienice store chains will fire your ass for doing anything but cooperating. Up here its outright illegal, and for good reason.ZombieGranny wrote:It is illegal to try to stop someone from stealing from you?Kilo147 wrote:It was shoplifting, with the store employee blocking his path, an action that is nothing short of escalation, and illegal in many states.
I guess so, ZG. And when someone puts there hands on you in a threatening manner, it is no longer considered "assault"......oh, these crazy days.ZombieGranny wrote:It is illegal to try to stop someone from stealing from you?Kilo147 wrote:It was shoplifting, with the store employee blocking his path, an action that is nothing short of escalation, and illegal in many states.
whisk.e.rebellion wrote: It's not what you say anymore. It's how you say it.
Sumdood wrote:Welcome to 2020. I would list all the rules here, but there are too many and most of them are made up as we go. Just be prepared to be punished for something.
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5690000010.HTMSt. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch gave the following definition for strong-arm robbery:
"The use of physical force in a robbery. If someone is stealing, and another person makes an attempt to stop them, and then physical force is used to complete the act that is strong-arm robbery.
It's also called 'robbery in the 2nd degree,' and there is no weapon other than physical force used.
If a weapon is used in a robbery, then the charge would be 'robbery in the 1st degree.'"
Hmm, sure sounds like robbery to me.569.010. As used in this chapter the following terms mean:
(1) "Forcibly steals", a person "forcibly steals", and thereby commits robbery, when, in the course of stealing, as defined in section 570.030, he uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person for the purpose of:
(a) Preventing or overcoming resistance to the taking of the property or to the retention thereof immediately after the taking; or
(b) Compelling the owner of such property or another person to deliver up the property or to engage in other conduct which aids in the commission of the theft;
(2) "Inhabitable structure" includes a ship, trailer, sleeping car, airplane, or other vehicle or structure:
(a) Where any person lives or carries on business or other calling; or
(b) Where people assemble for purposes of business, government, education, religion, entertainment or public transportation;
Mr. E. Monkey wrote:It's that smug, superior attitude of theirs, strutting around in their fancy outfits like they're better than everyone else. Yeah, burn in hell, you snobbish bird bastards.Evan the Diplomat wrote:Why do you want to shoot penguins? What did they ever do to you?
And don't get me started on pandas!
I'm used to a completely different set of laws. It's a whole hell of a lot different up north.Browning 35 wrote:What is strong-arm robbery? (*Click*)
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5690000010.HTMSt. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch gave the following definition for strong-arm robbery:
"The use of physical force in a robbery. If someone is stealing, and another person makes an attempt to stop them, and then physical force is used to complete the act that is strong-arm robbery.
It's also called 'robbery in the 2nd degree,' and there is no weapon other than physical force used.
If a weapon is used in a robbery, then the charge would be 'robbery in the 1st degree.'"
Hmm, sure sounds like robbery to me.569.010. As used in this chapter the following terms mean:
(1) "Forcibly steals", a person "forcibly steals", and thereby commits robbery, when, in the course of stealing, as defined in section 570.030, he uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person for the purpose of:
(a) Preventing or overcoming resistance to the taking of the property or to the retention thereof immediately after the taking; or
(b) Compelling the owner of such property or another person to deliver up the property or to engage in other conduct which aids in the commission of the theft;
(2) "Inhabitable structure" includes a ship, trailer, sleeping car, airplane, or other vehicle or structure:
(a) Where any person lives or carries on business or other calling; or
(b) Where people assemble for purposes of business, government, education, religion, entertainment or public transportation;
He didn't even have to touch the clerk (which he did), he just had to 'Prevent or overcome resistance to the taking of the property or to the retention thereof' (which he also did).
People can come up with all kinds of excuses because they're pissed off about the shooting after, but it doesn't change anything. Still just excuses.
OTOH, to a lot of us, waiving the prior robbery around like it means something sounds an awful lot like someone trying to come up with an excuse for killing the guy. Robbery happened. Fatal shooting happened. Morality and ethics of the two events are unrelated. The first event does not justify the second event in exactly the same way that the second event (shooting) cannot justify the 3rd event(s) (rioting/looting).Browning 35 wrote:People can come up with all kinds of excuses because they're pissed off about the shooting after, but it doesn't change anything. Still just excuses.
Not according to Seattle.gov:Kilo147 wrote:
I'm used to a completely different set of laws. It's a whole hell of a lot different up north.
whisk.e.rebellion wrote: It's not what you say anymore. It's how you say it.
Sumdood wrote:Welcome to 2020. I would list all the rules here, but there are too many and most of them are made up as we go. Just be prepared to be punished for something.
BullshitKilo147 wrote:Yeah. It's considered escalation. Also, common sense. 50 bucks of cigars isn't worth getting in a fight, or worse, shot over. Most all Convienice store chains will fire your ass for doing anything but cooperating. Up here its outright illegal, and for good reason.ZombieGranny wrote:It is illegal to try to stop someone from stealing from you?Kilo147 wrote:It was shoplifting, with the store employee blocking his path, an action that is nothing short of escalation, and illegal in many states.
