FBI Opens Investigation into Shooting of Michael Brown

[Ksyrup]

Holy crap, that's just outside the neighborhood we used to live in. Bradfordville area, near Chile HS. We lived in Killearn Lakes.

And get this... that dude was arrested about 7 years ago for another road rage incident at the same intersection where he pointed a gun with a laser site at another driver.

[Ksyrup]

Also... assuming the facts are true, it takes a special breed to cause the accident, then be the one to get road rage and pull a gun, then end up dead. Reminds me of the double-downing going on with anti-vaxxers who are no longer with us.

[stevew]

Good guy with a gun finally surfaces!

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Holy crap, that's just outside the neighborhood we used to live in. Bradfordville area, near Chile HS. We lived in Killearn Lakes.

And get this... that dude was arrested about 7 years ago for another road rage incident at the same intersection where he pointed a gun with a laser site at another driver.

Meanwhile, Sen. Blackburn references a judicial nominee's "rap sheet" -- of a couple of unpaid speeding tickets.

[BYU 14]

Wonder if he had that 5000 dollar gun with him??

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Holy crap, that's just outside the neighborhood we used to live in. Bradfordville area, near Chile HS. We lived in Killearn Lakes.

And get this... that dude was arrested about 7 years ago for another road rage incident at the same intersection where he pointed a gun with a laser site at another driver.

Guess the question is how did someone who committed a violent felony with a firearm years ago get to keep his gun? Or is this just a Florida thing?

[Ksyrup]

Hey, he did community service and took anger management classes. What else do you want?

[stevew]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Guess the question is how did someone who committed a violent felony with a firearm years ago get to keep his gun? Or is this just a Florida thing?

if you say you're sorry, they will give you your guns back.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by stevew

if you say you're sorry, they will give you your guns back.

Pending some demographic qualifications, of course

SI

[stevew]

I'm sure they used the "he's never been in trouble with the law before" defense. Boys will be boys, etc. His anger got the best of him.

[RainMaker]

A judge will allow a corrections officer *who sexually assaulted an incarcerated woman in the back of a prison van while she was in leg shackles* to avoid a one year jail sentence if he enrolls in the military.https://t.co/844hF6CZKZ

— Rebecca Kavanagh (@DrRJKavanagh) January 14, 2022

[RainMaker]

I know cops are targeting the dumbest fucking people but lol.

[thesloppy]

I assume these hypothetical folks are particularly interested in stealing all your drugs to put into next year's Halloween candy.

[RainMaker]

More bad apples.

Sparks fly at city meeting after police union defends Florida cop who choked colleague - Raw Story - Celebrating 18 Years of Independent Journalism

[cuervo72]

Any legal types wish to comment on this one?

Thread by @LynzforCongress on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App

[GrantDawg]

I am confused by it, Cuervo. Because I am pretty sure prosecuters already have to prove you weren't acting in self defense when using a weapon. Isn't the burden of proof always been on the prosecution? How exactly is this changing that?

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[RainMaker]

The burden of proof is on the prosecution. But this changes some things.

Before you can make a self-defense claim at trial, the burden of production is on the defense. Basically, you have to show some evidence that you were acting in self-defense before it can be presented to a jury. And to do that, you have to tell a story which is what the prosecutor works off of to disprove that at trial (example: The person came at me with a knife so I had to shoot them. Here is the knife.).

This changes it so that every assault is presumed to be self-defense. The defense does not have to tell a story. And if the defense doesn't have to tell their story, it makes it incredibly hard for a prosecutor to disprove it. They have to prove the victim wasn't the aggressor in every case (they do carve out an exception for law enforcement which higher courts might not like)

For murder cases with overwhelming evidence, it likely means little. But it makes cases where there are no witnesses much harder. Both prosecutors and the police have come out strongly against it.

One other thing I see in it is that if the criminal case is dismissed, it provides you with civil immunity. Another one that will likely have to go to higher courts (Florida tried this and lost).

This was brought on partly because of the Arbery case and partly because of the McCloskey case.

[GrantDawg]

There was the distinction I was looking for.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[RainMaker]

Holy shit.

