All good until that 'escalation' is to deadly methods. Non-deadly force should not be met with deadly force whenever possible. This cop didn't try anything but bullets, at best against fists, at worst against retreating people trying to surrender. To me that's deadly cowardly bullying.

No. That's simply wrong.
Cops MAY need to use more force than they are met with, they certainly do NOT need to escalate to violence every time they take someone into custody (as your post suggests)...if they did, why didn't they beat up and/or shoot the Governor of Texas?!?
There's a huge range of action they can take between doing nothing and using overwhelming deadly force. Cops that think they should use the maximum amount of force possible, to 'protect themselves' should not be cops, those are cowardly bullies with immunity and guns.
If the proper thing is to use the most force possible, why are cops given pepper spray, tasers, batons, hand to hand combat training, radios, Kevlar gloves, etc. ? In this instance, ANY of those could have been tried before shooting someone retreating, surrendering, and far enough away for any of them to be tried.
From my viewpoint, this was likely more about the cop being pissed he was ignored when he told them to stop than any fear he had of two youths that were leaving the scene, and about them 'respecting his authoratah'. That's not an acceptable reason to shoot a person....even if they're black.
For you, as a cop, to claim you should always be MORE violent than your suspect means YOU are the violent criminal (or at best, an advocate for being violently criminal)...so perhaps a cop needs to come to your home based on an anonymous tip and shoot you in the head?!?...why would you say not?...you're armed and angry and advocating deadly violence!
Cops are supposed to DE-escalate violent situations, not aggravate and escalate them. It's not just sad but frightening to hear you, a self professed long term cop, to say the exact opposite. Once again I'll ask, where are you located. If you are representative of the police there, I truly want to avoid your stomping grounds.
To me, your stance means I should meet officers with deadly force, because if they decide they 'fear' me, they'll use deadly force on me without hesitation, so killing them first is always self defense. I don't think you thought it through to conclusion saying they should always be MORE violent.

The witnesses? The only witness that vaguely supports this that I've seen is an anonymous witness cited in the Daily Caller. Not credible journalism even by USA standards. The known witnesses are Dorian Johnson (altercation at the car, shooting as he ran away, he got hit, turned around put his hands up and stumbled forwards before the shooting began again), James McKnight (more or less the same as Johnson), Michael Brady (altercation at car, shooting, then as Brown was halfway towards falling to the ground more shots), Piaget Crenshaw (shots fired as he ran away with hands up, turned with hands up, more firing). Those accounts aren't too far from the Police account really. Is it reasonable to conclude deadly force is required in the timeframe of the shooting? What does police protocol say? One step? Two? When can you be sure it's not charging but belligerence, drunkenness, or injury? I'm sure America are the experts in these cases by now and have explicit and clear guidelines for semi-autonomous itinerant armed police officers and when they can and cannot open fire. Surely it isn't just 'if you harbour any fear, kill or otherwise incapacitate the citizen you are trying to apprehend'?

There is also TheePharoah who tweeted it from the scene and said ' JUST SAW SOMEONE DIE OMFG....no reason! He was running!', but you know, its not clear he can provide further useful information assuming he was interviewed.

The BBC News Magazine had an article on this exact subject, and pointed out that:

When it comes to US police officers firing their weapons, the rules - on paper - are very clear.

"Ultimately you come to your firearm as a last resort," says Jim Pasco, executive director of the National Fraternal Order of Police.

"You would only use that weapon in a situation where you felt your life or the lives of civilians in the area were in danger."

[...]

While there is no national standard, the state rules and regulations regarding officers' use of deadly force is mostly consistent throughout the country.

Very provocative controversial video worthy of a *discussion (so I won't discard), but it is definitely snuff, so I'm redacting the video.

I didn't realize he was holding a knife, but it does seem he was. Not only did the officer(s) yell at him to drop the knife, but the guy with the red-and-white-striped shirt yelled at him "Come on, drop it, bro!" (at 1:38) immediately before the officers started firing.

Seems obvious it's suicide by cop. The officers should not have used a TASER if he was holding a knife and approaching them. Deadly force is definitely necessary in that case. In fact, I think the officer on the left may have even let him get too close as it is. If the guy did want to attack them and wasn't just looking to die, he could have thrust forward and stabbed the officer while he was getting shot.

I'm just going to go through this point for point.

There is no gulf between the result, there is no gulf for the family of the victim. It doesn't matter if he's dead, there is no going back from that.

