No Willy. Excessive and unnecessary force is never justified, especially when using lethal techniques specifically banned by the authority itself. We do not know whether lethal force was necessary in the M. Brown case (and thanks to a prosecutor's performance, we never will). However, we all saw the E.Garner video. He was surrounded by officers, and they had him under control without the choke hold. There was no official purpose or need for a chokehold. As for the heart attack, under almost all U.S. law, the policeman would be considered responsible. Some people refer to it as the "glass skull" proposition. Any person acting outside their legal right is liable for even unforeseen consequences of their actions. This includes any unknown medical condition or predisposition. In this case, using an unnecessary chokehold on E. Garner can be (and was) traced as a direct cause of his heart-attack. Support the police. But that support is built on trust, not blind obedience to authority. Otherwise, could find ourselves living in the exact type of oppressive country we claim to despise (some people feel that this is already happening, which is why we are seeing riots and demonstrations). To keep the people's trust, even the authorities must be answerable to the law, and that law must be just to everyone equally. The E. Garner case was an unnecessary killing, and the authorities failure to at least bring the officer to trial (where it is still possible that he would be exonerated), breaks that trust.
Again, my opinion. I don't believe a choke hold caused his heart attack. You can throw the law book around anyway you want and build a case around almost anything. But the fact of the matter is that Mr. Garner was not going to go down without a fight. If that were my own son, I would have not aimed my blame at the police. He was told to turn around and put his hands behind his back, refused, then when they grabbed him to arrest him he ripped his hands away and began to fight them. They don't know if he has any weapons in his pocket, and look at the size of him. I firmly believe that the amount of force used to take him down was justified. But again, that's my opinion.
Football player died while playing in 105 degree heat. Heat was only a contributing factor, he died of a stroke. 500 lb man dies of a heart attack. .. obesity was only a contributing factor, he died of a heart attack. Man with aids dies of pneumonia, aids was only a contributing factor...... see where I'm going? It contributed meaning had he been healthy he would of lived. That they did not use lethal force. It's like if the guy had a loaded gun to his head and it went off when the cop tried to grab it.
Ummmm.. am I the only one with a brain here? The guy threatened a police officer with a HANDGUN. The policeman did the right thing - what's wrong with shooting the victim? He deserved get shot.. surely?
Talking just about the most recent one. So oif you had a gun being pointed at you, you'd get out and try and pepper spray him? Some people it hardly even affects. Or maybe the logical thing to do would be get out of your car with your baton, right?? ... And get shot. If you become a police officer and employ these tactics, RIP. There is absolutely zero reason for any person to point a gun at an officer except for the sole purpose of killing them. A gun is not a toy, it's not something that should be joked around with. The michael brown case, why did michael try to grab the police officers gun? It certainly wasn't for a lesson on how it worked. Again this single action alone justified deadly force due to the fact that the only reason he was grabbing his gun was to kill him. Again when he charged, the force of him bashing in to the police officer could've caused him to fall backwards, bash his head against the road, and pass out. Then guess who's get executed in the middle of the street? The same person you wanted to beat off a small bear with.
In the US guns r toys just ask all the kids who have one. 300m firearms for a population of 350m leaves mostly babies unarmed per capita. Add to that the US is far ahead of every G7 nation in firearm related murders. Ur #1 ur #1
Didn't pull the numbers out of hat. Go research its easy enuf. U might find contradictory stats to argue mine.
Why do I need to research it? I can say anything, 97.6% of guns owned in America have been used to kill a person.
Provide me with a list of what u refer to as valid sources. I'll decide from there if i can bother to research your sources.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/u-s-has-mo ... d=20303432 Copy n paste on iphone don't cut it lol That abcnews article states 88/100 ppl per capita own a firearm. Btw not the source u used. It was last year i pulled those numbers. Ur free to use wikipedia all u like or not