BREAKING: 2 officers on a SWAT team that was caught on body camera video firing at citizens without warning from an unmarked cargo van days after the police killing of George Floyd were also involved in Wednesday's raid that led to Amir Locke's killing: https://t.co/DvkcaowKQW

— Deena Winter (@deenafaywinter) February 4, 2022

[RainMaker]

More Minneapolis

A Minneapolis officer who once was fired for his role in the seizure of cellphones during a police raid but later reinstated has been placed in charge of all training for the Minneapolis police. https://t.co/BjfRDn8YCR

— Star Tribune (@StarTribune) February 7, 2022

[Noop]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The burden of proof is on the prosecution. But this changes some things.

Before you can make a self-defense claim at trial, the burden of production is on the defense. Basically, you have to show some evidence that you were acting in self-defense before it can be presented to a jury. And to do that, you have to tell a story which is what the prosecutor works off of to disprove that at trial (example: The person came at me with a knife so I had to shoot them. Here is the knife.).

This changes it so that every assault is presumed to be self-defense. The defense does not have to tell a story. And if the defense doesn't have to tell their story, it makes it incredibly hard for a prosecutor to disprove it. They have to prove the victim wasn't the aggressor in every case (they do carve out an exception for law enforcement which higher courts might not like)

For murder cases with overwhelming evidence, it likely means little. But it makes cases where there are no witnesses much harder. Both prosecutors and the police have come out strongly against it.

One other thing I see in it is that if the criminal case is dismissed, it provides you with civil immunity. Another one that will likely have to go to higher courts (Florida tried this and lost).

This was brought on partly because of the Arbery case and partly because of the McCloskey case.

Where did you get this information from?

[cuervo72]

Have we covered this anywhere yet?

https://abcnews.go.com/US/tennessee-...ry?id=82757071

Tennessee bill would designate some gun owners as law enforcement
The legislation "expands the definition of law enforcement officer," it states.

[Ksyrup]

When I worked for the Florida Department of Insurance, it included a fraud division. The fraud investigators were designated as LEO and authorized to carry firearms. Which... fine, there's certainly an intersection between fraud investigation and law enforcement. However, pretty much every one of them I interacted with took advantage of their LEO status at any chance. One of them wore his gun to a deposition and refused to remove it, forcing the deposition to be cancelled. One time, another attorney and I were driven to an off-site storage area to go through documents, and the guy driving put on his lights and siren at every red light we came to. For no fucking reason other than he could. It was crazy.

I can only imagine what the guy next store would do if he was designated a LEO.

[Lathum]

"This is trying to open it up so that people who go to the extreme to get this extra permit can have the right to defend themselves in more places," the senator told ABC News Thursday.

I will never understand this. I have been on this planet for 46 years and found myself in some pretty shady places. Never once have I thought "man, a gun would really help me out right now."

The whole "I'm not going to live in fear" crowd sure likes to be afraid for their lives going to Applebees. I can't imagine living that way.

[Lathum]

dola- all this would do is lead to a lot more Ahmaud Arbery cases where good old boys will claim they were law enforcement doing their civic duty.

[BYU 14]

100% and also enable these "fearless" people to take any slight, side eye or raised voice as a need to defend themselves with lethal force. "He looked at me like he was ready to punch me, so I fired in fear for my life"

Not to mention how this would be exploited in a protest situation..

[sterlingice]

Yeah, I think this is just going to give a bunch of "vigilante" racists a way to give probable cause as to why they killed black or brown people in cold blood. "There were reports of a black person stealing stuff" will just be a common thing uttered in court and they can get off - never mind that the good ol' boys were being judge, jury, and executioner, something we don't even allow law enforcement (in theory).

SI

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Lathum

dola- all this would do is lead to a lot more Ahmaud Arbery cases where good old boys will claim they were law enforcement doing their civic duty.

This is 100% the point.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I will never understand this. I have been on this planet for 46 years and found myself in some pretty shady places. Never once have I thought "man, a gun would really help me out right now."

The whole "I'm not going to live in fear" crowd sure likes to be afraid for their lives going to Applebees. I can't imagine living that way.