Argument from consequences. As sad as the result is, that isn't on the police.

If you have ever been choked you would know that you can't help yourself but resist. Your body spasm, it's trying to get air and you'll do everything you can to survive. What this tactic does is insure that a person will fight back so you can keep harming that person.

That is simply untrue, and I can tell you that from experience (10 years of martial arts and been in a few fights in my time). If you're getting choked, you stop resisting, because you've already lost and you're just making it worse.

The police are absolutely in the wrong, this man is not a danger to anyone, even himself. They either talk him down, or use non lethal means to bring him under control. If they can't do that they leave him be, and if they need to follow him until they get backup. There is no reason to immediately attack him, it just makes this worse.

Again, we have no idea why the police are arresting this guy, because the video doesn't provide any context.

So no it is not unreasonable to call it murder at all. It is by definition a Murder because it is the Unlawful Killing of a Human Being.

Two problems with that:
1: Unlawful. It wasn't unlawful, they were arresting him which they have a legal right to do.
2: You're deliberately leaving out a crucial part of the definition: with malice aforethought. Again, are you saying the cops deliberatly set out to kill him?

They may have the legal right under this Nations laws to murder people with impunity but the laws are wrong.

The use of deadly force by police is governed by laws, and any use of said force results in an investigation. In fact, deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others." ( Tennessee v. Garner)

I completely agree that there have been cases of unjustified killing by police where they have escaped sanction (Diallo is the one that springs to mind), but to say that they can "murder people with impunity" is hyperbole and nonsense.

What you are doing is defending them using their Laws. Why would anyone ever accept that? If I could make the laws for myself I would and then I would never be guilty.

Because it's not "their laws". The police enforce the law, they don't make it. The laws are made by elected representatives.

There are huge problems with the justice system in the US (see john Olivers video on prisons for a start) and part of that is the police, but what you're doing is not helping.

It's akin to arguing that we should take action on climate change (a very real problem), because if we don't fairies will go extinct.

"When asked if the shooting was justified, Police Chief Gordon Eden said, “Do I believe it was justified shooting? Yes, if you follow case law, ‘Garner versus Tennessee’, there was directed threat to an officer.” Eden’s reference was an attempt to justify the shooting of Mr. Boyd as he walked away. In Tennessee v. Garner, police shot a fleeing 15-year-old in the back of the head as he tried to climb a fence. The Supreme Court ruled that it was reasonable to kill suspects as they try to escape, even if unarmed, if the officers have a probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

Whether that case law is relevant to the killing of James Boyd remains to be seen. But the department stands by the homicide. Chief Eden also pointed out that “less than lethal devices” had been used, as if to justify the use of deadly force."

To me it's one or the other...either it's justifiable violence or it's crazy to think it's justifiable violence. To me, using violence to answer an obvious accident is just plain crazy.
I watched in full screen and could not see the head touch ground, and never once noticed the child putting it's hands up to it's head, which would be the normal reaction if it's head were hurt. I mentioned it was not bleeding to indicate there didn't seem to be even a superficial skin wound, not to indicate that no blood means no injury.
Well, I indicated race because they were of different races, and sex because they were different sexes, and age because they were different ages, and for some reason it seems you expected different levels of responsibility from them. Perhaps it was not for any of these reasons, but I think they all come into play in your apparent theory that have differing levels of responsibility for their own actions, certainly sex seems to for most people.
Somehow my first post in this thread disappeared, I explained there that I thought they had about a 60/40 split with the larger responsibility going to the adult skater because NEITHER was looking where they were going, perhaps even 70/30. My point is that the child was not looking where it was running either, and was not being supervised by anyone that was watching out either, and it bears SOME responsibility. It could just as easily been hit by a bicycle that likely would have had every right to be there the way it ran diagonally across the open area, and I feel the reaction would have been identical.
I am not surprised that the law is different in many places. In many states, if someone assaults you and you have something in your hands, you may use it to defend yourself. It wouldn't be 'bringing in a weapon' because you had it in hand when attacked. If you pick something up, it would likely be different. In almost every state, if the attacker is still moving towards you (as she was at the end) you may use whatever force needed to stop the attack. In some states, it seems you may arm yourself before being touched and use deadly force to stop the advance if you fear attack. Once the attack/advance is halted, I think that all changes almost everywhere.
On a moral basis, my feeling is if they sucker punch you in the face, you should get one free shot back at them, even if they turn and run. I'm not sexist or ageist and try to not be racist, so none of those things should enter into who hit who.
edit: and you are correct, I just guessed the skater was white based on his appearance, accent, and the fact that he's skating. I may well be wrong about that (and many other things).

