Omega said
I could understand police in the US not carrying guns if the violent crime rate in the US and the usage of guns and knives in criminal offenses was lower. As it stands it is rather high nationwide. If we can get gun crime down to similar levels as the UK I would be willing to discuss an immense drawdown for the firepower of US police forces.

The UK's gun crime percentile is low because firearms in the UK are heavily restricted; if anything, they're borderline outlawed. The idea that firearms are the primary tool utilized for committing violent crimes in human societies is largely a myth. If people are going to commit violence, they're going to do it with or without a firearm.

Additionally, when population adjustments are implemented, the UK is astronomically more violent than the United States:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime

Humans are inherently violent creatures. Our ancestors have been kicking each other's asses and the asses of other animals long before gunpowder was even a thing.

The militarization of America's police force is not going to solve anything. It's only going to make things worse, because you're going to begin to see more Ferguson-like cases as time goes on. The FBI site I linked above actually shows a downward trend when it comes to violent crime in the US.

ASTA said
The UK's gun crime percentile is low because firearms in the UK are heavily restricted; if anything, they're borderline outlawed. The idea that firearms are the primary tool utilized for committing violent crimes in human societies is largely a myth. If people are going to commit violence, they're going to do it a firearm. Additionally, when population adjustments are implemented, the UK is more violent than the United States:Humans are inherently violent creatures. Our ancestors have been kicking each other's asses and the asses of other animals long before gunpowder was even a thing.The militarization of America's police force is not going to solve anything. It's only going to make things worse, because you're going to begin to see more Ferguson-like cases as time goes on. The FBI site I linked above actually shows a downward trend when it comes to violent crime in the US.

is that based on UK, US, or mixed definitions for violent crime?

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/violent-crime

"In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force."

murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault are the tracked crimes for the FBI.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116226/user-guide-crime-statistics.pdf

"Violent crimes are those where the victim is intentionally stabbed, punched, kicked, pushed, jostled, etc. or threatened with violence whether or not there is any injury"

In the UK they do not track the specific offenses as much. This means that something in the US like simple assault would not be considered a violent crime while in the UK it would be.

Your citation of the UK being more violent is a common misconception based on using the same term in two places with slightly different meaning that greatly alter the information provided.

The militarization of America's police force is not going to solve anything. It's only going to make things worse, because you're going to begin to see more Ferguson-like cases as time goes on

If the preponderance of evidence is indicative of the truth, then I hope we have more Ferguson cases (That officers successfully defend themselves, not more kids bum rush cops)

So Boerd said
If the preponderance of evidence is indicative of the truth, then I hope we have more Ferguson cases (That officers successfully defend themselves, not more kids bum rush cops)

The two autopsy reports do not yield the same results.

Additionally, the witness reports do not yield identical stories. While they may deviate slightly due to a degree of error in the witness' memory, the conflicting accounts shouldn't be this skewed.

The recent addition to the evidence pool--an audio recording detailing the police officer firing his weapon several times, stopping, and then suddenly firing again--only raises more questions about what went on that night.

My suspicion? Someone is lying---or at least telling half-truths. Or perhaps there just isn't enough material to go off of. Regardless, I suggest you wait until the trial is done and over with before you go and past judgement on this murder case. There's no way you can literally sit here, with a straight face and utter confidence in your own knowledge about this ordeal, and tell anyone in this thread that you know for a fact that the police officer was justified in his actions and that the victim was solely responsible for his own death.

Judging from your old posts regarding the Trayvon Martin case back on Old Guild, you have a knack for immediately siding with shooters in these cases. I don't know why that is.

Omega said
is that based on UK, US, or mixed definitions for violent crime?"In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force."murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault are the tracked crimes for the FBI."Violent crimes are those where the victim is intentionally stabbed, punched, kicked, pushed, jostled, etc. or threatened with violence whether or not there is any injury"In the UK they do not track the specific offenses as much. This means that something in the US like simple assault would not be considered a violent crime while in the UK it would be.Your citation of the UK being more violent is a common misconception based on using the same term in two places with slightly different meaning that greatly alter the information provided.

You should have been more clear on what type of violence you were talking about. If you were strictly talking about gun violence and only gun violence, then my previous point regarding gun laws in the UK and the US still stands.

Your post only highlights the impossibility of comparing US violent crime rates against UK violent crime rates because neither nation classifies them in the same manner. As such, I'm still wondering how turning US police departments into stripped-down National Guard bases is going to really solve anything.