The roadblock to understanding this I think is to realize that typically it's not about expecting some dangerous situation to happen every time you go somewhere - it's just about being prepared if it does. I.e. it's like wearing a seatbelt when you're in a car. It's really unlikely you'll be involved in accident where that seatbelt matters. But if you are, it can save your life. A lot of gun culture is about nothing more than that.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

The roadblock to understanding this I think is to realize that typically it's not about expecting some dangerous situation to happen every time you go somewhere - it's just about being prepared if it does. I.e. it's like wearing a seatbelt when you're in a car. It's really unlikely you'll be involved in accident where that seatbelt matters. But if you are, it can save your life. A lot of gun culture is about nothing more than that.

Horrible comparison. The average person is in at least one car accident in their lifetime. How many people are in a life threatening situation where a gun saved them? Not to mention wearing a seatbelt doesn't potentially make the accident even worse. To my knowledge no one has ever suffered accidental death from wearing a seatbelt, though I am sure it has happened.

Majority of people carrying guns are hoping to have their shot at cosplaying wild west sheriff. Don't make it out to be something it isn't. Its a fetish, nothing more.

[flere-imsaho]

So, scared people with deadly weapons?

Edit: that was in response to Brian.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Majority of people carrying guns are hoping to have their shot at cosplaying wild west sheriff. Don't make it out to be something it isn't. Its a fetish, nothing more.

Nonsense.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Nonsense.

Ahmaud Arbery would disagree.

You're ignorant if you don't think fetish is a huge part of our gun culture.

[Ksyrup]

I know a fair number of people who own guns. I mean, I live in Kentucky. None of them carry a gun around town or even want to. They are responsible people who have guns for home protection and/or to hunt, mainly.

The people who want to open carry or expand the circumstances they can carry or use a gun in public are the worst of the gun owners. It's taking people with a hero fantasy or pre-disposition to using a gun in a situation they shouldn't and making it legal for them to be more likely to do so - plus, give them an excuse for doing so if they misjudge the situation.

It's also an attempt to intentionally blur the lines between LEO, "militia" and ordinary citizens, just in case something happens like, oh I don't know, a fraudulently elected public official attempts to take office.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Horrible comparison. The average person is in at least one car accident in their lifetime. How many people are in a life threatening situation where a gun saved them? Not to mention wearing a seatbelt doesn't potentially make the accident even worse. To my knowledge no one has ever suffered accidental death from wearing a seatbelt, though I am sure it has happened.

Majority of people carrying guns are hoping to have their shot at cosplaying wild west sheriff. Don't make it out to be something it isn't. Its a fetish, nothing more.

If you're constantly being bombarded with things that tell you how dangerous other people are, maybe you'd fear this more. I see a lot of posts on our local Facebook page and Nextdoor, encouraging me to fear people that I just don't see fear in: constant suspicious persons who don't appear suspicious for any other reason except the color of their skin, lots of warnings about sex trafficking when there have been no cases here that I've aware of, a decent amount of petty theft from vehicles left out on driveways, and random kids doing stupid kid mischief (that's wrong but not really scary) but apparently causing great disrespect. I'm a lot more scared of the likelihood of people threatening "if rando person did Y then I'd shoot them" than any of the actual "dangers".

SI

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Lathum

dola- all this would do is lead to a lot more Ahmaud Arbery cases where good old boys will claim they were law enforcement doing their civic duty.

That's the goal. Black man jogs through your neighborhood and you can shoot them for it. Legalized lynching.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

If you're constantly being bombarded with things that tell you how dangerous other people are, maybe you'd fear this more. I see a lot of posts on our local Facebook page and Nextdoor, encouraging me to fear people that I just don't see fear in: constant suspicious persons who don't appear suspicious for any other reason except the color of their skin, lots of warnings about sex trafficking when there have been no cases here that I've aware of, a decent amount of petty theft from vehicles left out on driveways, and random kids doing stupid kid mischief (that's wrong but not really scary) but apparently causing great disrespect. I'm a lot more scared of the likelihood of people threatening "if rando person did Y then I'd shoot them" than any of the actual "dangers".