Let's start with, he was found not guilty by reason of self-defense, not under Stand Your Ground...

Despite all you heard about it in the media, Stand Your Ground was not a defense raised at trial, and they did not even hold the pretrial motions to determine if the case could be dismissed based on that.

It's a totally different argument if you wanted to say if someone was entitled to self defense if they chased a teenager against advice, got into a fistfight, and thought it was okay to use deadly force when on the losing end.

If Zimmerman has "100% legal rights to have shot Martin" then the state wouldn't be wasting their time prosecuting him.

I think Zimmerman will be found guilty. Zimmerman's defense waved the right to a pre-trial "stand your ground" hearing. If he won the pre-trial hearing, it would have granted him immunity to any further criminal or civil trials. Waving the right to that hearing could mean that they didn't think he stood a chance of wining, so they're taking their chances on a jury trial.

I find it funny that you tell others to "learn the fucking law if you speak about it!" when you don't seem to know the law yourself. Here is the law for your reading pleasure. Notice there are several exceptions which I'll highlight:

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

According to the law you can't chase someone down, start a confrontation, then shoot them. You can't be part of a drug deal gone bad, kill someone and get off. And you can't shoot someone because they throw a beer bottle at you.

Equality in everything. The right to own a gun, to learn to use a gun and to use deadly force to defend yourself. And along with that the right to fly into a rage and snap and shoot someone whose actions didn't quite justify the death penalty.

Ok, I read more comments. He turned himself in. Scary dude.

As to this evolving into a gun discussion, as far as I'm concerned, no one was hurt or killed in this incident, so it's a good thing guns weren't involved. It's easy to rationalize using deadly force after the fact (and no witnesses; Trayvon Martin), but the point at which a person crosses that line, when threatened, and actually chooses to kill another human appears to run a gamut from "I'm being really inconvenienced/disrespected right now" to "I'm going to die right now". I don't think George Zimmerman was about to die, or even get his ass kicked. I would rather kick someone's ass, if necessary, than they kick mine, but I'd rather take an ass-kicking than sentence someone to death. That's probably not going to be a popular opinion.

As far as gun control possibly keeping the badguy in this video from having a gun... then "yay" for gun control. That's exactly its purpose, and not so you can't defend against the gov'ment when they come to break down your door.

Hell, I hope some sort of car control is used in this situation and this guy isn't allowed to drive for a long time (after he gets out of jail). He had a car, he used it as a weapon. If he had a gun... ?

EDIT: Admittedly, some seeming contradictions to a prior rant, but I'm sure I wasn't the only one jolted into a somewhat clearer reality by what happened at Sandy Hook.