RCW 9A.56.190
Robbery — Definition.
A person commits robbery when he or she unlawfully takes personal property from the person of another or in his or her presence against his or her will by the use or threatened use of immediate force, violence, or fear of injury to that person or his or her property or the person or property of anyone. Such force or fear must be used to obtain or retain possession of the property, or to prevent or overcome resistance to the taking; in either of which cases the degree of force is immaterial. Such taking constitutes robbery whenever it appears that, although the taking was fully completed without the knowledge of the person from whom taken, such knowledge was prevented by the use of force or fear.
Nearly every state in the country has similar laws on the books.9A.16.080
Action for being detained on mercantile establishment premises for investigation — "Reasonable grounds" as defense.
In any criminal action brought by reason of any person having been detained on or in the immediate vicinity of the premises of a mercantile establishment for the purpose of investigation or questioning as to the ownership of any merchandise, it shall be a defense of such action that the person was detained in a reasonable manner and for not more than a reasonable time to permit such investigation or questioning by a peace officer, by the owner of the mercantile establishment, or by the owner's authorized employee or agent, and that such peace officer, owner, employee, or agent had reasonable grounds to believe that the person so detained was committing or attempting to commit theft or shoplifting on such premises of such merchandise. As used in this section, "reasonable grounds" shall include, but not be limited to, knowledge that a person has concealed possession of unpurchased merchandise of a mercantile establishment, and a "reasonable time" shall mean the time necessary to permit the person detained to make a statement or to refuse to make a statement, and the time necessary to examine employees and records of the mercantile establishment relative to the ownership of the merchandise.
It does mean something, it speaks to Brown's state of mind. Also gives him a pretty big reason to both assault the cop and possibly try to grab his gun.williaty wrote:OTOH, to a lot of us, waiving the prior robbery around like it means something sounds an awful lot like someone trying to come up with an excuse for killing the guy. Robbery happened. Fatal shooting happened. Morality and ethics of the two events are unrelated. The first event does not justify the second event in exactly the same way that the second event (shooting) cannot justify the 3rd event(s) (rioting/looting).
That's the thing that people never understand, it isn't the stuff. Fuck the cigars. It's the violence, the intimidation and the threat of force.W.R.T. the surprise that it might be illegal to get in the way of a robber, the legal reasoning behind those laws is this: People are more valuable than stuff. The defense of stuff is never a justification to take action that makes it more likely that a person, including yourself may come to harm or may be killed. In context, getting in the way of the robber makes it more likely that the robbery will escalate to a lethal force situation. In other words, the law says that defending your TV does not justify the increased risk of the neighbor kid acting as a bullet backstop when the robber tries to shoot you because you tried to prevent him from leaving.
Mr. E. Monkey wrote:It's that smug, superior attitude of theirs, strutting around in their fancy outfits like they're better than everyone else. Yeah, burn in hell, you snobbish bird bastards.Evan the Diplomat wrote:Why do you want to shoot penguins? What did they ever do to you?
And don't get me started on pandas!
Those things may or may not be true, but it doesn't matter in determining whether the shoot was good or not. The guy could have been the evilest person in the world and, if he wasn't in the process of actively attempting to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm, the shot is not justified. Similarly, he could be a saint with no priors and an unbelievable record of helping people but if he's attempting to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm, shoot the bastard dead. The law is very clear that what he's done even shortly before (for instance, threatening you that he's going to go home and come back with a gun to kill you) is not justification for using lethal force now.Browning 35 wrote:It does mean something, it speaks to Brown's state of mind. Also gives him a pretty big reason to both assault the cop and possibly try to grab his gun.
Look closely at the law and you'll find there's a clear distinction drawn between the theft and the violence in some places. In a fair portion of the states, a person does not have a legal right to use force to prevent property theft if the criminal isn't presenting an explicit, overt threat to the property owner. To provide an example, if I walk up on your front lawn, waive at you, grab your lawnmower, and walk away, you are not (in some places) legally allowed to use force to prevent me from taking your lawnmower. In a similar situation, if I walk up onto your lawn, walk right up to you, and start trying to punch you so that you can't yell as I take your lawnmower, you're legally able to use force to defend yourself, not your property. Where that becomes a mess is when I don't make an overt threat. What if I walk up to you and say "That's a nice looking lawnmower you got there. It'd be shame if something happened to it because you didn't let me borrow it for a while". The implication is clearly that if you object to my taking it, I'm going to do violent things to you, your family, or possibly your dog. However, in that situation, you'd probably be unable to clearly articulate the necessary conditions for you to respond with force to defend yourself from me. Again, the law has to work with the average situation and sometimes that sucks for us.That's the thing that people never understand, it isn't the stuff. Fuck the cigars. It's the violence, the intimidation and the threat of force.