SI

We had a thread on NextDoor where people were talking about holding kids at gunpoint for trick or treating when their front porch light was not on (the porch light is I guess a little known rule that a house is accepting trick or treaters).

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

If you're constantly being bombarded with things that tell you how dangerous other people are, maybe you'd fear this more. I see a lot of posts on our local Facebook page and Nextdoor, encouraging me to fear people that I just don't see fear in: constant suspicious persons who don't appear suspicious for any other reason except the color of their skin, lots of warnings about sex trafficking when there have been no cases here that I've aware of, a decent amount of petty theft from vehicles left out on driveways, and random kids doing stupid kid mischief (that's wrong but not really scary) but apparently causing great disrespect. I'm a lot more scared of the likelihood of people threatening "if rando person did Y then I'd shoot them" than any of the actual "dangers".

SI

I am friends with a guy in facebook, friend of a friend. Lives in Florida, total gun nut. Carries wherever he goes. Posts a video from his ring doorbell a few months ago of a guy stealing a package from his porch. OK, shitty and I would feel violated. He comments the POS is lucky he wasn't home to die over a $12 box of coffee. I was like, WTF dude, you would murder someone over a $12 box of coffee?

[bhlloy]

There are and will always be conservative reactionaries. What I don’t understand is why a black president and the onset of social media has led this generation to want to take the country back 200 years rather than the usual 15-20.

Shooting people who look at you funny or step onto your property is a fun concept until you or your loved ones are the ones being shot.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

(the porch light is I guess a little known rule that a house is accepting trick or treaters).

I thought this was well known

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I thought this was well known

regardless if it is, we have gotten WAY to comfortable as a society talking about shooting each other.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

There are and will always be conservative reactionaries. What I don’t understand is why a black president and the onset of social media has led this generation to want to take the country back 200 years rather than the usual 15-20.

Shooting people who look at you funny or step onto your property is a fun concept until you or your loved ones are the ones being shot.

I guess not if you think you're going to be doing all of the shooting. It does seem to be the behavior of sociopaths with no empathy, though.

SI

[RainMaker]

The modern gun culture is a weird phenomenon. It seems to play on insecure people, particularly men. With how the middle-class has been crushed and health standards have fallen, there's a lot of people who probably feel weak because they can't support their families and struggle to make it up a flight of stairs without being winded. We've been taught that your inability to do such stuff makes you less of a man.

So you compensate. You find things that make you feel more like a man. And since bettering yourself and accomplishing tasks is hard work, you maybe look for something easy. Buying a couple guns you'll never use, some tactical gear you have no need for, and maybe brag about how the next girl scout who ignores your No Solicitation sign is going to have to stare down your shiny new glock makes you feel better.

Now most of these people are harmless. Boomer cosplay artists who would resort to a puddle of their own piss when real shit hits the fan. But they ratchet up violent rhetoric and treat empathy as a mortal weakness. It's why domestic terrorism has been accepted in the country and we've seen a slide toward more support authoritarian/fascist governance.

I don't know how any of that changes. There are some deep rooted socioeconomic and educational issues at the core of it. And some huge financial incentives behind selling fear and marketing toward insecure people.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So, scared people with deadly weapons?

It's not necessarily a case of being scared. It's often more on the level of what people see as reasonable precautions. I.e., don't go dark places alone at night. Parents tell their children to look both ways before they cross the street and not to talk to strangers. They don't tell them that because they want their children to constantly be afraid of all people, but because there are reasonable precautions for avoiding unnecessary danger.

Carrying a gun is smack-dab in that category for a certain group of people. It's just a natural a thing as putting on your shoes or making sure you have your keys before you leave the house. Obviously some people are just looking for an excuse to shoot somebody, but if that motivation was remotely as high as is being described here I think our national murder rate would be orders of magnitude higher than it is. It strikes me as just another convenient way to demonize people we don't like, don't understand, and don't care to understand.

[cuervo72]

It's not always about actually shooting people. It's the intimidation. I've been reading a lot of Black authors this month, and a common thread is the fear that white people might do anything they want to you at any moment. Because they can. It can be whipping, raping, or mutilating you during slavery. (It could be stealing you back into slavery.) It could be jailing you (or basically putting you into forced servitude) because you don't have $5 to pay a fee for some phantom offense. It could be being beaten up or hanged because you bumped into someone; walked on the wrong side of the street; looked at a white woman the wrong way; addressed a white man incorrectly.

I believe, based on knowledge of "the talk," that there is some fear still there. But it may not be quite as bad now, thank goodness. White people don't have the same ability to terrorize that they used to.

That doesn't sit well with a certain set of white people.

But if they are armed, and backed with laws that deem them "law enforcement," backed with laws justifying "self defense" or "stand your ground"...well, now we're talking. That terror is back.

It's not that they WILL shoot people. It's that they can if they want to, without the worry of repercussion (which has begun to erode). You only need that threat to keep people "in their place."

[RainMaker]

Our murder rate is really high. And precautions are born out of fear.

[HerRealName]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

It's not always about actually shooting people. It's the intimidation. I've been reading a lot of Black authors this month, and a common thread is the fear that white people might do anything they want to you at any moment. Because they can. It can be whipping, raping, or mutilating you during slavery. (It could be stealing you back into slavery.) It could be jailing you (or basically putting you into forced servitude) because you don't have $5 to pay a fee for some phantom offense. It could be being beaten up or hanged because you bumped into someone; walked on the wrong side of the street; looked at a white woman the wrong way; addressed a white man incorrectly.

I believe, based on knowledge of "the talk," that there is some fear still there. But it may not be quite as bad now, thank goodness. White people don't have the same ability to terrorize that they used to.

That doesn't sit well with a certain set of white people.

But if they are armed, and backed with laws that deem them "law enforcement," backed with laws justifying "self defense" or "stand your ground"...well, now we're talking. That terror is back.

It's not that they WILL shoot people. It's that they can if they want to, without the worry of repercussion (which has begun to erode). You only need that threat to keep people "in their place."

Did you read Slavery by Another Name by Douglas Blackmon? Your description sounds familiar. I've been reading a lot of books on Reconstruction lately. It was such a missed opportunity for the US.

[cuervo72]

I did not; it's a really common theme though. This months reads have been:

Homegoing (Gyasi) - Basically a set of linked short stories of two sides of a family going from the late 1700s to more or less today; one side from a sister sold into slavery, the other from a sister sold as a bride to a white slave trader. Many, many themes in play here.

The Nickel Boys (Whitehead) - Teen strives for an education. Things happen thanks to white people.

Of One Blood (Hopkins) - A lot going on here, probably too much to describe.

Devil in a Blue Dress (Mosely) - 40s Black man stumbles into detective work, tries to stay out of way of white cops (and fails a couple of times). He just wants a damned house and to be left alone.

Cane (Toomer) - Early 1900s multiracial man (represented in different stories by different characters, but basically the author throughout) doesn't quite fit in in the south or the north, white or black. Sees some things.

Notes of a Native Son (Baldwin), Native Son (Wright) - Probably enough has been written about these already.

Beloved (Morrison) - escaped former slave would rather kill her children than go back (because rape, whippings, burnings, disfigurements, lynchings, metal horse bits, lost children, etc.). And after the war, watch your back. (Basically summed up all the other books in one story.)

The Book of Delights (Gay) - This was actually mostly pleasant. But at the same time, the author (former HS teammate of mine) does convey that yeah, it's still not always easy being a Black man in America!

The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman (Gaines) - Well, I've gotten up to the war ending. Can't wait for the good times of Reconstruction!

They all contain some element or another along these lines. Different versions of the same shit, depending where in the last 300 years you're dealing with.

[RainMaker]

The Second Founding is a really great history book if you're into learning more about Reconstruction.

[cuervo72]

CRT alert: https://www.washingtonpost.com/histo...rica-mccallum/

"A century ago, Mississippi’s Senate voted to send all the state’s Black people to Africa"

What opposition there was to the proposal in the all-White Mississippi legislature came not from people who believed in racial equality but from plantation owners who feared losing their cheap, brutalized labor force.