I appreciate the time you took to formulate your response in a fairly respectful manner and even tone, so I'm going to try to reply in kind.>> ^VoodooV:
That's the thing about many republican views. They take an ideal, utopian world view....and work backwards.My views on the potential legality of abortion are not based on my party or religious affiliation. You can look elsewhere for my views on how destructive the party system is to American democracy, and I believe religion should play no part in legislation. (For instance, if your only opposition to gay marriage is a religious one, then you have no valid opposition to the legalization of gay marriage. However, it's easily to rationally oppose theft or murder outside of "Thou Shalt Not Steal" or "Thou Shalt Not Kill", so that gets legislated.) I'm looking at what I know and believe about human development and extrapolating from there. So perhaps airing my opinions in a thread discussing the backwardness of the Republican Party Platform is likely to promote some misunderstanding.>> ^VoodooV:
"In a perfect world, there is no rape or incest and health care is perfect, thus there would be no need for abortion, therefore we should ban abortion."
That's nice and all, but it just isn't that simple. Yeah, if we lived in a perfect world where every single citizen was financially and emotionally secure and nothing ever bad happened and no one ever accidentally got pregnant, sure I would oppose abortion.
We don't live in that world, we won't ever live in that world in our lifetimes, so why would you propose a law that only applies in a perfect world?I don't think we live in a perfect world. Rape, incest, and threat-to-life are real things, and I believe it's acceptable to make an exception in those cases - that it's acceptable to do the reprehensible when it is necessary to promote justice. I believe this in the same way I think murder is reprehensible, and that taking of a human life would never be necessary in a "perfect world", but acceptable in cases of self-defense or punishment of particularly heinous crimes. Accidental pregnancies are a known risk of sexual intercourse. "Financially and emotionally secure" are different issues, addressed in a moment. >> ^VoodooV:
A baby is not the equivalent of getting a pet for your kid to teach them responsibility. why would you needlessly punish the baby by forcing it to be raised by parents who are incapable of adequately raising it? You're trying to correct a mistake by forcing people to make another mistake. Some people should just never be parents, ever. Even if they were financially able to take care of a kid.You're absolutely right. Having a baby is VERY different from just getting a puppy. We're talking about a human life. Some people aren't emotionally or financially fit to be parents. Some of them realize that. Unfortunately, some of them realize it too late, after they've chosen to have sex and gotten pregnant. Should the child be "punished" by being raised by unfit parents? Of course not. I advocate adoption in those circumstances. Is this a perfect solution? No. But it is an acceptable one. Yes, this means nine months of pregnancy and the lifestyle impacts that carries. I feel it should be noted that you are also advocating "fixing a mistake by making another mistake.">> ^VoodooV:
To use an analogy that even a republican should understand. An abortion is like a gun, you hope to hell you never need to use it, but you're going to be glad you're able to use it if you need it.Yes, but again - selectively. The use of a firearm against another human being should not be taken trivially. I'm not going to shoot my neighbor just because he's doing something to make my life inconvenient. I'm going to shoot him when he poses a threat to my life or the life of another innocent individual. I'd say it was an ill-advised analogy, because it's a much better analogy for the anti-abortion stance than the pro-abortion stance. In the firearm analogy, the one harmed is a violent aggressor, while in abortion we're wielding this power against someone who is genuinely and truly innocent. My stance on abortion is MUCH more lenient than my stance on deadly force, since I also acknowledge cases of rape or incest. >> ^VoodooV:
Whenever you masturbate (oh wait, republicans never masturbate)I have to admit that that is a ridiculous position for them to take. If you're going to advocate that people avoid having sex if they're not prepared to take responsibility for the consequences of that choice, then it's ludicrous to tell them masturbation is ALSO verboten. Mutual masturbation is almost the only sexual practice that can legitimately be said to eliminate the risk of pregnancy.>> ^VoodooV:
Even when you're having legitimate baby-making sex. The male ejaculates millions of sperm. Each one of those sperm is a potential life. Yet only one of those sperm will make it, and the rest will die. Republicans don't seem to care about those millions of potential lives being snuffed out. And with the woman, every time a woman has her cycle, that's another potential life snuffed out.I think this takes the slippery slope (no pun intended) too far, and I think you realize that. There are religious viewpoints on the "spilling of seed", but again, I think religious viewpoints alone are not justification for legislation in a free society.
We can both agree (I'm fairly confident) that killing a newborn is murder. I'm fairly confident that we both agree that late-term abortion is abhorrent, if not explicitly "murder". (Is this assertion correct?) Furthermore I think we can both agree that an unfertilized egg or unused sperm is not a "life". So, somewhere between those points is the point of contention. The point where a mass of undifferentiated tissue becomes a developing human life. I don't think we can clearly define that point with our current level of knowledge, so I feel it is most rational to err on the side of caution and oppose abortion even in early pregnancy. (I feel that this view tolerates, for instance, the "morning-after pill", that prevents implantation of a fertilized egg, a view that is likely opposed in many "pro-life" circles. I must admit, though, to a degree of uncertainty in that opinion.)

When they can't use deadly force and tasers, this is how it's usually done. It's a lot more work but in the end no one was hurt. And to think his friends even shouted directions for him all the time helping him and the cops didn't react to that... They didn't lose temper at any point, gave him countless opportunities to start acting like a grownup. I would give them 8+, drunkards have the same amount of power as solber people, they just are so uncoordinated, in my days as a bouncer i was amazed how much larger and stronger guys i could throw out but it takes buttload of patience and in the heat of the moment it's very hard to keep calm. Mostly it's prioritizing and controlling the situation, relocating the problem to more sparse populated area and try to talk some reason or subdue. What i see is happening here too, they did let him walk surprisingly far but there was room to manouver.

I'm sure the cops will think about this the next time one of them feels threatened with deadly force.