And I was right in Trayvon Martin's case.

I am not 100% sure, as a matter of fact, I used the word "preponderance", which means 51%.

I sided with Wilson because of Occam's razor, that being the simplest solution tends to be correct. Wilson's version of events requires significantly less suspension of belief.

Difficult to believe elements of Wilson's story:

~Unarmed kid assaults armed officer. Which isn't that difficult to believe.

Difficult to believe elements of the "Wilson=murder" side:

~Racist cop leaves witness.
~Racist cop kills in broad daylight
~Cop can't shoot for anything, when he is uninjured and can take as much time to aim as he wants, or get closer.
~Kid who just commits robbery and is walking down the street doesn't get off the street when told to by a cop for no reason, rather than he fears impending arrest.
~Al Sharpton is correct on anything.

So Boerd said
And I was right in Trayvon Martin's case.I am not 100% sure, as a matter of fact, I used the word "preponderance", which means 51%. I sided with Wilson because of Occam's razor, that being the simplest solution tends to be correct. Wilson's version of events requires significantly less suspension of belief.Difficult to believe elements of Wilson's story:~Unarmed kid assaults armed officer. Which isn't that difficult to believe.Difficult to believe elements of the "Wilson=murder" side:~Racist cop leaves witness.~Racist cop kills in broad daylight~Cop can't shoot for anything, when he is uninjured and can take as much time to aim as he wants, or get closer.~Kid who just commits robbery and is walking down the street doesn't get off the street when told to by a cop for no reason, rather than he fears impending arrest.~Al Sharpton is correct on anything.

I feel like you would give money to support Wilson (if you can give money away).

Absolutely I would not.

So Boerd said And I was right in Trayvon Martin's case.

Your method of reaching a conclusion is just as if not more important than the actual conclusion.

It's the difference between say me getting an A in my exam because I simply did multiple choice as a christmas tree, or getting an A because I knew and understood the content.

So Boerd said I sided with Wilson because of Occam's razor, that being the simplest solution tends to be correct.

That's not how life works, that's just what people tend to say cause they'd rather not have to think too hard about it.

The correct solution tends to be the one with the most proof and evidence supporting it.

So Boerd said Difficult to believe elements of Wilson's story:
~Unarmed kid assaults armed officer.

Which isn't that difficult to believe.
Difficult to believe elements of the "Wilson=murder" side:
~Racist cop leaves witness.
~Racist cop kills in broad daylight
~Cop can't shoot for anything, when he is uninjured and can take as much time to aim as he wants, or get closer.
~Kid who just commits robbery and is walking down the street doesn't get off the street when told to by a cop for no reason, rather than he fears impending arrest.
~Al Sharpton is correct on anything.

Ok, it's not actually a matter of "Simple = Correct" like you're saying, but rather there's some sort of reasoning and evidence going on leading you to your conclusion. That's good.
I'm dismissing the last point as a Sarcastic Joke however.

As already highlighted by ASTA though, no one has enough evidence to accurately determine what's happened yet. So since at this point we're all shooting in the dark, I'm not going to be all critical and start tearing individual points or ideas apart.

Hmm...

*Scratches chin*

I'm starting to lose, uh....... ambiguity, I guess. So why not circle back and cover those points I talked about at the beginning of the thread, and wash my hands of the rest.

mdk said 1, the news is selling news about the treatment of the news

We've been over this a time or two; I know some people are going to disagree with me, but I saw nothing at all wrong with the 'ASSAULT' on Don Lemon. There were some stupid tactics all the same, but I'm willing to chalk most of this up to 'news being where news isn't supposed to be' (if you stick around for the end of the video, the tune changes). Let's have conversations about how to keep news crews safer when they're reporting from dangerous areas. Can 'The freedom of the Press' really be protected while they're, say, shooting from the middle of an angry mob? Is there a better way?

2. The racial advocacy community is selling news about racial injustice

There has been literally zero evidence of any racial motivation to the shooting. Zero, zilch, nada. So we can chalk up those New Black Panther death threats and 'Kill the police' chants to Jackson and his cry-wolf tactics. Yet again, these fucks singlehandedly move our country back twenty years at a time just to make some cash. FUCK. YOU.

3. The police are selling the story that the victim wasn't a victim

actual conversation by witnesses

Well, there's all my questions answered. And hopefully yours, too.

The cops got Foia'd for the surveillance.

Magic Magnum said
You... you mean he smoked a plant? O_O

A plant the federal government says is illegal. It is a crime in all 50 states.