Doesn't the person being ripped off have a right to defend themselves when someone's using force or trying to use the threat of force and intimidation to steal their property?! Or do they have an obligation to just be a punching bag and a piggy bank?
williaty wrote:Those things may or may not be true, but it doesn't matter in determining whether the shoot was good or not. The guy could have been the evilest person in the world and, if he wasn't in the process of actively attempting to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm, the shot is not justified. Similarly, he could be a saint with no priors and an unbelievable record of helping people but if he's attempting to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm, shoot the bastard dead. The law is very clear that what he's done even shortly before (for instance, threatening you that he's going to go home and come back with a gun to kill you) is not justification for using lethal force now.Browning 35 wrote:It does mean something, it speaks to Brown's state of mind. Also gives him a pretty big reason to both assault the cop and possibly try to grab his gun.
The only thing that matters in this case was whether he was doing something, at the time he got shot, that established Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy that justified the shooting at that moment.
You are missing the point. Brown was trying to escape from the police after a robbery. Some people will use any means necessary to escape from the police. If you think that is not relevant in some way you should give it some more thought.
Look closely at the law and you'll find there's a clear distinction drawn between the theft and the violence in some places. In a fair portion of the states, a person does not have a legal right to use force to prevent property theft if the criminal isn't presenting an explicit, overt threat to the property owner. To provide an example, if I walk up on your front lawn, waive at you, grab your lawnmower, and walk away, you are not (in some places) legally allowed to use force to prevent me from taking your lawnmower. In a similar situation, if I walk up onto your lawn, walk right up to you, and start trying to punch you so that you can't yell as I take your lawnmower, you're legally able to use force to defend yourself, not your property. Where that becomes a mess is when I don't make an overt threat. What if I walk up to you and say "That's a nice looking lawnmower you got there. It'd be shame if something happened to it because you didn't let me borrow it for a while". The implication is clearly that if you object to my taking it, I'm going to do violent things to you, your family, or possibly your dog. However, in that situation, you'd probably be unable to clearly articulate the necessary conditions for you to respond with force to defend yourself from me. Again, the law has to work with the average situation and sometimes that sucks for us.That's the thing that people never understand, it isn't the stuff. Fuck the cigars. It's the violence, the intimidation and the threat of force.
Doesn't the person being ripped off have a right to defend themselves when someone's using force or trying to use the threat of force and intimidation to steal their property?! Or do they have an obligation to just be a punching bag and a piggy bank?
Beating a cop in the head and trying to grab his gun isn't attempting to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm?williaty wrote:Those things may or may not be true, but it doesn't matter in determining whether the shoot was good or not. The guy could have been the evilest person in the world and, if he wasn't in the process of actively attempting to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm, the shot is not justified. Similarly, he could be a saint with no priors and an unbelievable record of helping people but if he's attempting to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm, shoot the bastard dead. The law is very clear that what he's done even shortly before (for instance, threatening you that he's going to go home and come back with a gun to kill you) is not justification for using lethal force now.
Yes, what I stated above. Guess you just disagreed with the way it was worded. If there's a trial over this the robbery will ended up being included as motivation for the assault and gun grab. Watch.The only thing that matters in this case was whether he was doing something, at the time he got shot, that established Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy that justified the shooting at that moment.
You really didn't need to write that whole thing about the lawn mower. I already talked about the property not being as important as the threat of violence.Look closely at the law and you'll find there's a clear distinction drawn between the theft and the violence in some places. In a fair portion of the states, a person does not have a legal right to use force to prevent property theft if the criminal isn't presenting an explicit, overt threat to the property owner. To provide an example, if I walk up on your front lawn, waive at you, grab your lawnmower, and walk away, you are not (in some places) legally allowed to use force to prevent me from taking your lawnmower. In a similar situation, if I walk up onto your lawn, walk right up to you, and start trying to punch you so that you can't yell as I take your lawnmower, you're legally able to use force to defend yourself,...
That's the thing, I have absolutely no interest in even visiting any of places precisely because of the retardation present there. So that time would pretty much be wasted for me.If you want to travel to CA, IL, or to the East of here with a gun or knife, you'd be well served to spend some money and sit down for a few minutes with a lawyer that specializes this area of the law because the situation is more complicated that we can cover in two hours of generalities".
Mr. E. Monkey wrote:It's that smug, superior attitude of theirs, strutting around in their fancy outfits like they're better than everyone else. Yeah, burn in hell, you snobbish bird bastards.Evan the Diplomat wrote:Why do you want to shoot penguins? What did they ever do to you?
And don't get me started on pandas!
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support this. Stop parroting this damn line, we'll know what's up after the autopsies and FBI investigation.Browning 35 wrote: Beating a cop in the head and trying to grab his gun isn't attempting to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm?