"Poll: Should officer Darren Wilson, who shot Michael Brown, be arrested?"

[Kimon²]

They're relevant so you can hop off. kthxbai

yeah i mean they certainly are making vague statements possibly related to your opinions

[Ad Bot]

[Harm94]

well yeah i know that was a sarcastic post unless you're implying i missed something else

All officer involved shootings are investigated by internal affairs or some federal agency. If internal affairs suspects or detects something wrong they will prove it in court. They will prove if with evidence which can be a witness testimony, an autopsy, defensive/offensive wounds on Brown or the officer, video/audio evidence, dna/forensic evidence, inconsistent police reports, inconsistent officer testimony, evidence of prejudice, etc.
Now should Darren Wilson be arrested? He should be if there evidence pointing to his guilt. As far as I know he is innocent until proven guilty. Only courts, investigators, and government can prove that, the media can't. The only goal the media has is to sell their side of the story that they want people to believe for entertainment and political value.

[Rally]

This all the way. Innocent until proven guilty.
Tumblr thinks they're smart enough to convict people without a lick of evidence.

[Jubel]

Not to mention that the media is pretty much 4chan if it leaked out into the real world.
They'll do anything to incite a negative reaction out of anyone.

[Gumba Jonny]

He probably had a mod and forgot to turn it off, that's why he shot the guy six times. Hope the court considers this piece of evidence.

[SinnerOG]

He probably had a mod and forgot to turn it off, that's why he shot the guy six times. Hope the court considers this piece of evidence.

+1

[Kimon²]

This all the way. Innocent until proven guilty.
Tumblr thinks they're smart enough to convict people without a lick of evidence.

oh no i definitely forgot about that whole "basic foundation of our legal system" thing

i jsut /want/ him to be arrested

He probably had a mod and forgot to turn it off, that's why he shot the guy six times. Hope the court considers this piece of evidence.

well considering the fact that nobody has said this (unless you have a source) it is not evidence at all

[Harm94]

oh no i definitely forgot about that whole "basic foundation of our legal system" thing

i jsut /want/ him to be arrested

You want a man to lose his freedom, his job, and his reputation just to please yourself even if he is innocent? That's disgusting.

[Skig²]

I think a cop should be at least fired if they kill someone, even if it was an accident, and especially if it wasn't
and I honestly think it's absurd that there are literally people who get paid, by the government, to murder people

Uh no. Think about it in a different perspective. What if some junkie has a gun to your head and a cop is watching? What if he is hesitant or refuses to stop the guy because he might get fired?

Being prepared to kill people in a worst case scenario is part of being a police officer. Isn't their whole motto "Protect and serve"?

I personally do not think Wilson is guilty. Michael Brown had just robbed a store and had marijuana in his system when he was killed. This whole race thing everyone is turning it into is just stupid. And yes, I know I am just one of the hundreds of people who has said this on the forums

[Badger]

I'm bothered how the thread itself doesn't have a poll

[Foxscotch]

Uh no. Think about it in a different perspective. What if some junkie has a gun to your head and a cop is watching? What if he is hesitant or refuses to stop the guy because he might get fired?

as long as he doesn't kill the guy he doesn't have to worry about getting fired, so no problem

[Skig²]

as long as he doesn't kill the guy he doesn't have to worry about getting fired, so no problem

So he should put his life in more danger because you feel pity for the guy about to murder you? Deadly force is usually the best route to go in that situation because it stops the threat instantly

[Harm94]

I think a cop should be at least fired if they kill someone, even if it was an accident, and especially if it wasn't
and I honestly think it's absurd that there are literally people who get paid, by the government, to murder people

as long as he doesn't kill the guy he doesn't have to worry about getting fired, so no problem

*cough*

Firearms Part1: Handgun:
Handguns are a last resort tool. They are usually brought out against an armed opponent(knives, broken bottles, shanks, someone with a gun, etc). In some states you can bring out a handgun on an unarmed opponent. Usually a verbal command is given into the addition of drawing out a handgun. If that person starts charging at you are starts shooting at you, you basically shoot at them back. You can also shoot them if they start pointing a gun at you, or hostage. Whatever it takes to save someone's life or end a confrontation. If you shoot them and drop down dead in one hit, okay. If get hit and drop down screaming in pain, okay. If they drop down alive, but die on their way to the hospital, okay. If they drop their gun and say they surrender and you cuff them, okay.

If they drop down and shoot them, not okay. If they drop down and surrender and you shoot them, not okay. If you shoot them after they died, not okay.

Usually after an officer an officer involved shooting, internal affairs is sent to investigate whether the proper use of force was justified and that their was no malice intent involved.

Firearms part 2: Rifle/Shotgun
Pretty self explanatory. These are brought out against someone with a gun/long gun(rifle/shotgun) who are about to shoot are who have started shooting. Same rules apply to handguns.

[Foxscotch]

it stops the threat instantly

for the rest of eternity. which is the issue

*cough*

not seeing how this relates to what I said

[Harm94]

not seeing how this relates to what I said

Have you considered taking a basically English and Reading comprehension class?