He lacked the ability to cope with his life without illegal pharmacological aid. He was a pathetic piece of trash who sole good act in his entire life was to get killed.

Revans Exile said
A plant the federal government says is illegal. It is a crime in all 50 states.He lacked the ability to cope with his life without illegal pharmacological aid. He was a pathetic piece of trash who sole good act in his entire life was to get killed.

First of all: What the hell is your goddamn problem?

Second of all: What the hell is your goddamn problem?

This is a young man you are talking about. I doubt you know anything of his life. He graduated from high school and was going to go on to college. He didn't deserve to die, and his death is almost certainly not unrelated to the plain-and-simple fact that the rate of police brutality against the black and hispanic communities is astronomically high, unnoticed by mainstream media, and utterly tragic. I hope you can someday reevaluate your shitty opinions and see that something as minor as smoking a little pot does not slate a young man for death.

Revans Exile said A plant the federal government says is illegal. It is a crime in all 50 states.He lacked the ability to cope with his life without illegal pharmacological aid. He was a pathetic piece of trash who sole good act in his entire life was to get killed.

I won't go as far as Robeatic's did to claim in all certainty the boy was innocent, nor will I claim this was a racist murder. Because there's not evidence to support any of those claims. But like wise there is not enough evidence to support the claim the child was some piece of trash, just enough to indicate he made a few mistakes in life, mainly the way he reacted to police and tried to pull off a robbing.

The weed argument just doesn't work, we can already scientifically prove that weed is harmless. So the only possible criticism is the fact it's illegal, and to say the Kid was scum cause of that would simply be Appealing to Authority. By the same logic do we claim LGBT people who try to get married in a State that it's illegal are scum?

Revans Exile said
A plant the federal government says is illegal. It is a crime in all 50 states.He lacked the ability to cope with his life without illegal pharmacological aid. He was a pathetic piece of trash who sole good act in his entire life was to get killed.

You made an error, it's illegal in 48 states, not 50. And So Boerd, I was wrong, I bet that you would give the money to support Wilson. And why are acting like that (you know what I mean too).

Rare said
You made an error, it's illegal in 48 states, not 50. And So Boerd, I was wrong, I bet that you would give the money to support Wilson. And why are acting like that (you know what I mean too).

What?

So Boerd said
What?

The "And why are acting like that (you know what I mean too)." was meant to be towards Revans Exile. Sorry for the mistake.

And, I PM'ed you about something off topic.

Robeatics said I doubt you know anything of his life.

I know he is a criminal. I know he attacked and broke the bones around the cop's eye. I know he went for the cop's gun. I don't care if he was the first person in his family to ever be accepted to college. He was a criminal who forfeited his right to live when he attacked the cop and went for the cop's gun. There is nothing wrong with me, there is however something greatly wrong with you.

Rare said You made an error, it's illegal in 48 states, not 50.

You are wrong and a fool. Federal government has laws stating that post is illegal. Federal government laws overrule all state and local laws. So pot is illegal in all 50 states, all territories, all embassies, and all military bases. If you are on US soil anywhere in the world you are committing a crime by smoking pot.

Rare said And why are acting like that (you know what I mean too).

If you have to ask then you are part of the problem.

Revans Exile said
I know he is a criminal. I know he attacked and broke the bones around the cop's eye. I know he went for the cop's gun. I don't care if he was the first person in his family to ever be accepted to college. He was a criminal who forfeited his right to live when he attacked the cop and went for the cop's gun. There is nothing wrong with me, there is however something greatly wrong with you.

You are wrong and a fool. Federal government has laws stating that post is illegal. Federal government laws overrule all state and local laws. So pot is illegal in all 50 states, all territories, all embassies, and all military bases. If you are on US soil anywhere in the world you are committing a crime by smoking pot.

If you have to ask then you are part of the problem.

I have this great feeling that you're a PRO-AMERICAN CITIZEN. Who thinks that it's the only country to have freedom and fights away the bad guys; yet, you target anyone that isn't white or from America. You also eat lots of fast food and tells everyone about how great 'MERICA is and shit.

Are you a cop as well? And one more thing, I'm the so called 'problem' and what's your definition of 'the problem'. If weed is illegal in the 50 states, why didn't Congress said that what those two states did was unconstitutional? Since, those states are breaking the law, which is that you can't have 'weed', which is just a plant, that isn't bad at all, even beer is bad.

Since you seem to think you know me so well why don't you answer your own questions.